HLSSWk4
Rawono1
Frontiers_AdvancingSeaportResiliencetoNaturalHazardsDuetoClimateChange_StrategiestoOvercomeDecisionMakingBarriers.pdf
Supplemental data
View article impact
SHARE ON
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Sustain., 23 June 2021
Sec. Sustainable Organizations
Volume 2 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630
(https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630)
Advancing Seaport Resilience to Natural Hazards Due to Climate Change: Strategies to Overcome Decision Making Barriers
Elizabeth L. Mclean (https://www.frontiersin.org/people/u/1206214)
Austin Becker (https://www.frontiersin.org/people/u/611604)
Department of Marine A�airs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States
Climate change and extreme weather events put in peril the critical coastal infrastructure that is vital to economies, livelihoods, and sustainability. However, for a variety of reasons, decision makers often do not implement potential adaptation strategies to plan and adjust to climate and extreme weather events. To respond to the question of how seaport decision makers perceive strategies to overcome the
Download Article
2,386 Total views
419 Downloads
1 Citations
(https://www.altmetric.com/details.php?
domain=www.frontiersin.org&citation_id=108099482)
View altmetric score
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?
url=https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630&text=Advancing Seaport
Resilience
to
Natural Hazards
Due
to Climate
Change:
Strategies to
Overcome
Decision
Making Barriers)
(https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-
o�site/? url=https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630&title=Advancing
Seaport
Resilience
to Natural
Hazards
Due to
Climate
Change: Strategies
to
Overcome
Decision Making
Barriers)
(https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?
u=https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630)
*
Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardSections Abou
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
barriers to adaptation we used semi-structured interviews of 30 seaport directors/managers, environmental specialists, and safety managers from 15 medium- and high-use ports of the U.S. North Atlantic. This paper contributes four broad strategies identi�ed by seaport decision makers as necessary to help them advance on this challenge: funding, better planning or guidance, research and education, and advocacy/lobbying. We coded these strategies parallel to our partner paper that identi�ed seven key barriers faced by the same set of decision makers. Results can help direct resources in ways targeted to the needs of seaport decision makers. The proposed framework contributes to theories of resilience building and barriers to decision making. Being strategic about change facilitates e�ective adaptation, decreasing risk, and enables continuity of safe, and sustainable, operations of U.S. seaports in the face of climate and extreme weather events.
Introduction
Seaports face increasing risk from climatic changes that will result in sea level rise
and increased frequency and intensity of storm events (Izaguirre et al., 2020).
Seaport infrastructure plays a key role in global and national economies, as it enables
the transfer of goods (Bookman, 1996; Fusco, 2013). Disruption to seaport
operations can result in signi�cant losses at the local and national scales (Zhang and Lam, 2015), as well as damage to seaport infrastructure and working areas (Takagi and Esteban, 2013; Esteban et al., 2017; Jiang et al., 2020). Seaport decision makers
will need to prepare for issues associated with extreme weather and chronic
�ooding from sea level rise (Hallegatte et al., 2011).
Although, planning for adaptation is more prevalent today than a decade ago (Jiang et al., 2020; O'Kee�e et al., 2020), overall, the implementation of adaptation
measures in coastal communities is still scarce (O'Kee�e et al., 2020; Roozbeh et al., 2020; Wilbanks et al., 2020). In 2010, the National Resilience Center, noted that
e�ective adaptations for climate change will require all types of decision makers and
stakeholders to participate (National Research Council, 2010). Through the selection
and implementation of adaptation strategies, seaport operators play a key role in
resilience building (Becker and Caldwell, 2015) to reduce vulnerability to extreme
weather and climate events (Nicholls et al., 2008; Esteban et al., 2020; United Nations Conference on Trade Development (UNCTAD), 2020). Many studies on
climate adaptation have focused on the development of frameworks to identify
barriers to implementing resilience measures (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Ekstrom and Moser, 2014), on reviewing methods used to describe the nature of climate
change barriers (Biesbroek et al., 2013; Eisenack et al., 2014), or explaining
stakeholders awareness of climate adaptation (O'Kee�e et al., 2020). This study
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
takes an empirical approach to identify decision makers' perceptions around
strategies to help them overcome the barriers to making resilience investments at
their seaports.
The paper begins with a review of the pertinent literature on resilience barriers and
resilience building in the seaport context. Next, the Methods section outlines the
sampling and data collection and analysis approach. In the Results and Discussion
section, the main �ndings are outlined, including the four broad strategic
approaches to overcoming decision barriers for resilience investments. Finally, the
main Implications for policy and practice are addressed.
Literature Review
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) de�nes resilience as: “the
capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous
event or trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their
essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for
adaptation, learning, and transformation” (IPCC, 2014; pg. 40). Resilience building is
di�cult due to barriers that obstruct plans and processes (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010;
Biesbroek et al., 2011). We de�ne barriers as “… obstacles that can be overcome with
concerted e�ort, creative management, change of thinking, and the related shift in
resources, land uses, institutions, etc.” (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010, p. 22027). Barriers
hinder decision makers from moving forward on resilience enhancement actions. In
this study, we distinguish a “limit” from and a “barrier,” in that a barrier can be
overcome, while a limit is seen as an unsurmountable obstacle (Hulme et al., 2007;
Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Dow et al., 2013). Earlier studies suggest many barriers
challenge seaport infrastructure managers when it comes to resilience building
(Becker and Caldwell, 2015; Kretsch, 2016; Ng et al., 2018; Mclean and Becker, 2020). In 2020, Mclean and Becker identi�ed seven key barriers to planning for
resilience building, these include:
1. Lack of understanding of the risks. This is explained by a lack of awareness of the
risks or confusion over the level of risk. Decision makers �nd it di�cult to predict
an impact or do not understand associated consequences.
2. Lack of funding. This was described as a major obstacle given the high cost of
adaptation.
3. Perceived levels of risks do not exceed the action threshold. Under this premise,
awareness of the potential risks exists but it does not exceed a magnitude or
intensity to prompt an action.
4. Physical constraints at the seaport. Because some seaport facilities are under-
designed for present and future conditions, the implementation of climate change
adaptations is challenged by the growth and development of other sectors on or
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
near the coast. The ability to expand is reduced, restricting the seaport's aging
infrastructure to their current locations.
5. Governance disconnects. This is explained by a lack of direction from above; the
lack of clarity over who pays for resilience, and who maintains or controls the
resilience of infrastructures. Respondents raised concerns that even when
rebuilding after a disaster, the federal aid received through the U.S. Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) limits how seaports can spend funding
to enhance resilience.
6. Lack of communication. Adapting and planning for resilience requires that sta�
and stakeholders are well-informed about adaptation strategies.
7. The problem of adaptation is overwhelming. Some �nd that the enormity of the
climate change problem is overwhelming to the point of causing decision
paralysis.
Resilience building requires decision makers to overcome these barriers in order to
reduce risk (Kates et al., 2012; Esteban et al., 2020) by implementing “resilience
enhancement options” (Wang and Zhang, 2018; Dong et al., 2020). For coastal
infrastructure, this might include elevating piers and facilities, designing for
submersion, or, in some cases, abandoning infrastructure entirely (Becker et al., 2013).
Although this study does not seek to identify such “resilience building strategies” per se, the topic warrants discussion in the context of the empirical research undertaken
herein. Approaches to reducing natural hazards risk are well-documented in other
studies (Chhetri et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2020; O'Kee�e et al., 2020). Becker and
Caldwell found seaport stakeholder's strategies for resilience building clustered into
seven categories: (1) building codes and land use regulations; (2) long-range
planning; (3) construction and design strategies (on and o� port lands); (4) private
sector and insurance policies; (5) emergency preparations, response, and recovery;
(6) research; and (7) networks and new ways of thinking. Some ports could bene�t
from the acquisition of adjacent lands and properties or the acquisition of insurance
coverage (Becker and Caldwell, 2015). Policy approaches could include the
development of vulnerability assessment plans or incorporating resilience goals into
the standard operations and management programs. More and more, organizations
such as seaports have been conducting vulnerability or resilience assessments in
order to identify key areas that need improvement in the face of present and future
conditions. Indeed, seaport adaptation measures can be a non-trivial investment of
resources (Molino et al., 2020; Morris, 2020; O'Kee�e et al., 2020).
Di�erent from previous work that looks at society's adaptive capacity to SLR (Hinkel, 2011; Huang, 2012; Chhetri et al., 2014) or stakeholders' perceptions of seaport's
resilience strategies (Becker and Caldwell, 2015), this study investigated how
decision makers perceive the strategies that can help them overcome the barriers
that they themselves identi�ed as preventing resilience building (Mclean and Becker, 2020). In this study, seaport adaptation addresses incremental climatic change from
1
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
sea level rise (SLR), as well as increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events. Strategy here is de�ned as an approach to overcome a decision-making
barrier. Overcoming said barrier ideally leads to more resilient seaport operations.
Methods
Data Collection and Analysis
In consultation with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC), our research team invited all 22 medium- and high-use ports of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) North Atlantic Division (CENAD) (Figure 1)
seaports on the North Atlantic Coast to participate in this study. These represent
seaports with a varying degree of risk to SLR, �oods, and/or major hurricanes. ERDC
was interested in piloting seaport resilience and vulnerability assessment methods
with high-use seaports (Rosati et al., 2015). By adding medium-use seaports and
restricting the selection to the North Atlantic region, researchers could create a
manageable sample size. The proximity of these seaports to the University of Rhode
Island allowed for site visits and interviews.
Figure 1
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-
g001.jpg)
FIGURE 1. The 22 medium-use (light blue dots) and high-
use seaports (magenta dots).
Of 22 invited seaports, 15 agreed to take part in the study. For each port, we invited
the equivalent of three sta� positions: seaport directors/managers, environmental
specialists and safety managers who have the responsibility for decision making
related not only to standard seaport operations, but also for climate and extreme
weather resilience (Table 1). In sum, we interviewed 30 decision makers from across
the 15 ports. We conducted interviews in person or over the phone and took around
1 h each; these were completed in accordance with Institutional Review Board
protocols .2
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Table 1
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-t001.jpg)
TABLE 1. Description of responsibilities of decision maker
positions and number interviewed in each category.
For �ve of the 15 seaports, we were able to interview all three types of decision
maker (i.e., directors/manager, environmental specialist, and safety managers). For
the remaining 10 seaports, one or two of the types of decision makers participated.
In most areas of the U.S., harbor masters and the U.S. Coast Guard have additional
responsibility for the safety planning of coastal infrastructure in a region. However,
this study was limited to employees of the port authorities or port organizations who
are charged with leadership and decision making within the studied ports (Table 2).
Table 2
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-t002.jpg)
TABLE 2. Demographics representing the study's
participating decision makers.
The semi-structured interviews captured barriers to climate and extreme weather
adaptation (Mclean and Becker, 2020) and identi�ed the strategies to overcome
them, as described in this paper. Questions were open-ended, hence, the absence
of a mention of a given strategy to remove barriers to adaptation does not mean
that the seaport decision makers have not considered this, rather that other plans or
actions were more palpable to the interviewee (Survey instrument is presented in
Supplementary Materials).
Respondents were prompted to identify the barriers to resilience investments
(Mclean and Becker, 2020) and the strategies to overcome these barriers. Both were
coded using a grounded theory analysis approach (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser and Strauss, 2017) that allows for views and concepts to emerge and be grouped into
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
unique themes or categories. After the transcription of the interviews, researchers
coded the transcripts line-by-line using the NVivo qualitative data analysis software
package (NVivo, 2014). Reviewing the transcripts, researchers identi�ed and
classi�ed strategies for overcoming barriers independently, and resolved di�erences
where necessary following the coding validation process laid out by Ekstrom and Moser (2014).
Each statement characterized as a potential plan or action that could reduce the
constraints of an adaptation process, was coded as a strategy. Strategies were then
clustered by theme. Note: if a decision maker mentioned more than a singular
challenge, sometimes, he/she responded with more than one strategy. The results of
interviews helped develop a framework of strategies for overcoming the barriers to
implementing climate and extreme weather adaptation for these 15 ports.
Results and Discussion
As detailed in our earlier publication (Mclean and Becker, 2020), the identi�ed
barriers to the implementation of climate change adaptations are the following
seven: (1) governance disconnect, (2) lack of communication, (3) lack of funding, (4)
lack of understanding of the risks, (5) perceived risks do not exceed action threshold,
(6) physical constraints limits options, and (7) the problem is overwhelming. This
section describes speci�c strategies to overcome these barriers and clusters them
into one of four major categories that emerged from the grounded theory approach,
as follows: (1) Funding (73% of respondents mentioned), (2) Better
planning/guidance (27% of respondents mentioned), (3) Research and education
(17% of respondents mentioned), and (4) Advocacy/lobbying (3.3% of respondents
mentioned). We also include the instances when no strategy was mentioned (23%).
Figure 2 provides an overview of how respondents perceived the various strategies
in relation to the barriers they identi�ed in the same interview process (see also
Supplementary Materials).
Figure 2
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-
g002.jpg)
FIGURE 2. Seven barriers connected to the identi�ed
distinct strategies: Funding (3) (green); Better
Planning/guidance (3) (blue); Research/Education (4)
(yellow); Advocacy and lobbying (1) (orange); No strategy
mentioned (gray). The diagram shows how each of these
strategy categories was discussed as a way to overcome
the seven major barriers identi�ed by interviews, depicted
on the right.
For context, we also probed interviewees about the perceived risks of climate
change and the vulnerability of their seaports. Decision makers were asked what
“seaport vulnerability to extreme weather impacts” meant to them, to which hazards
their facilities were most vulnerable, and the rami�cations of taking no action to
build resilience. The respondents described the vulnerability of their seaports in
terms of �oods during a storm event (47%), or their facilities being vulnerable to
storms (40%), surge/tidal �ood (40%), high wind (27%), and/or sea level rise (SLR)
(27%). In some cases, the respondents described the seaports vulnerability in terms
of the costly outcomes of these events, such as increased coastal erosion, followed
by the need for channel maintenance, or impaired critical seaport operations that
delayed timely winter gas delivery (see Supplementary Materials). We note that a
number of decision makers also mentioned short-term actions that were already
being implemented to increase the resilience of their seaports to natural hazards.
These included implementing best management practices and updating seaport
management plans to include risk assessments or putting in place a Risk Assessment
of Critical Infrastructure document. Other short-term actions include implementing
pier rehabilitation projects, raising the pier to FEMA standards (or above when
resources are available), and conducting �ood mitigation projects.
The description that follows consist of the four major strategy categories, and the
sub-categories or context in which these are mentioned as ways to overcome the
seven major barriers identi�ed in earlier work.
Strategy 1 - Funding-Related Strategies
One of the most commonly cited barriers to resilience building is “Lack of funding.”
E�orts to implement climate adaptation, or to reduce the impacts of hazards will
require planning and investment of limited resources. Sustaining seaport operations
and staying competitive also requires upgrades and maintenance. Here, we discuss a
variety of funding-related strategies mentioned to overcome the barriers noted in
our earlier publication (Figure 3). The need for �nancial capital or �nancial incentives
was stated by 20/30 respondents as a key strategy to overcome barriers to
implementing resilience initiatives. Three sub-categories were clustered within this
strategy, as follows: (1) Identify new sources to fund resilience improvements, (2)
Allocate existing funding for resilience improvements, and (3) Seek support from
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
state/federal government. Funding was mentioned as a strategy to overcome “Lack
of funding,” of course, but also mentioned as a way to help overcome governance
disconnects and even the physical constraints that may limit the types of resilience
investments that respondents considered feasible.
Figure 3
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-
g003.jpg)
FIGURE 3. Funding strategies (left side) to overcome
identi�ed barriers (right side).
Identify New Sources to Fund Resilience Improvements
Seaport directors talked about the importance of acquiring more capital resources
or funds for investment in the terminals. Notably, this strategy was mentioned only
as a way to overcome the “Lack of funding” barrier. They foresee that, for older
terminals, the seaports have to be prepared to disrupt service to their customers
when upgrades and construction begins. One director expressed his concern in the
context of not being able to compete with other seaports due to the lack of
resources:
“… money is the main constraint to do anything in a state facility. We can't necessarily compete
with some of the private companies, or private terminals, because of their equipment [etc.],
everything is just always a challenge to be cutting edge because of that.” (DIR26)
The need to identify new sources of funding, as a strategy, is a generic (and perhaps
less than constructive) strategy. While there is no doubt that funding is needed to
carry out most, if not all, resilience projects, identifying this as a need is not as useful
as identifying speci�c funding-related strategies noted below. Nevertheless, it is
noteworthy that 16 of 30 respondents stated that the way to overcome barriers was
to identify new funding sources.
Allocate Existing Funding for Resilience Improvements
Though most respondents spoke of the need to �nd additional funding, two did
acknowledge that e�orts could be made to reallocate existing funding to enhance
resilience. This strategy was mentioned as a way to overcome the general “Lack of
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
funding” barrier. One noted that capital was typically invested into standard upgrades
and maintenance, as opposed to increasing the current level of resilience. One
director said:
“[One] has a �xed pool of resources [and] how you apply those resources represents the biggest
challenge to �nding the ways to make the seaport more resilient to extreme weather.” (DIR17)
Others acknowledged that resources were also essential for the research that would
support and determine the need for the seaports' adaptation. Furthermore, one
safety manager said that even after �nances were secured, justifying the adaptation
investment required political will. “You have to almost lobby for it,” he said.
“The primary challenges are �scal and monetary, in securing the funding at being able to allocate
the funding for those things... you'll see as facilities are renovated, or new facilities are
constructed that they will factor in SLR. And they have been doing that for quite some time.”
(SM13)
One respondent emphasized that by allocating existing funds to build up the
resilience, the seaport would be better prepared for SLR and climate change. These
measures would also ensure that future operations that facilitate trade and relief
materials are not interrupted. Examples of resilient improvements include:
“Raising the short cranes higher than the originally planned [so] that if SLR does continue at the
rates that are predicted by some of the models, we should be protected long-term.” (ENV22).
Seek Support From State/Federal Government
The political nature of local government means that all decisions, including climate
adaptation, are a�ected by political interests and competing preferences vying for
support at the municipal scales (Keen et al., 2006). Hence, for many decision makers
the ability to address resilience begins with a fundamental need for local or state
government support. This strategy was noted by �ve respondents as a way to
overcome all the major funding-related barriers. They acknowledge that to succeed
in their seaport resilience projects, their state funds need to be matched by federal
funding. It can be also easier to persuade seaport tenants and other stakeholders
that adaptation is worthwhile with �nancial incentives for adaption(s). Incentives can
come from grants or federal or state government agencies. As one respondent
stated:
“The only way that we have been able to achieve [an adaptation] is through getting funding
through the ‘federal government’.” (DIR18)
Since seaport infrastructure supports local and regional economies, public funding is
often used to maintain and update critical infrastructure. Planning can make a
di�erence when pursuing government aid. Decision makers sometimes wait many
years to see their projects materialize because of insu�cient funds. One noted that:
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
“All is on who decides to pull the strings on any given time where they are going to push the
money... Decisionmakers wait and see what the new mid-term will bring.” (SM16).
Strategy 2—Better Planning/Guidance
In order to anticipate and prepare for potential impacts, decision makers need to
consider information at hand, to examine and prioritize some measures of response.
The need for better planning and/or guidance was recorded for 8/30 of the
respondents as a key strategy. Four sub-categories were clustered within this
broader strategy, as follows: (1) Coordinate resilience building with other
stakeholders, (2) Broaden frame of reference for planning to include climate change
and (3) Develop guidance for terminal tenants (Figure 4).
Figure 4
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-
g004.jpg)
FIGURE 4. Better planning and guidance strategies (left side)
to overcome identi�ed barriers (right side).
Coordinate Resilience Building With Other Stakeholders
Many stakeholders are impacted by an interruption in seaport operations, including
tenants, clients, seaport operators, and private companies. Social scientists highlight
the importance of collaborations in promoting strategic thinking, resourcefulness
and e�ective communication (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010). According to six
respondents, stakeholder collaboration can help reduce risk to the system as a
whole in order to overcome many of the barriers they face to resilience
enhancement. In the context of responding to storms and natural hazards due to
climate change, seaports collaborate with state emergency response and
management entities, federal emergency management agencies, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the Department of Transportation, as well as the Department of Homeland
Security. Respondents mentioned that they bene�t from these collaborations both in
terms of emergency response and longer-term planning for infrastructure
improvements, as stated by one of the environmental specialists:
“We will participate with anybody who wants to do anything on the climate resilience topic. We
have participated with the Department of Homeland Security on critical infrastructures
assessment, and I think that that helped us understand our own infrastructure better.” (ENV30)
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Respondents also noted that public/private partnerships help them contribute to the
sustainability of other stakeholders outside of the seaport itself. One stated:
“One of the things that we are doing in our pier rehabilitation project, because we have an
aquaculture facility just to the north of our pier, we are working with the owners of an
aquaculture farm to relocate them—at our expense—to make sure that they can continue to
harvest clams … and keep their business alive and keep people working so that there is no harm
to the environment. Then we will move them back [when we �nish our construction project].”
(DIR1).
Broaden Frame of Reference for Planning to Include Climate Change
Although this study was not focused explicitly on climate change, many respondents
mentioned this challenge when speaking more broadly about natural hazards
resilience. Only one, however, explicitly mentioned the need to broaden the frame
of reference for planning to include climate change. This need for climate change
speci�c planning emerged in the context of more general planning needs for both
emergency response and long-term resilience e�orts. Here, the respondent said that
the seaport should consider climate impacts to their own property, but also for the
adjacent transportation network. From their experience, even when the seaport itself
can bounce back and operate after a severe storm—seaport operations remain
disrupted when the rail and/or the roads are �ooded.
Develop Guidance for Terminal Tenants
Some seaports had already established internal resilience policy guidelines, but the
guidance did not necessarily extend to their tenants. Often, upgrades and
betterment of the seaport facilities occur when a terminal or facility transitions from
an (old) tenant to a (new) tenant. One director mentioned in order to persuade
tenants to take actions (even if the risk did not exceed their perception of a
threshold for such action), the seaport as a landlord should provide better
guidelines. He said:
“Financial incentive is always an easy driver for a lot of the tenants and people within agencies...
to convince them that [adaptation measures] are worthwhile... tenants come to us requesting
what guidelines they should follow since they are working and operating on our facilities... I have
prescribed to them that they discuss [with their insurance provider] whatever requirements are
pertinent... a lot of times the cost saving can be dramatic, even just by going up... half a foot
more in elevation.” (DIR23).
Strategy 3—Research and Education
Five respondents mentioned strategies that fall into the broad category of “Research
and education.” These four strategies were suggested to overcome the barriers of
“Lack of funding,” Governance disconnects,” and “Lack of communication” (Figure 5). To solve for the challenges of government disconnect, the lack of
communication and/or the lack of funding, respondents drew connections between
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
“better guidance” and “research and education” strategies to solve for these
challenges. When seaport stakeholders establish collaborations, they gain
opportunities that facilitate and promote knowledge transfer. For instance,
collaborations with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the U.S. Geological Services and other agencies, provide real time local weather
data, or modeled projections that increase seaport decision makers' ability to predict
in advance and prepare for a given weather condition.
Figure 5
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-
g005.jpg)
FIGURE 5. Research and education strategies (left side) to
overcome identi�ed barriers (right side).
Four sub-categories were clustered within this strategy, as follows: (1) Improve
research on risk and resilience, (2) Cultivate climate change expertise, (3) Conduct
risk assessment, and (4) Train and educate seaport sta�. These included four
environmental specialists and one seaport director.
Improve Research on Risk and Resilience
There are many ways to advance the knowledge and understanding of risks to grow
the seaports resilience. One environmental specialist indicated that the city where
the seaport is located was trying to tap into research resources, so that they could
make progress in benchmarking their facility and bringing it up to standards. This
strategy was noted as a way to improve communications. The seaport was
described as a resource for the state, and as an actor that could muster appropriate
intellectual resources needed to address climate and extreme weather events.
Cultivate Climate Change Expertise
Today progress is being made in seaports and research institutions that are studying
climate change and its impacts. Closely related to the other subcategories
mentioned, seaport stakeholders cultivate climate change expertise by increasing
their awareness of risks and improving their capacity to respond. In one of the
seaports, the emergency response is orchestrated through a marine instant response
team that coordinates di�erent sides of seaport operations and seaport safety
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
personnel, connecting with agencies both outside and inside of the seaport. This
was seen as a way to improve knowledge, but also as a way to overcome
governance disconnects.
“We are a team of folks, and we have a marine instant response team on the terminal that
coordinates with our safety folks and operations folks. I get involved from time to time as well.
Our development coordinator gets involved... Basically, you have some representatives there
from each terminal, representing each department for the most part. Then they coordinate with
outside entities like the USCG or the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) at the state
level.” (ENV12).
Conduct Risk Assessments
This strategy includes documenting and acknowledging the risk factors at a seaport
—a fundamental step in understanding the vulnerability of a seaport and its facilities
and subsequently identifying funding to support resilience investments. Decision
makers that had experienced Hurricane Sandy in 2012 highlighted the importance of
the lessons learned, the and the need to not only focus on similar impacts they had
experienced, but to undertake a more holistic risk assessment. Participants discussed
concepts from engineering perspectives and highlighted the need for more data to
run risk models and cost-bene�t analysis. They also discussed a three-prong
approach which includes: (1) relocate non-essential activity out of the �ood plain, (2)
if that was not possible, elevate structures and sensitive infrastructure two feet above
the 100-year �ood plain for their basin, and (3) if that is not possible, then make sure
that moving forward, new upgrades were better, and used non-corrosive, stronger
materials that can hold up to extreme weather.
From di�erent experiences, they understood that even new equipment would be
challenging, or could potentially fail when stressed beyond a threshold, as expressed
by a seaport director:
“… [We will need to] procure equipment that is modi�ed to have the brains - the electronics–
higher up on the equipment than it would normally be, which makes it more expensive and
sometimes, more di�cult to maintain. It might also take more space.” (DIR11).
Train and Educate Seaport Sta� in Resilience Building
Training and educational opportunities help stakeholders understand the risk and be
better prepared for a storm or extreme weather event. Decision makers understand
that having access to more information and developing multiple approaches to
serve a variety of audiences is of great bene�t to them, as stated by one of the
environmental specialists:
“The potential for impact has been presented to leaders in the city's sta�, and we now have a
better idea of how to talk about adaptation... Taking a three-pronged approach at a concept
level, we now have a better understanding of the engineering and what we need to do; we have
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
a better understanding of what the impacts will be, and we are more conversant in the process.”
(ENV30).
Strategy 4—Advocacy/Lobbying
Although this strategy was only mentioned by one safety manager in response to the
challenge of “governance disconnect,” there is connection between strategy one of
“funding” and the need for seaport decision makers to prioritize already limited
resources Figure 6. Hence, seaports would bene�t from resilience advocacy, or
lobbying state representatives and public o�cial at the governance level for funds
that ensure and support advances in resilience investments. This strategy was
framed in the context of the need for political will.
Figure 6
www.frontiersin.or
g
(https://www.frontiers
in.org/�les/Articles/67
3630/frsus-02-
673630-
HTML/image_m/frsus
-02-673630-
g006.jpg)
FIGURE 6. Advocacy/lobbying strategy (left side) to
overcome identi�ed barriers (right side).
Develop Political Will to Support Resilience Investment
This strategy calls for political interest in creating or enforcing the legal frameworks
that would support or pressure seaport decision makers to adapt seaports to climate
and extreme weather events. The di�culty that seaport decision makers face is
described by a safety manager in the following words:
“If we get the �nances, we have to play politics to get the �nances. It is not just ‘put together a
performance to support and justify what you are doing [to make the seaport more resilient] and
then the funding comes,’ there is more to it than that. You got to almost lobby for it”. (SM26)
Lastly, there were instances when a barrier to adaptation was described, but no
strategy to overcome the barrier was mentioned. This was true for lack of
communication, lack of understanding of the risks, perceived risks do not meet the
action threshold, and the problem of adaptation is overwhelming. As noted by the
assessment of the barrier, having a strategy to solve for the problem, required that
the decision makers understood the problem (or the risk) in the �rst place (Figure 2).
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Implications
The motivation behind this study began with the need to better understand the
“adaptive capacity” to climate and extreme weather events for medium- and high-
use seaports in North Atlantic. Our earlier study identi�ed “seaport vulnerability
indicators” in order to inform metrics for seaport resilience (McIntosh et al., 2019). In
that study, vulnerability consists of three key components: exposure, sensitivity, and
adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity refers to features of a system that enable it to
“modify or change its characteristics or behavior so as to cope better with existing or
emerging external stresses” (Adger and Agnew, 2004, p. 34). This proved to be
exceptionally di�cult to measure, leading us to explore the barriers to adaptive
capacity and climate and extreme weather adaptation (Mclean and Becker, 2020).
Subsequently, once a core set of barriers were identi�ed, the question of “how do
we overcome these barriers?” followed. This study builds on this body of previous
work (Mclean and Becker, 2020) and provides a framework, based on empirical data
from interviews at 15 ports, that outlines how seaport decision makers perceive
strategies that could help them overcome these barriers.
This study found four broad categories of strategies, as follows: funding, better
planning or guidance, research and education, and advocacy/lobbying. In practical
terms, these strategies can be used to help target capacity-building activities, such
as for the USACE or other government agencies that play a role in protecting public
welfare and the economy. In the U.S. and elsewhere, attention to resilience needs
has been growing. For example, the USACE and the Department of Homeland
Security are collaborating to produce a Resilience Assessment Guide for Ports and the Maritime Transportation System, slated for release in late 2021. The international
waterways organization, PIANC, published a Climate Change Adaptation Planning for Ports and Inland Waterways guide in 2020 [The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC), 2020]. Many of these e�orts focus on
speci�c best practices for either conducting an assessment or speci�c
recommendations for resilience building. Less attention, however, has been given to
the challenges decision makers face to simply get resilience onto their
organizational agenda. This has been the focus of the current work and some of the
key implications of these for policy and practice are discussed in this section.
Identifying and Allocating Funding Is Key to Overcoming Nearly All
Identi�ed Barriers
As expected, funding was identi�ed as a key barrier and a “identifying new funding
streams” as a key strategy for overcoming that barrier. This may be considered a bit
simplistic, as the reasons for a lack of funding for resilience are nuanced and more
germane than the stated problem of, “we have no money, therefore we need to �nd
more money.” Resilience enhancements can be expensive and hard to justify, as the
bene�t of “damage avoided” can be hard to quantify. A lack of resources can be a
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
signi�cant barrier to climate adaptation (Füssel, 2007), but the problem may lie in a
governance void (Hajer, 2003), the absence of leadership (Kretsch, 2016; Ng et al., 2016; Becker and Kretsch, 2019), or the lack of will to invest (Barnett et al., 2013).
Delay in adaptations can also be political when elected o�cials avoid adaptation due
to their high costs (Vine, 2012). However, seaports need to keep their competitive
edge –looking into the future, the investments of today depended on the
investments of the past (Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Hallegatte, 2009; Pechan, 2014).
Seaports need to understand that �nancial constraints can become more of a
burden over time as they address shortages in budgets and other priorities (Ekstrom and Moser, 2014). Furthermore, the problem may lie in the allocation of resources,
as opposed to a simple lack thereof. In other words, if resilience building was a real
priority, it would take the place of other important investments. Thus, the challenge
for future researchers and practitioners is to tease this problem apart in order to
determine why resilience is not a higher priority, how to raise its importance (if
warranted), and then how new monies may be found or existing monies reallocated.
Many of the strategies identi�ed in this study can contribute to this goal and
respondents mentioned ideas in all four of the major strategy areas of funding,
better planning or guidance, research and education, and advocacy/lobbying. Better
planning and guidance can lead to an easier path for investments. Through research
and education initiatives, decision makers can learn to maximize future investments
and become aware of best available data to support informed decisions. Finally,
advocacy and lobbying can identify or allocate government funding to support such
investments at the seaport level.
Leadership and Social Frameworks Are Important for Laying the
Groundwork for Seaport Resilience
Consistent with other studies, respondents in the study noted that resilience building
bene�ts from stakeholder engagement and participation (Wilbanks and Kates, 1999;
Eakin and Luers, 2006). In particular, Strategy 2 – Better planning/guidance emphasizes the value of collaborative approaches to facilitate and support needed
adaptation strategies at the state and national levels (Mukheibir et al., 2013; O'Kee�e et al., 2020). Collaborations underscore the necessity to share resources, time
investments, and expertise (Zambrano-Barragán et al., 2010). Without doubt, strong
public engagement can bring stakeholders to the forefront. Such involvement in
participatory forums and programs is key to early identifying local concerns.
Participatory processes strengthen the social and political base for e�ective
implementation of policies and decisions that consider general priorities of all, the
short-term, long-term responses and tradeo�s of the decision-making processes
(Zambrano-Barragán et al., 2010; Wachsmuth, 2014).
Strategy 3, Research and education – is intertwined with fostering collaborations
and partnerships, as it can bring to the table numerous opportunities to leverage
technology and innovation, as well as the use of existing tools. Studies acknowledge
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
that local politics often dictates decisions, including climate adaptation, and
competing preferences vie for support at the municipal scale (Keen et al., 2006). An
inspired leadership, Burch writes, could signi�cantly change the context of decision-
making by establishing innovative governance models (Burch, 2010). An increase in
the institutional capacity can pave the way for planning strategically. Addressing
concerns and infrastructure vulnerabilities on a regular basis can make the problem
of climate and extreme weather impacts less overwhelming. This requires both
leadership and a stakeholder group that has a common understanding of the risks
and the role that individual entities play in resilience enhancements. When decision-
makers count on reliable forecasting data their incentive for adaptation is greater. In
a study by Wang and Zhang, they found that a higher expectation of a natural
disaster occurrence probability encouraged ports to implement adaptation, but a
high variance of the disaster occurrence, actually discouraged adaptations. A second
incentive that resulted in more adaptation was described as an inter-port
competition e�ect, when within a port there is free riding on adaptations between
the port authority and the terminal operators (2018). This is also in agreement with
Zambrano-Barragán et al., who emphasized that strategies that include the
development of �exible social institutional frameworks as a basis for decision
making are key to addressing barriers to adaptation (2010). Hence, improving
decision making processes, and institutional capacity in the seaports can promote
the advancement of informed decision-making and further the development of
climate change adaptation guidelines that manage risks more proactively (Scott et al., 2013). More work is needed to integrate a larger number of seaport stakeholders
in the conversation, to make clear connections not only on what the barriers are but
also on who has the responsibility to remove them (Biesbroek et al., 2013; Morris, 2020). E�orts should expand to understand risk both at the seaport and their
neighboring communities.
Understanding Decision Makers Perceptions Can Help to Develop
Appropriate Education and Capacity Building Approaches
Understanding perceptions that link the barrier to adaptation (the problem), with the
strategy to overcome the barrier (the solution) advances seaport resilience by
outlining a pathway to addressing vulnerabilities. We could hypothesize that (1) by
responding with a constructive strategy to overcome adaptation barriers,
stakeholders in that seaport are actively thinking about the seaport's resilience, or
that (2) by presenting coherent responses across all decision makers in a port, this
could be interpreted as an indicator that decision makers are communicating and
planning in a strategic manner. Alternatively, responses that are less than
constructive, such as “we lack funding and we do not know how to address this,” or
no responses to “the problem is overwhelming,” and/or “a lack of understanding of
the risk”; these could signal that there is a need to educate and inform seaport
stakeholders how they can advance seaport resilience. Some respondents had no
clear ideas for overcoming many of the barriers they identi�ed. For example,
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
overcoming a lack of funding and or the overwhelming nature of the problem were
two barriers for which respondents o�ered few strategies. This could signal a de�cit
in decision making or simply an opportunity for targeted education and capacity
building. In some cases, reactive mitigation, rather than a planned response strategy
(to a storm, etc.) becomes the dominant adaptation strategy (Measham et al., 2011).
This leaves coastal communities at risk and threatens the stability of their economy,
environment, and human safety.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that are worth noting. First, the sample size of 15
ports is small, as is the total number of respondents (30). Seaports, of course, are all
very di�erent from one another and generalizing about seaports or port decision
makers can be di�cult. As the saying goes, “if you've seen one seaport, you've seen
one seaport.” Our results are limited in the number of environmental specialists and
safety o�cers, as these types of decision makers are often the ones “on the ground”
implementing resilience building and investments. We had uneven participation
given availability, but also some respondents were cautious about sharing data that
could expose their vulnerabilities to their competitors. Future studies could help
develop an outlook of the challenges and resources speci�c to each decision maker
category, in order to help them implement adaptation strategies at the di�erent
levels in which they operate. Some stakeholders had experienced extreme weather
events at their seaports and understood the implications of climate change, while
others had not. Respondents from seaports in the northern part of the study areas
were more concerned with Nor'easters, as opposed to hurricanes. We also
recognize that our line of questioning may have been pushing respondents to
consider topics that they had not considered before. We asked them not only to
identify the challenges to resilience building, but also the ways they might overcome
these challenges. Without su�cient background, this exercise may have been
di�cult for some respondents who tend to be much more focused on other, shorter
term, priorities. Nevertheless, an actor-centered approach can help researchers
understand how barriers can be overcome (Eisenack et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2020)
by understanding the decision makers own perceptions of where they may need
assistance.
Conclusion
This study presents seaport decision makers' perception of strategies to overcome
barriers to climate and extreme weather adaptations at the seaport level.
Participating decision makers from 15 high- and medium-use seaports in the North
Atlantic shared the challenges that prevent and delay their e�orts to implement
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
climate change and extreme weather adaptations in the face of increasing risk. The
three groups representing directors and managers, environmental specialists, and
safety planners re�ected on strategies that could help them overcome the identi�ed
barriers. The results presented in this research, is representative of a wide range of
seaports, some that have experienced extreme storms, or Nor'easters, and some that
have not. Responses on climate and extreme weather adaptation barriers and
strategies need to consider the location and geographical conditions as relates to
the natural hazards that seaports are experiencing. We believe that an approach that
engages decision makers on the issues related to barriers, strategies, what are
potential solutions, or consequences of inaction is important to in�uence gradual
changes toward more proactive actions. An integrated approach that observes
di�erences across varying seaport actors (decision makers), is useful to improve
understanding of knowledge and perceptions leading toward better capacity
building e�orts that address management, environmental, and safety concerns
together. This in-depth understanding of strategies can help seaport stakeholders
and decision makers in the development and implementation of adaptation e�orts
that increase the resilience of their seaports.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data stripped of identi�ers supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University
of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board. The patients/participants provided their
written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
EM is responsible for data collection and taking the lead in writing the manuscript.
All authors contributed equally to the design and conception of the study, provided
critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and manuscript.
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Funding
This study was supported by the USACE project grant (W912HZ-16-C-0019) entitled
Measuring Vulnerability to Inform Resilience: Pilot study for North Atlantic Medium
and High Use Maritime Freight Nodes.
Con�ict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or �nancial relationships that could be construed as a potential con�ict
of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and constructive
criticisms of the manuscript. The categorization scheme of the strategies for the
implementation of seaport adaptation presented were developed by the authors for
this seaport study. We also thank Katherine Chambers (USACE), Josh Murphy
(NOAA), and the Committee on the Marine Transportation System Resilience
Interagency Task Force for their guidance during the research project.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/full#supplementar y-material (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/full#supplementa ry-material)
Footnotes
1. ^This challenge regards the Federal Emergency Management Agency
reconstruction regulations.
2. ^Interview protocol and procedures were approved by the Institute of Review
Board at the University of Rhode Island (IRB Approved 894694-8). Interviewees
were informed of the purpose of the study and that they give a written or oral
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
consent to being interviewed and being recorded (for transcription purposes only).
The majority of interviews (73%, 22/30) were conducted in person, 27% were
conducted over the phone, 10 of the seaports were visited.
References
Adger, W. N., and Agnew, M. (2004). New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity.
Norwich: Citeseer.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=W.+N.+Adger&author=M.+Agnew+&publication_year=2004&title=New+Indicators+of
+Vulnerability+and+Adaptive+Capacity)
Barnett, J., Waters, E., Pendergast, S., and Aedan, P. (2013). “Barriers to adaptation to seal level
rise, The legal, institutional and cultural barriers to adaptation to sea-level rise in Australia”, in
National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (Gold Coast, QLD: The University of
Melbourne), 85.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=J.+Barnett&author=E.+Waters&author=S.+Pendergast&author=P.+Aedan+&publicatio
n_year=2013&title=Barriers+to+adaptation+to+seal+level+rise,+The+legal,+institutional+and
+cultural+barriers+to+adaptation+to+sea-
level+rise+in+Australia&journal=National+Climate+Change+Adaptation+Research+Facility)
Becker, A., and Caldwell, M. (2015). Stakeholder perceptions of seaport resilience strategies: a
case study of Gulfport (Mississippi) and providence (Rhode Island). Coastal Manage. 43, 1–34.
doi: 10.1080/08920753.2014.983422
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2014.983422) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=A.+Becker&author=M.+Caldwell+&publication_year=2015&title=Stakeholder+percepti
ons+of+seaport+resilience+strategies%3A+a+case+study+of+Gulfport+
(Mississippi)+and+providence+
(Rhode+Island)&journal=Coastal+Manage.&volume=43&pages=1-34)
Becker, A., and Kretsch, E. (2019). The leadership void for climate adaptation planning: case study
of the port of providence (Rhode Island, United States). Front. Earth Sci. 7:29. doi:
10.3389/feart.2019.00029
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00029) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=A.+Becker&author=E.+Kretsch+&publication_year=2019&title=The+leadership+void+f
or+climate+adaptation+planning%3A+case+study+of+the+port+of+providence+
(Rhode+Island,+United+States)&journal=Front.+Earth+Sci.&volume=7&pages=29)
Becker, A. H., Acciaro, M., Asariotis, R., Cabrera, E., Cretegny, L., Crist, P., et al. (2013). A note on
climate change adaptation for seaports: a challenge for global ports, a challenge for global
society. Clim. Change 120, 683–695. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0843-z
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0843-z) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=A.+H.+Becker&author=M.+Acciaro&author=R.+Asariotis&author=E.+Cabrera&author=
L.+Cretegny&author=P.+Crist+&publication_year=2013&title=A+note+on+climate+change+a
daptation+for+seaports%3A+a+challenge+for+global+ports,+a+challenge+for+global+societ
y&journal=Clim.+Change&volume=120&pages=683-695)
Biesbroek, G. R., Klostermann, J. E., Termeer, C. J., and Kabat, P. (2013). On the nature of barriers
to climate change adaptation. Regional Environ. Change 13, 1119–1129. doi: 10.1007/s10113-
013-0421-y
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=G.+R.+Biesbroek&author=J.+E.+Klostermann&author=C.+J.+Termeer&author=P.+Kab
at+&publication_year=2013&title=On+the+nature+of+barriers+to+climate+change+adaptati
on&journal=Regional+Environ.+Change&volume=13&pages=1119-1129)
Biesbroek, R., Klostermann, J., Termeer, C., and Kabat, P. (2011). Barriers to climate change
adaptation in the Netherlands. Climate Law 2, 181–199. doi: 10.1163/CL-2011-033
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1163/CL-2011-033) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=R.+Biesbroek&author=J.+Klostermann&author=C.+Termeer&author=P.+Kabat+&publi
cation_year=2011&title=Barriers+to+climate+change+adaptation+in+the+Netherlands&journ
al=Climate+Law&volume=2&pages=181-199)
Bookman, C. (1996). US Seaports: at the crossroads of the global economy. Issues Sci. Technol.
13, 71–77.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=C.+Bookman+&publication_year=1996&title=US+Seaports%3A+at+the+crossroads+o
f+the+global+economy&journal=Issues+Sci.+Technol.&volume=13&pages=71-77)
Burch, S. (2010). In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: an examination of barriers to
action in three Canadian cities. Energy Policy 38, 7575–7585. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.070
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.070) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=S.+Burch+&publication_year=2010&title=In+pursuit+of+resilient,+low+carbon+com
munities%3A+an+examination+of+barriers+to+action+in+three+Canadian+cities&journal=En
ergy+Policy&volume=38&pages=7575-7585)
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative
Analysis. London: Sage.
PubMed Abstract (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27702218) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=K.+Charmaz+&publication_year=2006&title=Constructing+Grounded+Theory%3A+A
+Practical+Guide+Through+Qualitative+Analysis)
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Chhetri, P., Corcoran, J., Gekara, V., Maddox, C., and McEvoy, D. (2014). Seaport resilience to
climate change: mapping vulnerability to sea-level rise. J. Spatial Sci. 60, 1–14. doi:
10.1080/14498596.2014.943311
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2014.943311) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=P.+Chhetri&author=J.+Corcoran&author=V.+Gekara&author=C.+Maddox&author=D.+
McEvoy+&publication_year=2014&title=Seaport+resilience+to+climate+change%3A+mapping
+vulnerability+to+sea-level+rise&journal=J.+Spatial+Sci.&volume=60&pages=1-14)
Crabbé, P., and Robin, M. (2006). Institutional adaptation of water resource infrastructures to
climate change in Eastern Ontario. Clim. Change 78, 103–133. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9087-5
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9087-5) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=P.+Crabbé&author=M.+Robin+&publication_year=2006&title=Institutional+adaptation
+of+water+resource+infrastructures+to+climate+change+in+Eastern+Ontario&journal=Clim.
+Change&volume=78&pages=103-133)
Dong, S., Abolfathi, S., Salauddin, M., Tan, Z. H., and Pearson, J. M. (2020). Enhancing climate
resilience of vertical seawall with retro�tting-A physical modelling study. Appl. Ocean Res.
103:102331. doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2020.102331
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2020.102331) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=S.+Dong&author=S.+Abolfathi&author=M.+Salauddin&author=Z.+H.+Tan&author=J.+
M.+Pearson+&publication_year=2020&title=Enhancing+climate+resilience+of+vertical+seaw
all+with+retro�tting-
A+physical+modelling+study&journal=Appl.+Ocean+Res.&volume=103&pages=102331)
Dow, K., Berkhout, F., Preston, B. L., Klein, R. J., Midgley, G., and Shaw, M. (2013). Limits to
adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 305–307. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1847
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1847) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=K.+Dow&author=F.+Berkhout&author=B.+L.+Preston&author=R.+J.+Klein&author=G.
+Midgley&author=M.+Shaw+&publication_year=2013&title=Limits+to+adaptation&journal=N
at.+Clim.+Change&volume=3&pages=305-307)
Eakin, H., and Luers, A. L. (2006). Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems.
Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 31, 365–394. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144352
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144352) | Google
Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=H.+Eakin&author=A.+L.+Luers+&publication_year=2006&title=Assessing+the+vulnera
bility+of+social-
environmental+systems&journal=Ann.+Rev.+Environ.+Resources&volume=31&pages=365-
394)
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Eisenack, K., Moser, S. C., Ho�mann, E., Klein, R. J. T., Oberlack, C., Pechan, A., et al. (2014).
Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 867–
872. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2350
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2350) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=K.+Eisenack&author=S.+C.+Moser&author=E.+Ho�mann&author=R.+J.+T.+Klein&aut
hor=C.+Oberlack&author=A.+Pechan+&publication_year=2014&title=Explaining+and+overco
ming+barriers+to+climate+change+adaptation&journal=Nat.+Clim.+Change&volume=4&pag
es=867-872)
Ekstrom, J. A., and Moser, S. C. (2014). Identifying and overcoming barriers in urban climate
adaptation: case study �ndings from the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Urban Clim. 9,
54–74. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2014.06.002
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.06.002) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=J.+A.+Ekstrom&author=S.+C.+Moser+&publication_year=2014&title=Identifying+and
+overcoming+barriers+in+urban+climate+adaptation%3A+case+study+�ndings+from+the+S
an+Francisco+Bay+Area,+California,+USA&journal=Urban+Clim.&volume=9&pages=54-74)
Esteban, M., Takagi, H., Mikami, T., Bahbouh, L., Becker, A., Nurse, L., et al. (2017). How to carry
put bathymetric and elevation surveys on a tight budget: basic surveying techniques for
sustainability scientists. J. Sustain. 5, 89–91. doi: 10.24910/jsustain/5.2/8691
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.24910/jsustain/5.2/8691) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=M.+Esteban&author=H.+Takagi&author=T.+Mikami&author=L.+Bahbouh&author=A.+
Becker&author=L.+Nurse+&publication_year=2017&title=How+to+carry+put+bathymetric+a
nd+elevation+surveys+on+a+tight+budget%3A+basic+surveying+techniques+for+sustainabili
ty+scientists&journal=J.+Sustain.&volume=5&pages=89-91)
Esteban, M., Takagi, H., Nicholls, R. J., Fatma, D., Bintang Pratama, M., Kurobe, S., et al. (2020).
Adapting ports to sea-level rise: empirical lessons based on land subsidence in Indonesia and
Japan. Maritime Policy Manage. 47, 937–952. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2019.1634845
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1634845) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=M.+Esteban&author=H.+Takagi&author=R.+J.+Nicholls&author=D.+Fatma&author=M.
+Bintang+Pratama&author=S.+Kurobe+&publication_year=2020&title=Adapting+ports+to+se
a-
level+rise%3A+empirical+lessons+based+on+land+subsidence+in+Indonesia+and+Japan&jou
rnal=Maritime+Policy+Manage.&volume=47&pages=937-952)
Fusco, G. L. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: the role of the
“Historic Urban Landscape” approach. Sustainability 5, 4329–4348. doi: 10.3390/su5104329
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.3390/su5104329) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=G.+L.+Fusco+&publication_year=2013&title=Toward+a+smart+sustainable+developm
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
ent+of+port+cities%2Fareas%3A+the+role+of+the+“Historic+Urban+Landscape”+approach&j
ournal=Sustainability&volume=5&pages=4329-4348)
Füssel, H.-M. (2007). Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches,
and key lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2, 265–275. doi: 10.1007/s11625-007-0032-y
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0032-y) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=H.+-
M.+Füssel+&publication_year=2007&title=Adaptation+planning+for+climate+change%3A+co
ncepts,+assessment+approaches,+and+key+lessons&journal=Sustain.+Sci.&volume=2&pages
=265-275)
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Oxfordshire: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203793206
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=B.+G.+Glaser&author=A.+L.+Strauss+&publication_year=2017&title=Discovery+of+Gr
ounded+Theory%3A+Strategies+for+Qualitative+Research)
Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without Polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sci.
36:175. doi: 10.1023/A:1024834510939
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834510939) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=M.+Hajer+&publication_year=2003&title=Policy+without+Polity%3F+Policy+analysis+
and+the+institutional+void&journal=Policy+Sci.&volume=36&pages=175)
Hallegatte, S. (2009). Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob. Environ. Change
19, 240–247. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=S.+Hallegatte+&publication_year=2009&title=Strategies+to+adapt+to+an+uncertain
+climate+change&journal=Glob.+Environ.+Change&volume=19&pages=240-247)
Hallegatte, S., Ranger, N., Mestre, O., Dumas, P., Corfee-Morlot, J., Herweijer, C., et al. (2011).
Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise and storm surge risk in port cities: a case study
on Copenhagen. Clim. Change 104, 113–137. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9978-3
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9978-3) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=S.+Hallegatte&author=N.+Ranger&author=O.+Mestre&author=P.+Dumas&author=J.+
Corfee-
Morlot&author=C.+Herweijer+&publication_year=2011&title=Assessing+climate+change+imp
acts,+sea+level+rise+and+storm+surge+risk+in+port+cities%3A+a+case+study+on+Copenha
gen&journal=Clim.+Change&volume=104&pages=113-137)
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Hinkel, J. (2011). “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: towards a clari�cation of the
science-policy interface. Glob. Environ. Change-Hum. Policy Dimensions 21, 198–208. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.08.002
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.08.002) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=J.+Hinkel+&publication_year=2011&title=“Indicators+of+vulnerability+and+adaptive+
capacity”%3A+towards+a+clari�cation+of+the+science-
policy+interface&journal=Glob.+Environ.+Change-
Hum.+Policy+Dimensions&volume=21&pages=198-208)
Huang, M. (2012). Planning for Sea Level Rise: The Current State of Science, Vulnerability of Port
of Seattle Properties to Sea Level Rise, and Possible Adaptation Strategies. Report prepared for
the Port of Seattle, WA.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=M.+Huang+&publication_year=2012&title=Planning+for+Sea+Level+Rise%3A+The+C
urrent+State+of+Science,+Vulnerability+of+Port+of+Seattle+Properties+to+Sea+Level+Rise,
+and+Possible+Adaptation+Strategies)
Hulme, M., Adger, N., Dessai, S., Lorenzoni, I., Naess, L., and Wreford, A. (2007). Limits and
Barriers to Adaptation: Four Propositions Tyndall Brie�ng (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research) (Norwich).
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=M.+Hulme&author=N.+Adger&author=S.+Dessai&author=I.+Lorenzoni&author=L.+Na
ess&author=A.+Wreford+&publication_year=2007&title=Limits+and+Barriers+to+Adaptation%
3A+Four+Propositions+Tyndall+Brie�ng+(Tyndall+Centre+for+Climate+Change+Research))
IPCC (2014). WGII AR5 Glossary. In Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
publication_year=2014&title=WGII+AR5+Glossary.+In+Fifth+Assessment+Report+of+the+Inte
rgovernmental+Panel+on+Climate+Change)
Izaguirre, C., Losada, I. J., Camus, P., Vigh, J. L., and Stenek, V. (2020). Climate change risk to
global port operations. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 14–20. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-00937-z
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00937-z) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=C.+Izaguirre&author=I.+J.+Losada&author=P.+Camus&author=J.+L.+Vigh&author=V.
+Stenek+&publication_year=2020&title=Climate+change+risk+to+global+port+operations&j
ournal=Nat.+Clim.+Change&volume=11&pages=14-20)
Jiang, C., Zheng, S., Ng, A. K. Y., Ge, Y.-E., and Fu, X. (2020). The climate change strategies of
seaports: Mitigation vs. adaptation. Transport. Res. D. Transp. Environ. 89:102603. doi:
10.1016/j.trd.2020.102603
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102603) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=C.+Jiang&author=S.+Zheng&author=A.+K.+Y.+Ng&author=Y.+-
E.+Ge&author=X.+Fu+&publication_year=2020&title=The+climate+change+strategies+of+se
aports%3A+Mitigation+vs.+adaptation&journal=Transport.+Res.+D.+Transp.+Environ.&volume
=89&pages=102603)
Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., and Wilbanks, T. J. (2012). Transformational adaptation when
incremental adaptations to climate change are insu�cient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109,
7156–7161. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1115521109
PubMed Abstract (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22509036) | CrossRef Full Text
(https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=R.+W.+Kates&author=W.+R.+Travis&author=T.+J.+Wilbanks+&publication_year=2012
&title=Transformational+adaptation+when+incremental+adaptations+to+climate+change+ar
e+insu�cient&journal=Proc.+Natl.+Acad.+Sci.+U.S.A&volume=109&pages=7156-7161)
Keen, M., Mahanty, S., and Sauvage, J. (2006). Sustainability assessment and local government:
achieving innovation through practitioner networks. Local Environ. 11, 201–216. doi:
10.1080/13549830600558531
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830600558531) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=M.+Keen&author=S.+Mahanty&author=J.+Sauvage+&publication_year=2006&title=Su
stainability+assessment+and+local+government%3A+achieving+innovation+through+practiti
oner+networks&journal=Local+Environ.&volume=11&pages=201-216)
Kretsch, E. N. (2016). Stakeholders Perceptions of Climate Adaptation Leadership: Port of
Providence Case Study Marine A�airs. Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island, 88.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=E.+N.+Kretsch+&publication_year=2016&title=Stakeholders+Perceptions+of+Climate
+Adaptation+Leadership%3A+Port+of+Providence+Case+Study+Marine+A�airs)
McIntosh, R. D., Mclean, E. L., and Becker, A. (2019). Measuring Climate and Extreme Weather
Vulnerability to Inform Resilience Report 1: A Pilot Study for North Atlantic Medium-and High-
Use Maritime Freight Nodes (Washington, DC). doi: 10.21079/11681/35196
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.21079/11681/35196) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=R.+D.+McIntosh&author=E.+L.+Mclean&author=A.+Becker+&publication_year=2019&
title=Measuring+Climate+and+Extreme+Weather+Vulnerability+to+Inform+Resilience+Repor
t+1%3A+A+Pilot+Study+for+North+Atlantic+Medium-and+High-
Use+Maritime+Freight+Nodes)
Mclean, E. L., and Becker, A. (2020). Decision makers' barriers to climate and extreme weather
adaptation: a study of North Atlantic high-and medium-use seaports. Sustain. Sci. 15, 835–847.
doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00741-5
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00741-5) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=E.+L.+Mclean&author=A.+Becker+&publication_year=2020&title=Decision+makers'+
barriers+to+climate+and+extreme+weather+adaptation%3A+a+study+of+North+Atlantic+hig
h-and+medium-use+seaports&journal=Sustain.+Sci.&volume=15&pages=835-847)
Measham, T. G., Preston, B. L., Smith, T. F., Brooke, C., Gorddard, R., Withycombe, G., et al. (2011).
Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: barriers and challenges. Mitigat.
Adapt. Strategies Global Change 16, 889–909. doi: 10.1007/s11027-011-9301-2
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9301-2) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=T.+G.+Measham&author=B.+L.+Preston&author=T.+F.+Smith&author=C.+Brooke&aut
hor=R.+Gorddard&author=G.+Withycombe+&publication_year=2011&title=Adapting+to+clim
ate+change+through+local+municipal+planning%3A+barriers+and+challenges&journal=Mitig
at.+Adapt.+Strategies+Global+Change&volume=16&pages=889-909)
Molino, G. D., Kenney, M. A., and Sutton-Grier, A. E. (2020). Stakeholder-de�ned scienti�c needs
for coastal resilience decisions in the Northeast U.S. Marine Policy 118:103987. doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103987
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103987) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=G.+D.+Molino&author=M.+A.+Kenney&author=A.+E.+Sutton-
Grier+&publication_year=2020&title=Stakeholder-
de�ned+scienti�c+needs+for+coastal+resilience+decisions+in+the+Northeast+U.S&journal=
Marine+Policy&volume=118&pages=103987)
Morris, L. L. (2020). Stakeholder collaboration as a pathway to climate adaptation at coastal
ports. Maritime Policy Manage. 47, 953–967. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2020.1729435
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1729435) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=L.+L.+Morris+&publication_year=2020&title=Stakeholder+collaboration+as+a+pathw
ay+to+climate+adaptation+at+coastal+ports&journal=Maritime+Policy+Manage.&volume=47
&pages=953-967)
Moser, S., and Ekstrom, J. (2010). A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change
adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.U.S.A. 107:22026. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007887107
PubMed Abstract (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21135232) | CrossRef Full Text
(https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=S.+Moser&author=J.+Ekstrom+&publication_year=2010&title=A+framework+to+diag
nose+barriers+to+climate+change+adaptation&journal=Proc.+Natl.+Acad.+Sci.U.S.A.&volume
=107&pages=22026)
Mukheibir, P., Kuruppu, N., Gero, A., and Herriman, J. (2013). Overcoming cross-scale challenges
to climate change adaptation for local government: a focus on Australia. Clim. Change 121, 271–
283. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0880-7
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0880-7) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=P.+Mukheibir&author=N.+Kuruppu&author=A.+Gero&author=J.+Herriman+&publicati
on_year=2013&title=Overcoming+cross-
scale+challenges+to+climate+change+adaptation+for+local+government%3A+a+focus+on+
Australia&journal=Clim.+Change&volume=121&pages=271-283)
National Research Council (2010). America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate
Change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
publication_year=2010&title=America's+Climate+Choices%3A+Advancing+the+Science+of+C
limate+Change)
Ng, A., Becker, A., Cahoon, S., Chen, S.-L., Earl, P., and Yang, Z. (2016). Climate Change and
Adaptation Planning for Ports. New York, NY: Routledge.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=A.+Ng&author=A.+Becker&author=S.+Cahoon&author=S.+-
L.+Chen&author=P.+Earl&author=Z.+Yang+&publication_year=2016&title=Climate+Change+
and+Adaptation+Planning+for+Ports)
Ng, A. K., Wang, T., Yang, Z., Li, K. X., and Jiang, C. (2018). How is business adapting to climate
change impacts appropriately? Insight from the commercial port sector. J. Business Ethics 150,
1029–1047. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3179-6
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3179-6) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=A.+K.+Ng&author=T.+Wang&author=Z.+Yang&author=K.+X.+Li&author=C.+Jiang+&p
ublication_year=2018&title=How+is+business+adapting+to+climate+change+impacts+appro
priately%3F+Insight+from+the+commercial+port+sector&journal=J.+Business+Ethics&volum
e=150&pages=1029-1047)
Nicholls, R. J., Hanson, S., Herweijer, C., Patmore, N., Hallegatte, S., Corfee-Morlot, J., et al.
(2008). Ranking Port Cities With High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes: Exposure
Estimates, OECD Environment Working Papers. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=R.+J.+Nicholls&author=S.+Hanson&author=C.+Herweijer&author=N.+Patmore&autho
r=S.+Hallegatte&author=J.+Corfee-
Morlot+&publication_year=2008&title=Ranking+Port+Cities+With+High+Exposure+and+Vuln
erability+to+Climate+Extremes%3A+Exposure+Estimates,+OECD+Environment+Working+Pap
ers)
NVivo (2014). NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Burlington, MA: QSR International Pty
Ltd. Version 10, 2014.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
publication_year=2014&title=NVivo+Qualitative+Data+Analysis+Software&volume=10&pages
=2014)
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
O'Kee�e, J. M., Cummins, V., Devoy, R. J., Lyons, D., and Gault, J. (2020). Stakeholder awareness
of climate adaptation in the commercial seaport sector: a case study from Ireland. Marine Policy
111:102404. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.044
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.044) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=J.+M.+O'Kee�e&author=V.+Cummins&author=R.+J.+Devoy&author=D.+Lyons&autho
r=J.+Gault+&publication_year=2020&title=Stakeholder+awareness+of+climate+adaptation+i
n+the+commercial+seaport+sector%3A+a+case+study+from+Ireland&journal=Marine+Policy
&volume=111&pages=102404)
Pechan, A. (2014). Does Regulation Give Incentives to Adapt Network Infrastructure to Climate
Change? A German Case Study Oldenburg Discussion Papers in Economics V-365-14. (Carl von
Ossietzky Univ.).
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=A.+Pechan+&publication_year=2014&title=Does+Regulation+Give+Incentives+to+Ad
apt+Network+Infrastructure+to+Climate+Change%3F+A+German+Case+Study+Oldenburg+
Discussion+Papers+in+Economics+V-365-14)
Roozbeh, P., Adolf, K. Y. N. G., and Jiayi, P. (2020). Climate change adaptation in the port
industry: a complex of lingering research gaps and uncertainties. Transp. Policy. 95, 10–29. doi:
10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.010
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.010) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=P.+Roozbeh&author=K.+Y.+N.+G.+Adolf&author=P.+Jiayi+&publication_year=2020&ti
tle=Climate+change+adaptation+in+the+port+industry%3A+a+complex+of+lingering+resear
ch+gaps+and+uncertainties&journal=Transp.+Policy&volume=95&pages=10-29)
Rosati, J. D., Katherine, T., Austin, B., and Kelly Burks-Copes, and Marin, S. (2015). Development
of a Metric for Coastal Resilience. Washington, DC: DRAFT_USACE.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=J.+D.+Rosati&author=T.+Katherine&author=B.+Austin&author=+Kelly+Burks-
Copes&author=S.+Marin+&publication_year=2015&title=Development+of+a+Metric+for+Coa
stal+Resilience)
Scott, H., McEvoy, D., Chhetri, P., Basic, F., and Mullett, J. (2013). Climate Change Adaptation
Guidelines for Ports, Enhancing the Resilience of Seaports to a Changing Climate. RMIT
University and National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) (Southport,
QLD), 30.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=H.+Scott&author=D.+McEvoy&author=P.+Chhetri&author=F.+Basic&author=J.+Mullet
t+&publication_year=2013&title=Climate+Change+Adaptation+Guidelines+for+Ports,+Enhan
cing+the+Resilience+of+Seaports+to+a+Changing+Climate.+RMIT+University+and+National
+Climate+Change+Adaptation+Research+Facility+(NCCARF)&pages=30)
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Takagi, H., and Esteban, M. (2013). Practical methods of estimating tilting failure of caisson
breakwaters using a monte-carlo simulation. Coastal Eng. J. 53, 21–39. doi:
10.1142/S0578563411002264
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0578563411002264) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=H.+Takagi&author=M.+Esteban+&publication_year=2013&title=Practical+methods+of
+estimating+tilting+failure+of+caisson+breakwaters+using+a+monte-
carlo+simulation&journal=Coastal+Eng.+J.&volume=53&pages=21-39)
The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) (2020). Climate Change
Adapation Planning for Ports and Inland Waterways, in: Commission, E. (Ed.), PIANC Report No.
178 (Brussels).
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
publication_year=2020&title=Climate+Change+Adapation+Planning+for+Ports+and+Inland+
Waterways,+in%3A+Commission,+E.+(Ed.),+PIANC+Report+No.+178)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2020). Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation for Coastal Transport Infrastructure: A Compilation of Policies and
Practices, TRANSPORT AND TRADE FACILITATION Series No. 2. Geneva: United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
publication_year=2020&title=Climate+Change+Impacts+and+Adaptation+for+Coastal+Trans
port+Infrastructure%3A+A+Compilation+of+Policies+and+Practices,+TRANSPORT+AND+TRA
DE+FACILITATION+Series+No.+2)
Vine, E. (2012). Adaptation of California's electricity sector to climate change. Clim. Change 111,
75–99. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0242-2
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0242-2) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=E.+Vine+&publication_year=2012&title=Adaptation+of+California's+electricity+sector
+to+climate+change&journal=Clim.+Change&volume=111&pages=75-99)
Wachsmuth, J. (2014). Cross-sectoral integration in regional adaptation to climate change via
participatory scenario development. Clim. Change 132, 387–400. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-
1231-z
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1231-z) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=J.+Wachsmuth+&publication_year=2014&title=Cross-
sectoral+integration+in+regional+adaptation+to+climate+change+via+participatory+scenari
o+development&journal=Clim.+Change&volume=132&pages=387-400)
Wang, K., and Zhang, A. (2018). Climate change, natural disasters and adaptation investments:
inter-and intra-port competition and cooperation. Transport. Res. B. Methodol. 117, 158–189.
doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2018.08.003
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.08.003) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=K.+Wang&author=A.+Zhang+&publication_year=2018&title=Climate+change,+natural
+disasters+and+adaptation+investments%3A+inter-and+intra-
port+competition+and+cooperation&journal=Transport.+Res.+B.+Methodol.&volume=117&pa
ges=158-189)
Wilbanks, T. J., and Kates, R. W. (1999). Global change in local places: how scale matters. Clim.
Change 43, 601–628. doi: 10.1023/A:1005418924748
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005418924748) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=T.+J.+Wilbanks&author=R.+W.+Kates+&publication_year=1999&title=Global+change
+in+local+places%3A+how+scale+matters&journal=Clim.+Change&volume=43&pages=601-
628)
Wilbanks, T. J., Zimmerman, R., Julius, S., Kirshen, P., Smith, J. B., Moss, R., et al. (2020). Toward
indicators of the performance of US infrastructures under climate change risks. Clim. Change
163, 1795–1813. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02942-9
PubMed Abstract (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33867603) | CrossRef Full Text
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02942-9) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=T.+J.+Wilbanks&author=R.+Zimmerman&author=S.+Julius&author=P.+Kirshen&autho
r=J.+B.+Smith&author=R.+Moss+&publication_year=2020&title=Toward+indicators+of+the+
performance+of+US+infrastructures+under+climate+change+risks&journal=Clim.+Change&v
olume=163&pages=1795-1813)
Zambrano-Barragán, C., Zevallos, O., and Villacís, M., and Enri-quez, D. (2010). Quito's Climate
Change Strategy: A Response to Climate Change in the Metropolitan District of Quito. Bonn:
ICLEI- Resilient Cities. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0785-6_51
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0785-6_51) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=C.+Zambrano-
Barragán&author=O.+Zevallos&author=M.+Villacís&author=D.+Enri-
quez+&publication_year=2010&title=Quito's+Climate+Change+Strategy%3A+A+Response+to
+Climate+Change+in+the+Metropolitan+District+of+Quito)
Zhang, Y., and Lam, J. S. L. (2015). Estimating the economic losses of port disruption due to
extreme wind events. Ocean Coastal Manage. 116, 300–310. doi:
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.08.009
CrossRef Full Text (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.08.009) | Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
author=Y.+Zhang&author=J.+S.+L.+Lam+&publication_year=2015&title=Estimating+the+eco
nomic+losses+of+port+disruption+due+to+extreme+wind+events&journal=Ocean+Coastal+
Manage.&volume=116&pages=300-310)
Keywords: resilience, climate change adaptation, natural hazards, decision making, seaports
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Citation: Mclean EL and Becker A (2021) Advancing Seaport Resilience to Natural Hazards Due to Climate
Change: Strategies to Overcome Decision Making Barriers. Front. Sustain. 2:673630. doi:
10.3389/frsus.2021.673630
Received: 28 February 2021; Accepted: 03 May 2021;
Published: 23 June 2021.
Edited by:
Angela Carpenter (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/89049/overview), University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Reviewed by:
Peggy Chen (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1253351/overview), University of Tasmania, Australia
Ching-Pong Poo (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1254311/overview), Liverpool John Moores University,
United Kingdom
Copyright © 2021 Mclean and Becker. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Austin Becker, [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
those of their a�liated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that
may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by
the publisher.
People also looked at
Scrutinizing Sustainability Change and Its Institutionalization in
Organizations (/articles/10.3389/frsus.2020.00001/full)
Rodrigo Lozano (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/709829/overview) and Iciar Garcia
Renewing Universities in Our Climate Emergency: Stewarding System
Change and Transformation (/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.677904/full)
Ioan Fazey (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1060034/overview), Claire Hughes
(https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1396178/overview), Niko A. Schäpke
(https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1142575/overview), Graham Leicester, Lee Eyre
(https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1261460/overview), Bruce Evan Goldstein
(https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1394941/overview), Anthony Hodgson
(https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1309592/overview), Amanda J. Mason-Jones
(https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/889197/overview), Susanne C. Moser
(https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1074874/overview), Bill Sharpe and Mark S. Reed
Urban Infrastructure Resilience Assessment During Mega Sport Events
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
Using a Multi-Criteria Approach (/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673797/full)
Mohammad Zaher Serdar (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1288322/overview), Muammer
Koc and Sami G. Al-Ghamdi (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/984675/overview)
Climate-Informed Decision-Making in Data-Poor Environments:
Managing Climate Risk Through Citizen Science Networks
(/articles/10.3389/fclim.2022.835768/full)
Bob O. Manteaw (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1598999/overview), Antwi-Bosiako Amoah,
Bernard Ayittah and Kirk B. Enu (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1604183/overview)
What Does Autonomous Adaptation to Climate Change Have to Teach
Public Policy and Planning About Avoiding the Risks of Maladaptation in
Bangladesh? (/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00002/full)
H. M. Tuihedur Rahman (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/622340/overview) and Gordon M.
Hickey (https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/621993/overview)
Guidelines
Explore
Outreach
Connect
Follow us
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Fr… Articles Research Topics Editorial BoardAll journals All articles Submit your research
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
© 2023 Frontiers Media S.A. All rights reserved Privacy policy | Terms and conditions
Articles Research Topics Editorial Board
Download(/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.673630/pdf?isPublishedV2=False)
