Abstract
The ports sector is critical to global transport and trade. Climate change may compromise port operations, resulting in an increase in operational shutdowns and subsequent economic losses. Here, we present an analysis of historical global risk across the operations of 2,013 ports worldwide and the impacts under a high-end warming scenario, considering atmospheric and marine hazards, industry established operational thresholds, exposure and vulnerability. Increased coastal flooding and overtopping due to sea level rise, as well as the heat stress impacts of higher temperatures, are the main contributors to amplified risk. Ports located in the Pacific Islands, Caribbean Sea and Indian Ocean appear to be at extremely high risk by 2100, whereas those in the African Mediterranean and the Arabian Peninsula (Persian Gulf and Red Sea) are expected to experience very high risk. Estimating risks at the global scale cannot capture site-level details, but these results provide a benchmark for further research and decision-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The atmospheric and marine frequency impact indicators that support the findings of this study are available from the IFC and were used under licence for the current study. Data are available from the authors upon request by contacting ihdata@ihcantabria.es, if permission from the IFC is granted.
Code availability
Computer codes or algorithms used to generate results that are reported in the paper and central to its main claims are available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3987516.
References
International Marine Organization (IMO). International Shipping Facts and Figures – Information Resources on Trade, Safety, Security, Environment (IMO Maritime Knowledge Center, 2012).
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Ng, A. K. Y. et al. Port decision maker perceptions on the effectiveness of climate adaptation actions. Coast. Manag. 46, 148–175 (2018).
Smythe, T. C. Assessing the Impacts of Hurricane Sandy on the Port of New York and New Jersey’s Maritime Responders and Response Infrastructure. Quick Response Report No. 238: Final Report to the University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center (2013).
Becker, A., Ng, A. K. Y., McEvoy, D. & Mullet, J. Implications of climate change for shipping: ports and supply chains. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9, e508 (2018).
Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee. Irma and Maria by Numbers. Focus: ECLAC in the Caribbean (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2018).
Becker, A., Inoue, S., Fischer, M. & Schwegler, B. Climate Change impacts on international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Climatic Change 110, 5–29 (2012).
Hanson, S. et al. A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate extremes. Climatic Change 104, 89–111 (2011).
McIntosh, R. D. & Becker, A. Expert evaluation of open-data indicators of seaport vulnerability to climate and extreme weather impacts for U.S. North Atlantic ports. Ocean Coast. Manag. 180, 104911 (2019).
Mutombo, K. & Ölçer, A. Towards port infrastructure adaptation: a global port climate risk analysis. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 16, 161–173 (2017).
O’Keeffe, J. M., Cummins, V., Devoy, R. J. N., Lyons, D. & Gault, J. Stakeholder awareness of climate adaptation in the commercial seaport sector: a case study from Ireland. Mar. Policy 111, 102404 (2020).
Yang, Z. et al. Risk and cost evaluation of port adaptation measures to climate change impacts. Transportation Res. D 61B, 444–458 (2018).
Esteban, M., Webersik, C. & Shibayama, T. Methodology for the estimation of the increase in time loss due to future increase in tropical cyclone intensity in Japan. Climatic Change 102, 555–578 (2010).
Esteban, M., Thao, N., Takagi, H. & Shibayama, T. Increase in port downtime and damage in Vietnam due to a potential increase in tropical cyclone intensity. In Climate Change and the Sustainable Use of Water Resources (ed. Leal Filho, W.) 101–125 (Springer, 2012).
Lam, J. S. L., Liu, C. & Gou, X. Cyclone risk mapping for critical coastal infrastructure: cases of East Asian seaports. Ocean Coast. Manag. 141, 43–54 (2017).
Jian, W., Liu, C. & Lam, J. S. L. Cyclone risk model and assessment for East Asian container ports. Ocean Coast. Manag. 178, 104796 (2019).
Zhang, Y. & Lam, J. S. L. Estimating the economic losses of port disruption due to extreme wind events. Ocean Coast. Manag. 116, 300–310 (2015).
Sierra, J. P., Casas-Prat, M., Virgili, M., Mösso, C. & Sánchez-Arcilla, A. Impacts on wave-driven harbour agitation due to climate change in Catalan ports. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1695–1709 (2015).
Sierra, J. P., Casanovas, I., Mösso, C., Mestres, M. & Sánchez-Arcilla, A. Vulnerability of Catalan (NW Mediterranean) ports to wave overtopping due to different scenarios of sea level rise. Reg. Environ. Change 16, 1457–1468 (2015).
Becker, A., Chase, N. T. L., Fischer, M., Schwegler, B. & Mosher, K. A method to estimate climate-critical construction materials applied to seaport protection. Glob. Environ. Change 40, 125–136 (2016).
Gracia, V. et al. Assessing the impact of sea level rise on port operability using LiDAR-derived digital elevation models. Remote Sens. Environ. 232, 111318 (2019).
Christodoulou, A., Christidis, P. & Demirel, H. Sea-level rise in ports: a wider focus on impacts. Marit. Econ. Logist. 21, 482–496 (2019).
Monioudi, I. N. et al. Climate change impacts on critical international transportation assets of Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS): the case of Jamaica and Saint Lucia. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 2211–2225 (2018).
Stenek, V. et al. Climate Risk and Business Ports: Terminal Marítimo Muelles el Bosque, Cartagena, Colombia (International Finance Corporation, 2011).
Chhetri, P., Jayatilleke, G., Gekara, V., Manzoni, A. & Corbitt, B. J. Container terminal operations simulator (CTOS) – simulating the impact of extreme weather events on port operation. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 16, 195–213 (2016).
Morris, L. L. & Sempier, T. Ports Resilience Index: A Port Management Self-Assessment (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016).
Zhang, H. & Ng, A. The regional efforts of Port Metro Vancouver in adapting to potential impacts posed by climate change. In Proc. Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) (2016).
Connell, R. et al. Port of Manzanillo: Climate Risk Management (Inter-American Development Bank, 2015).
Campos, Á. et al. Addressing long-term operational risk management in port docks under climate change scenarios – a Spanish case study. Water 11, 2153 (2019).
Messner, S., Moran, L., Reub, G. & Campbell, J. Climate change and sea level rise impacts at ports and a consistent methodology to evaluate vulnerability and risk. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 169, 141–153 (2013).
Sierra, J. P. et al. Modelling the impact of climate change on harbour operability: the Barcelona port case study. Ocean Eng. 141, 64–78 (2017).
Camus, P. et al. Probabilistic assessment of port operation downtimes under climate change. Coast. Eng. 147, 12–24 (2019).
World Port Index (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 2017).
Riahi, K. et al. RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change 109, 33–57 (2011).
Grenzeback, L. R. & Lukmann, A. T. Case Study of the Transportation Sector’s Response to and Recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (Cambridge Systematics, 2008).
Izaguirre, C., Losada, I. J., Camus, P., González-Lamuño, P. & Stenek, V. Seaport climate change impact assessment using a multi-level methodology. Marit. Policy Manag. 47, 544–557 (2020).
Calil, J., Reguero, B. G., Zamora, A. R., Losada, I. J. & Méndez, F. J. Comparative Coastal Risk Index (CCRI): a multidisciplinary risk index for Latin America and the Caribbean. PLoS ONE 12, e0187011 (2017).
Alexandrakis, G. & Poulos, S. E. An holistic approach to beach erosion vulnerability assessment. Sci. Rep. 4, 6078 (2014).
Balica, S. F., Wright, N. G. & van der Meulen, F. A flood vulnerability index for coastal cities and its use assessing climate change impacts. Nat. Hazards 64, 73–105 (2012).
Camus, P. et al. Statistical wave climate projections for coastal impact assessments. Earths Future 5, 918–933 (2017).
Morim, J. et al. Robustness and uncertainties in global multivariate wind-wave climate projections. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 711–718 (2019).
Sánchez-Arcilla, A. et al. A review of potential physical impacts on harbours in the Mediterranean Sea under climate change. Reg. Environ. Change 16, 2471–2484 (2016).
Sierra, J. P. & Casas-Prat, M. Analysis of potential impacts on coastal areas due to changes in wave conditions. Climatic Change 124, 861–876 (2014).
Mase, H., Tsujio, D., Yasuda, T. & Mori, N. Stability analysis of composite breakwater with wave-dissipating blocks considering increase in sea levels, surges and waves due to climate change. Ocean Eng. 71, 58–65 (2013).
Suh, K.-D., Kim, S.-W., Mori, N. & Mase, H. Effect of climate change on performance-based design of caisson breakwaters. J. Waterw. Port. Coast. Ocean Eng. 138, 215–225 (2012).
Esteban, M., Takagi, H. & Shibayama, T. Sea level rise and the increase in rubble mound breakwater damage. In Proc. 6th International Conference on Coastal Structures 130–140 (World Scientific, 2013).
Takagi, H., Kashihara, H., Esteban, M. & Shibayama, T. Assessment of future stability of breakwaters under climate change. Coast. Eng. J. 53, 21–39 (2011).
Hallegate, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R. J. & Corfee-Morlot, J. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 802–806 (2013).
Owen, M. W. Design of Seawalls Allowing for Wave Overtopping, Report No. EX924 (Hydraulics Research Wallingford, 1982).
Perez, J., Menendez, M. & Losada, I. J. GOW2: a global wave hindcast for coastal applications. Coast. Eng. 124, 1–11 (2017).
Egbert, G. D. & Erofeeva, S. Y. Efficient inverse modeling of barotropic ocean tides. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 19, 183–204 (2002).
Church, J. A., White, N. J., Coleman, R., Lambeck, K. & Mitrovica, J. X. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950–2000 period. J. Clim. 17, 2609–2625 (2004).
Slangen, A. B. A. et al. Projecting twenty-first century regional sea-level changes. Climatic Change 124, 317–332 (2014).
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).
Villarini, G. & Vecchi, G. A. Projected increases in North Atlantic tropical cyclone intensity from CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 26, 3231–3240 (2013).
Camus, P., Méndez, F. J., Medina, R. & Cofiño, A. S. Analysis of clustering and selection algorithms for the study of multivariate wave climate. Coast. Eng. 58, 453–462 (2011).
Koks, E. E. et al. A global multi-hazard risk analysis of road and railway infrastructure assets. Nat. Commun. 10, 2677 (2019).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) under the RISKOADAPT project (grant no. BIA2017-89401-R). We are grateful to C. Amman for his work in the development of atmospheric frequency impact indicators and A. Espejo for his useful comments. The atmospheric and marine frequency impact indicators have been developed jointly by NCAR and IHCantabria with the financial support of the IFC. This material is based in part on work supported by the NCAR, which is a major facility sponsored by the National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement no. 1852977. Computing resources were provided by the Climate Simulation Laboratory at the NCAR Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. We acknowledge the Working Group on Coupled Modelling of the World Climate Research Programme, which is responsible for the CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups for producing and making available their model output.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
I.J.L. conceived the study and designed it with C.I. and P.C. jointly. C.I. and P.C. performed the analysis and developed the marine frequency indicators. J.L.V. developed the atmospheric frequency indicators. C.I., I.J.L. and V.S. wrote the manuscript. All of the authors contributed to make substantial improvements to the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Austin Becker, Robert Nicholls, Joan Pau Sierra and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Methodological overview of study.
Green colour represents vulnerability variables/indicators used and produced, orange represents exposure characteristics, and blue represents hazard variables/indicators. Grey boxes and arrows indicate the method/approach used for analysing information.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Future change in multihazard severity.
Multihazard change severity for each port in the year 2100 under RCP8.5 in terms of the improvement and worsening of present multihazard conditions.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Present risk level.
Present-day risk levels shown for all ports.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Present vulnerability level.
Present vulnerability level shown for each port.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Future risk levels.
Climate risk in the year 2100 under RCP8.5 across the operations of the largest OECD port cities. Marker size indicates the change in risk level.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Present exposure level.
Present-day exposure level shown for each port.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Dominant climatic drivers of port disruptions.
Spatial representation of dominant climatic drivers of port disruptions in 30 locations around the world.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Multihazard change conditions in world port operations.
a, Representative clusters of multihazard change conditions for each port in the year 2100 under RCP8.5. b, Characteristics of the clusters. Each panel contains the % of ports included in the cluster, the number of the cluster, the representation of the centroid (cross), the 5 and 95 percentiles of the data of the cluster (points) and the 25 and 75 percentiles of the data of the cluster (coloured line) on a normalized (0-1) scale for each frequency indicator. DaysW15 mph = average number of days per year with daily mean wind speed ≥ 15 m/s; DaysT40Deg = average number of days per year with daily maximum temperature ≥ 40°C; DaysP20 mm = average number of days per year with heavy precipitation (>20 mm); DaysHs2.5m = average number of days per year with significant wave height > 2.5 m in the navigation zone; DaysOv0.1 l = number of days per year with overtopping flow > 0.1 l/m/s; DaysCF = average number of days per year with coastal flooding; ProbTC = the annual exceedance probability of experiencing a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Category 1 or higher; and ProbMajorTC = the annual exceedance probability of experiencing a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Category 3 or higher (major hurricanes).
Extended Data Fig. 9 Present vulnerability conditions across clusters.
Present-day vulnerability conditions are shown for each port, categorized by cluster. a, Representative clusters of vulnerability conditions for each port. b, Characteristics of the clusters of vulnerability. Each panel contains the % of ports included in the cluster, the number of the cluster, the representation of the centroid (cross), the 5 and 95 percentiles of the data of the cluster (points) and the 25 and 75 percentiles of the data of the cluster (coloured line) on a normalized (0-1) scale for each vulnerability dimension: Tech. Cap = technological capacity; Resilience and Recov. Cap. = recovery capacity.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Present risk conditions across clusters.
Present-day risk conditions are shown for each port, categorized by cluster. a, Representative cluster of present risk conditions for each port. b, Characteristics of the clusters. Each panel contains the % of ports included in the cluster, the number of the cluster, the representation of the centroid (cross), the 5 and 95 percentiles of the data of the cluster (points) and the 25 and 75 percentiles of the data of the cluster (coloured line) on a normalized (0-1) scale for each frequency indicator.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–2, Discussions 1–7 and Tables 1–18.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Izaguirre, C., Losada, I.J., Camus, P. et al. Climate change risk to global port operations. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 14–20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00937-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00937-z
This article is cited by
-
Global river economic belts can become more sustainable by considering economic and ecological processes
Communications Earth & Environment (2024)
-
Rapid seaward expansion of seaport footprints worldwide
Communications Earth & Environment (2023)
-
Multi-hazard risk to global port infrastructure and resulting trade and logistics losses
Communications Earth & Environment (2023)
-
Indicator Based Approach and Geospatial Technology for Coastal Vulnerability Assessment along Chennai District Coast, Tamil Nadu State, India
Thalassas: An International Journal of Marine Sciences (2023)
-
Maritime transport and regional climate change impacts in large EU islands and archipelagos
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2023)