Impacts of climate change on transport : a focus on airports, seaports and inland waterways.
Date: 2018-11-12
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: adaptation to climate change, airport, climate change, climate change policy, drought, economic consequence, flood, harbour installation, inland waterway, research report, transport infrastructure

Impacts of climate change on 
transport 

A focus on airports, 
seaports and inland 
waterways 

Christodoulou A., Demirel H. 

2018 

EUR 28896 EN

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s 
science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European 
policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European 
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is 
responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. 

Contact information 
Name: Aris Christodoulou 
Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Expo Building - C/ Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092, Seville, 
Spain 
Email: aris.christodoulou@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34954488276 

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC108865 

EUR 28896 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-97039-9 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/378464 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

© European Union, 2018 

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents 
is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: Christodoulou A., Demirel H., Impacts of climate change on transport - A focus on 
airports, seaports and inland waterways, EUR 28896 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-97039-9, doi:10.2760/378464, JRC108865.

All images © European Union 2018 

Impacts of climate change on transport 

The report assesses the impacts of climate change on transport for Europe using projections of climate data, 
coastal inundation, river flooding and river discharge data. Impacts considered include those of sea level rise, 
storm surges, extreme weather events and floods on airports and seaports, as well as floods and droughts on 
inland waterways. Main outputs include the identification of transport infrastructure at risk in future time 
periods and the estimation of economic impacts. 

This is a re-edition of: Christodoulou A., Demirel H., Impacts of climate change on transport - A focus on 
airports, seaports and inland waterways, EUR 28896 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-76902-3, doi:10.2760/447178, JRC108865.

Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1 

1  Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 

2  Vulnerability of the transport sector to climate change ........................................... 5 

2.1  Impacts on transport.................................................................................... 5 

2.2  Weather-induced costs ................................................................................. 7 

2.3  Key elements for the vulnerability analysis of the transport sector ..................... 9 

2.3.1  Life expectancy of transport infrastructure .............................................. 9 

2.3.2  Thresholds .......................................................................................... 9 

2.4  Data used ................................................................................................. 10 

2.4.1  Sea level rise plus storm surges .......................................................... 11 

2.4.2  River floods ....................................................................................... 11 

2.4.3  Wind gusts ........................................................................................ 11 

2.4.4  Droughts .......................................................................................... 12 

2.4.5  Transport infrastructure databases ....................................................... 12 

3  Results for airports, seaports and inland waterways ............................................. 14 

3.1  Results for airports .................................................................................... 14 

3.1.1  Impacts of sea level rise and storm surges on airports ........................... 14 

3.1.2  Impacts of river floods on airports ....................................................... 16 

3.1.3  Impacts of wind gusts on airports ........................................................ 17 

3.2  Results for seaports ................................................................................... 19 

3.2.1  Impacts of sea level rise and storm surges on seaports .......................... 19 

3.2.2  Impacts of river floods on seaports ...................................................... 21 

3.2.3  Impacts of wind gusts on seaports ....................................................... 22 

3.3  Results for inland waterways ....................................................................... 24 

3.3.1  Assumptions ..................................................................................... 24 

3.3.2  Impacts of river floods on inland waterways .......................................... 25 

3.3.3  Impacts of droughts on inland waterways ............................................. 26 

3.4  Adaptation ................................................................................................ 37 

4  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 39 

References ......................................................................................................... 40 

List of abbreviations and definitions ....................................................................... 46 

List of figures ...................................................................................................... 47 

List of tables ....................................................................................................... 48 

Appendix ............................................................................................................ 49 

i 

Executive Summary 

Transport  systems  can  be  affected  by  climate  change  as  they  are  exposed  to  weather 
conditions  while  their  protection  or  adaptation  requires  substantial  planning  and 
investment.  Changes  of  the  current  climate  conditions  that  can  affect  transport  include 
sea  level  rise,  increase  of  the  intensity  and  frequency  of  storms  and  winds, increase  of 
temperature,  changes  in  the  intensity  and  frequency  of  extreme  precipitation  events, 
floods  and  droughts.  Potentially  vulnerable  to  these  changes  are  both  transport 
infrastructure  and  operation,  while  the  impacts  can  be  either  permanent,  e.g.  loss  of 
infrastructure, or temporary, e.g. disruption of services. Finally, climate change may also 
have positive effects by reducing transport disruptions at certain locations, e.g. through 
the reduction of ice formation. 

Climatic changes to potentially affect transport systems include both gradual ones, such 
as sea level rise, and intensification of extreme events. The latter are more disruptive for 
transport systems but also the ones the effects of which are more difficult to assess. The 
main  reason  is  the  level  of  detail  required  to  capture  the  impacts  on  transport  in 
combination with the ambiguity of long-term projections. 

The  work  took  place  in  the  context  of  the  PESETA  III  project  (Projection  of  Economic 
impacts  of  climate  change  in  Sectors  of  the  European  Union  based  on  bottom-up 
Analysis)1  and  the  focus  has  been  on  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on 
seaports, airports and inland waterways. The three sectors were selected to complement 
the  transport  sector  analysis  that  was  conducted  during  the  previous  edition  of  the 
PESETA project and was focusing on road, and rail transport.  

In  order  to  prepare  for  the  impacts  of  climate  change,  this  study  seeks  answers  to  the 
following  questions:  How  will  climate  change  affect  transport  operations?’,  ‘How 
significant are the anticipated changes?’, ‘Where will the most severe impacts take place 
in Europe?’, ‘How to measure vulnerability of different modes to climate change?’. 

Among  several  climate  stressors,  sea  level  rise,  storm  surges,  floods,  wind  gusts  and 
droughts  are  selected  considering  the  relatively  high  impacts  they  have.  Furthermore, 
there  are  not  many  studies  examining  the  vulnerability  of  airports,  seaports  and  inland 
waterways  to  these  stressors.  Taking  benefit  from  the  multi-sectoral  coverage  of  the 
PESETA  III  project,  data  from  the  JRC  (Joint  Research  Centre)  groups  working  on  the 
physical impacts of climate change have been combined with transport data and impact 
functions.  More  specifically,  the  following  data  have  been  provided  by  the  relevant 
individual project teams of PESETA III. 

• Coastal inundation information – including data on mean sea level, tides and the
combined  effect  of  waves  and  storm  surges  –  from  the  team  working  on  the
coastal impacts of climate change.

•

Flood hazard maps with inundation depth for rivers from the team working on the
impacts of climate change on river floods.

• Wind gust data from the team working on the climate change datasets.

• Discharge data for rivers from the team working on the impacts of climate change

on water resources.

The  coastal  and  river  inundation  maps  have  been  produced  based  on  ensembles  of 
models  as  discussed  in  detail  in  the  relevant  reports.  The  discharge  data  used  for  the 
analysis of the impacts on inland waterways refer to five model runs. The wind gust data 
have  been  used  mainly  in  an  exploratory  manner  as  there  are  reservations  about  the 
reliability of wind projections; only data from one model run have been used, mainly as 
an example. 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/peseta 

1 

The time periods of the analysis of the impacts considered and in general the perception 
of  time  is  determined  taking  into  account  the  temporal  dimension  of  the  data  used. 
Coastal  inundation  maps  have  been  produced  for  different  return  periods  and  years, 
while for the case of river inundation maps climate projections are used to estimate the 
severity and frequency of events. On the other hand, river discharge data – on which the 
estimation of low water days is based – refer to daily values from 1981 to 2099. In any 
case,  the  results  are  presented  with  reference  to  time  periods  representing  the  short-
term,  mid-term  and  long-term  future  within  the  century.  The  short  term  future  for  the 
sea level rise analysis corresponds to year 2030 and the long term to year 2080. In the 
context of the analysis of discharge and wind gust data for which daily values have been 
obtained,  short-term  future  (including  also  present)  corresponds  to  the  2011-2040 
period,  long  term  future  to  the  2071-2099  (2100  for  wind  gusts)  period  and  mid-term 
future to the 2041-2070 period. 

Furthermore, the characteristics of the available datasets determine the methods used to 
analyse  impacts.  For  the  case  of  coastal  and  river  flood  impacts,  inundation  maps 
referring to specific points in time have been obtained directly from the relevant physical 
impacts teams and overlaid with transport infrastructure maps. Practically, the timing of 
reaching the inundation levels reported in the maps or the corresponding levels of global 
warming  does  not  really  affect  the  results  as  the  reported  impacts  are  based  on  the 
assumption that the technical characteristics of the infrastructure and the importance of 
the site (seaport or airport) will remain unchanged over time. The same assumption has 
been made for the case of inland waterways as transport demand and navigation-related 
thresholds are assumed to remain constant over time. The effect of reaching the applied 
inundation  levels  earlier  or  later  would  only  shift  the  timing  of  the  occurrence  of  the 
reported impacts accordingly. 

A  limitation  of  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  on  airports  and  seaports  has  to  do  with  the 
information required to quantify the impacts. By making the analysis at European level it 
is difficult to obtain detailed information regarding the characteristics of each seaport or 
airport considered in order to properly asses its vulnerability or resilience. Furthermore, 
it is also difficult to collect information on the transport or economic activity in order to 
evaluate the impact of disruptions. On the other hand, the analysis for inland waterways 
is focusing on four points as to utilise discharge data for the estimation of the impacts of 
droughts, it is necessary to take into account location specific characteristics.   

According  to  the  results  of  the  analysis,  the  number  of  airports  that  face  the  risk  of 
inundation  is  projected  to  increase  by  almost  60%  between  2030  and  2080.  In  2080, 
196 airports will be under the risk of inundation. Inland airports can be affected by river 
floods and the most severe impacts are projected to take place in regions near the North 
Sea coastline. Regarding wind, higher wind gust speeds are projected in the middle and 
end of the century, for the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Adriatic Sea. 

Seaports are exposed to storm surges and sea level rise by default and are vulnerable to 
flooding.  Climate  change  is  expected  to  have  more  severe  impacts  in  northern  Europe, 
where  Europe’s  top  20  cargo  seaports  are  located.  In  total,  852  ports  face  the  risk  of 
inundation in 2080 and the number of seaports to be exposed to inundation levels higher 
than 1m is projected to increase by 80% from 2030 to 2080.  

Inland waterways are vulnerable to climate change because river navigation depends on 
water  levels.  Droughts  have  the  most  disruptive  impacts  for  inland  waterways  because 
low water levels impose limitations to navigation services. The  consideration of location 
specific  characteristics  is  very  important  for  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  droughts  on 
inland waterways using river discharge data. Hence, the  focus  of the  analysis has been 
on four specific locations of Rhine and Danube where substantial part of the total freight 
activity in the EU takes place. For the majority of locations and model runs considered, a 
reduction of low water days is projected which means fewer disruptions to the operation 
of the inland waterway transport system. 

2 

 
 
 
1  Introduction 

Extreme  weather  events  affect  transport  infrastructure  and  management.  Even  if 
infrastructures are designed to cope with various stresses along their life, the increase of 
frequency  and  severity  of  extreme  weather  events  will,  nevertheless,  increase  their 
deterioration  pace.  Additionally,  transport  services  have  to  be  managed  in  order  to 
reduce  possible  disruptions  and  accidents  that  may  become  more  frequent  due  to 
adverse  weather  conditions.  In  the  transport  sector,  the  impacts  of  climate  change  will 
vary  by  mode  and  region.  According  to  the  climate  change  model  outputs,  impacts  will 
be  widespread  and  costly.  The  impacts  will  require  significant  changes  in  planning, 
design, construction, operation and maintenance of transport systems.  

Transport infrastructure and operations are more sensitive to extreme events - such as 
storm  surges,  floods  and  wind  gusts  –  than  to  incremental  changes  of  temperature  or 
precipitation.  Furthermore,  transport  operations  are  generally  more  sensitive  to  climate 
change  than  infrastructure.  Airports  face  various  climate  change  related  risks  including 
sea level rise and storm surges while high winds are a key hazard especially for landing 
and taking off. Seaports’ operations might be disrupted by sea level rise, storm surges, 
floods  and  extreme  winds.  Extreme  weather  events  affecting  inland  waterways  (IWW) 
include  floods  during  which  water  levels  exceed  the  maximum  permitted  ones  and 
droughts  due  to  which  water  levels  become  critically  low  imposing  limitations  to 
navigation services. 

Following up on PESETA II where preliminary results were achieved  with respect to the 
impacts  of  climate  change  on  the  transport  sector  focusing  on  roads  and  railways,  this 
report analyses the impacts on airports, seaports and inland waterways. 

The climate change impacts considered are the following:  

•  Sea level rise and extreme weather events affecting airports and seaports  

•  Wind gusts affecting airports and seaports 

•  Floods affecting airports, seaports and inland waterways  

•  Droughts affecting inland waterways 

In  order  to  assess  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  transport  networks,  four  major 
factors  are  considered:  exposure  to  climate  stressors,  vulnerability,  resilience  and 
adaptation. 

For  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  transport  the  following  data, 
provided by the relevant individual project teams of JRC PESETA III, are used: 

•  Coastal inundation information – including data on Mean Sea Level, tides and the 
combined  effect  of  waves  and  storm  surges  –  from  the  team  working  on  the 
coastal impacts of climate change. 

•  Flood hazard maps with inundation depth for rivers from the team working on the 

impacts of climate change on river floods. 

•  Wind  gust  data  from  the  results  of  the  climate  projections  for  airports  and 

seaports. 

•  Discharge data for rivers from the team working on the impacts of climate change 

on water resources. 

The analytical approach followed is summarised in Figure 1. 

3 

 
 
 
Figure 1. Data exchange with the other impact study groups 

This  report  aims  to  explore  future  trends  regarding  changing  exposure  of  airports, 
seaports  and  inland  waterways  to  weather-induced  risks  under  climate  change,  as  well 
as  to  assess  infrastructure  deterioration,  service  disruptions,  damage  costs  and 
adaptation costs in future time intervals.  

4 

 
 
2  Vulnerability of the transport sector to climate change 

Depending  on  the  global  warming  scenarios  and  the  geographic  location  of  regions, 
transport  modes  and  system  components  could  be  affected  by  one  or  several 
simultaneous  changes  of  the  climate  conditions  including  hotter  summers,  extreme 
precipitation events, increased storminess and sea level rise. According to the PESETA II 
report, (Nemry and Demirel, 2012) more frequent extreme rainfalls and floods (river and 
pluvial  floods)  as  projected  for  different  regions  in  Europe  could  increase  the 
maintenance costs for road transport infrastructure by €50-€192 million per year for the 
period 2040-2100. Furthermore, 4.1% of the coastal road infrastructure in Europe faces 
the  risk  of  permanent  or  episodic inundation  from  sea  level  rise  and  storm  surges.  The 
value  of  infrastructure  (considering  deterioration  and  damage  costs)  at  risk  was 
estimated to be approximately €18.5 billion.  

2.1  Impacts on transport 

The  impacts  of  climate  change  on  airports,  seaports  and  inland  waterways  could  be 
summarized as follows2 

a)  Increased summer temperatures:  

-  Affect  aircraft  performance  and  may  cause  airplanes  to  face  cargo 
flight  delays,  and 

cruise  altitude 

changes, 

restrictions, 
cancellations. 

-  Damage infrastructure/equipment/cargo. 
-  Reduce asset lifetime. 
- 
-  Reduce water levels imposing restrictions for inland navigation and 

Increase energy consumption for cooling cargo. 

increasing fuel consumption. 
Increase accidents (e.g. grounding for IWW). 
- 
-  Reduce costs relevant to snow or ice removal. 

According  to  the  projected  trends  all  regions  will  be  affected  by  higher 
summer  temperatures.  The  frequency,  intensity  and  duration  of  heat 
waves all over Europe are projected to increase. 

b)  Increased precipitation: 

-  Cause flooding of airports, seaports and IWW. 
-  Cause 

infrastructure 

inundation 

land 

and 

damages 

to 

cargo/equipment. 
Impose navigation restrictions for IWW. 

- 

In  summer,  Nordic  countries  are  expected  to  experience  increased 
precipitation,  while  in  Southern  regions  precipitation  will  likely  decrease. 
For regions in the middle, trends are inconsistent across models. 

c)  Decreased precipitation: 

-  Cause water shortages and reduce ability to meet demand. 

d)  More frequent extreme winds: 

-  Damage infrastructure of seaports and airports. 

Expected  increase  of  extreme  wind  speeds  in  the  northern  and  central 
Europe,  especially  in  the  British  Isles  and  North  Sea  coast  during  winter 
periods.  However,  trends  are  inconsistent,  observation  data  for  many 

2 Based on Van den Brink et al (2005), Frei et al (2006), Von Storch et al (2006), Fowler et al (2007), Beniston 
et  al  (2007),  Rockel  et  al  (2007),  Makkonen  et  al  (2007),  Von  Storch  et  al  (2008),  Nikulin  et  al  (2011), 
Velegrakis (2013), Melillo et al (2014), Eurocontrol (2013), Bruisma et al (2012), Becker et al (2011), Sierra et 
al (2017), Yang et al (2017) 

5 

 
                                           
regions  are  missing  and  there  is  a  weakness  of  models  to  reproduce 
available observed data.  

e)  Sea level rise and sea storm surges: 

- 

Increase 
infrastructure at risk of regular and permanent inundation. 

facilities,  put 

in  ports’ 

tides 

low 

level  aviation 

-  Modify  wave  propagation  patterns  and  change  wave  penetration 

into ports. 

-  Cause loss of ground access to airports. 
-  Damage port infrastructure/cargo. 
-  Cause sedimentation/dredging issues in ports/navigation channels. 
- 

Increase port construction/maintenance costs. 

Shoreline  retreat  will  be  observed  everywhere.  However,  the  magnitude 
depends on local morphology and human-induced subsidence. An increase 
of storm surges has been forecasted along the North Sea coast, especially 
for the German and Danish coasts. 

f)  Change in frequency of winter storms: 
-  Affects all modes. 

Decrease  in  mean  snow  precipitation  but  more  frequent  extreme  snow 
precipitation  events  have  been  projected  for  the  Nordic  countries 
(Makkonen et al., 2007) 

g)  Thawing permafrost: 

-  Causes airport embankment failures, increases maintenance needs. 
-  Damages  infrastructure;  coastal  erosion  affects  road  and  rail  links 

to ports. 

Thawing has already been observed. 

h)  Reduced ice cover: 

-  Contributes  to  opening  new  northern  shipping  routes  and  reduces 

ice loading on infrastructures such as piers. 

-  Extends shipping seasons. 
-  Reduces fuel costs. 

i)  Earlier River Ice Breakup: 

- 

Increases ice-jam flooding risk. 

The  impacts  of  climate  change  on  airports,  seaports  and  IWW  can  be  broken  down  to 
infrastructures,  services,  operations  and 
sub-categories,  namely 
maintenance. A list of the impacts of climate change on airports, seaports and IWW can 
be found in the Appendix.  

impacts  on 

Two important points from reviewing the relevant literature are the following:  

a)  transport as a sector is more sensitive to extreme events, such as storm surges, 
floods, wind gusts than to incremental changes of temperature or precipitation, 
b)  transport  operations  are  more  sensitive  to  climate  change  than  transport 

infrastructure 

The climate stressors that have been selected in order to calculate the impacts of climate 
change on airports, seaports and IWW in the present study are: sea level rise plus storm 
surges, floods, droughts and wind gusts. Other stressors, such as increased temperature 
and extreme heat have relatively limited impacts in comparison to the selected ones.  

6 

 
2.2  Weather-induced costs  

Transportation infrastructures are designed to be resilient and cope with various stresses 
including extreme weather events but transport services have to be managed to reduce 
possible  disruptions  and  increase  safety  conditions  during  periods  of  adverse  weather 
conditions.  

There  are  fewer  studies  examining  the  vulnerability  of  air  and  water  transport  modes 
than  of  road  or  rail.  However,  climate  change  can  affect  more  severely  air  and  sea 
transport modes than land transport (EUROCONTROL, 2008; Becker et al, 2013). 

According to a U.S. study, (ACRP, 2012) very few airports are currently considering ways 
to address the effects of climate change, although 70% of airport delays are the result of 
severe weather events and such events are on the increase. Furthermore, according to a 
study  by  EUROCONTROL  focusing  on  Europe:  “although  an  increasing  number  of 
organisations  now  consider  that  climate  change  will  have  a  negative  impact  on  their 
organisation, a smaller number have already begun planning or implementing resilience 
measures” (EUROCONTROL, 2013).  

In  2011,  the  United  States  saw  12  weather/climate  disasters  costing  at  least  $1  billion 
each. (Koetse and Rietveld 2009). For some major airports, a closure can cost more than 
$1 million an hour (Pejovic et al. 2009), while the closure of airports due to the volcanic 
ash  cloud  from  Iceland  in  2010  was  estimated  to  have  costed  0.5  billion  euro  per  day 
(Nokkala et al, 2012).  

Storms can have devastating impacts and extreme winds can severely damage port and 
airport facilities. According to the SwissRe (Schwierz et al., 2010) loss model, an insured 
storm loss of nearly 7 billion Euros can be expected once every 10 years and of 30 billion 
Euros  once  every  100  years.  On  the  other  hand,  some  areas  could  also  benefit  from 
climate change (e.g. due to opening of arctic routes and the reduction of ice formation) 
and new opportunities could arise from developing and improving seaports.  

The  quantitative  analysis  of  current  and  future  vulnerability  of  air-  and  sea-borne 
transport  is  a  challenge  for  the  European  Union.  Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to 
the  contributions  and  follow-up  activities  of  research  projects  financed  within  European 
research  framework  programs.  Four  interesting  projects  focusing  on  the  impacts  of 
climate  change  on  transport  that  have  now  been  completed  are:  WEATHER3,  EWENT4, 
ECCONET5 and MOWE-IT6. These projects have  been of utmost importance in gathering 
available information and providing initial estimates of potential impacts on the transport 
sector. According to the  estimation and major findings of these projects,  sea level rise, 
floods  and  extreme  precipitation  are  expected  to  have  the  most  severe  impacts  on  the 
transport sector. Several climate factors that are considered to be first order explanatory 
factors  (e.g.  average  precipitation  versus  extreme precipitation,  snow  of  freezing  days) 
and  their  trends  in  different  climate  scenarios  have  been  used  in  order  to  produce  an 
outlook of future impacts for transport. 

According  to  the  FP7  project  WEATHER,  the  estimated  total  annual  costs  of  climate 
change  on  transport  for  the  period  1998-2010  were  €2.5  billion  including  €1  billion 
annual  indirect  costs  due  to  disruptions.  For  the  cost  estimation,  mainly  impacts  of 
winter conditions (42%) and floods (45%) were considered. The impacts on air transport 
were estimated to be equal to 16% of the total costs, while the impacts on maritime and 
IWW were estimated to be below 1% of the total costs as illustrated in Table 1. 

3 https://www.weather-project.eu/weather/index.php 
4 https://www.weather-project.eu/weather/inhalte/research-network/ewent.php 
5 https://www.ecconet.eu/ 
6 http://www.mowe-it.eu/ 

7 

 
                                           
Table 1. Current weather induced costs for transport in million Euros (source: WEATHER project) 

Road  Rail  Air  Maritime 

IWW  Intermodal 

Total 
(mil. €) 

% 

Storm 

Winter 

Flood 

174 

759 

822 

Avalanche 

- 

Heat and 
drought 

50 

3 

52 

- 

6 

- 

155 

20 

147 

60 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total 
(mil. €) 

1805 

61 

362 

20 

- 

- 

5 

- 

- 

5 

1 

0 

0 

- 

- 

2 

% 

80.1 

2.7 

16.0  0.9 

0.2 

0.1 

15.7 

42.5 

39.3 

0.2 

2.2 

354 

959 

886 

6 

50 

2254 

The EWENT project assessed the impacts of extreme weather events on the EU transport 
system.  Furthermore,  it  evaluated  adaptation  and  mitigation  measures  that  aim  to 
reduce  the  costs  of  weather  impacts.  The  methodological  approach  was  based  on  a 
generic risk management framework, followed by impact assessment and completed by 
mitigation and risk control measures. The current costs due to extreme weather events, 
including all phenomena is presented in Table 2. 

Table 2. Current costs due to extreme weather, including all phenomena in million or billion Euros 
(ca.2010) (source: EWENT project) 

Transport 
Mode 

Accidents 

Time costs 

Infrastructure 

Physical 
Infra 

Maintenance 

Freight & 
Logistics 

>10 bill. 

0.5-1.0 bill. 

ca 1 bill. 

ca 0.2 bill. 

1-6 bill. 

Road 

Rail 

IWW 

>0.1 bill. 

>10mill. 

Short sea 

>10 mill. 

ca. 2 mill. 

- 

- 

Aviation 

- 

>0.6 bill. 

Light traffic  >2 bill. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

>01.bill 

5-24 mill. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.1-0.3 mill. 

0.2-1 mill. 

0.5-2.3 mill. 

- 

TOTAL (€) 

>12 bill. 

>1bill. 

ca 1.bill 

>0.3 bill. 

1-6 bill. 

The ECCONET project focused on the effects of climate change on the IWW network. The 
project  had  two  major  objectives:  a)  analysis  of  various  effects  of  climate  change  on 
IWW  transport  and  related  sectors,  and  b)  analysis  of  adaptation  strategies  and 
recommendation of a strategic framework for the development of IWW. According to the 
results moderate impacts should be expected in the near future. 

The  goal  of  the  MOWE-IT  project  was  to  identify  existing  best  practices  and  develop 
methodologies  in  order  to  assist  transport  operators,  authorities  and  transport  system 
users  to  mitigate  the  impacts  of  natural  disasters  and  extreme  weather  phenomena  on 
the transport system performance. Aviation, road, rail, IWW and maritime transport are 
covered. 

Infrastructure  deterioration  and  damage  costs  were  calculated  during  the  PESETA  II 
project.  The  project  considered  exposure  of  road  and  rail  infrastructures  to  weather-
induced  risk  under  climate  change  in  two  future  time  intervals  (2040-2070  and  2070-
2100). For road transport infrastructure, weather stresses were found to be responsible 

8 

 
 
for  30%  to  50%  of  the  road  maintenance  costs  in  Europe  (€8  to  €13  billion  per  year). 
Around  10%  of  these  costs  (approximately  €0.9  billion  per  year)  were  associated  with 
extreme weather events of which heavy rainfalls and floods were found to play the most 
important role. 

2.3  Key  elements  for  the  vulnerability  analysis  of  the  transport 

sector 

To  analyse  the  vulnerability  of  airports,  seaports  and  IWW  to  climate  change, 
parameters related to infrastructure life-span, design and relevant thresholds should be 
considered.  As  a  result  of  the  vulnerability  of  different  transport  modes,  intermodal 
transportation  will  be  also  affected  by  climate  change.  Relevant  effects  might  include 
secondary  impacts  on  other  modes  or  disruptions  of  the  supply  chain  for  freight 
transport.  Furthermore,  the  combination  of  the  impacts  on  different  modes  might  have 
cumulative effects disrupting significantly the transport system of certain areas. In these 
cases,  by  not  considering  the  effects  on  intermodal  transport,  the  impacts  of  climate 
change  might  be  underestimated.  However,  the  consideration  of  the  impacts  on 
intermodal transportation for all Europe requires a large number of relevant data and is 
beyond the scopes of this study  

2.3.1  Life expectancy of transport infrastructure 

Transport  infrastructures  are  designed  to  resist  stresses  that  include  extreme  weather 
conditions  and  regular  maintenance  takes  place.  Typical  life-spans  of  transport 
infrastructures are presented in the following bullet points but there might be variations 
among different countries according to their construction codes: 

•  Airports:  

•  Seaport: 

70 years 

100 years  

•  Road pavement: 

10-25 years 

2.3.2  Thresholds 

The  impact  functions  for  airports,  seaports  and  IWW  to  be  considered  include  sea  level 
rise and storm surges, floods and strong winds. Extreme winds affect both airports and 
seaports.  However,  there  are  certain  difficulties  in  using  wind  data  including  lack  of 
information  regarding  extreme  wind  speeds,  relatively  low  resolution  of  reporting 
stations  and  inconsistencies  in  measurement  characteristics  (IPPC,  2012).  Impact 
functions  that  affect  the  transport  modes  covered  in  this  study  and  relevant  thresholds 
are presented in Table 3. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Impact functions and their thresholds per transport mode. 

Transport 
mode 

Impact 
Function 

Threshold 

Airport 

Seaport 

IWW 

SLR + storm 
surge 

Inundation level  

flooding 

Inundation level  

wind gust 

>10 m/s, >15 m/s, >20 m/s, >25 m/s 

SLR + storm 
surge 

Inundation level  

flooding 

Inundation level  

wind gust 

>35 m/s 

flooding 

Inundation level 

drought  

Number of days with discharges corresponding to 
low water levels 

Sea  level  rise  thresholds  for  seaports,  above  which  port  facilities  or  operations  are 
affected,  vary  by  port  design  and  depend  on  the  height  of  the  port  and  protective 
measures such as sea  walls that shield port facilities. Coastal building codes may apply 
to  port  terminals  and  other  buildings.  According  to  ASCE  (American  Society  of  Civil 
Engineers), buildings in flood zones are required to have 0.30 meters of freeboard while 
certain  essential  facilities  are  required  to  have  0.60  meters  of  freeboard  (ASCE,  2006). 
Freeboard height standard is set according to a flood event of a 100-year return period 
(FEMA,  2011a).  The  lowest  floor,  including  freeboard,  needs  to  use  flood-damage 
resistant  materials  (FEMA,  2011b).  Coastal  buildings  must  be  designed  to  withstand 
wave loads that are 1 meter high and parts of such buildings (Coastal Zone A) should be 
able to withstand waves of 0.45-0.90 meters (ASCE, 2005; FEMA, 2011a).  

With  respect  to  wind  speeds,  impacts  of  winds  on  airports  can  occur  at  wind  speeds  of 
13m/s to 18m/s (OFCM, 2002). According to the 2005 ASCE Design Standards, buildings 
and  other  structures  must  be  able  to  withstand  the  basic  3-second  wind  gust  and 
aviation  control  towers,  air  traffic  control  centres,  emergency  aircraft  hangers  must  be 
designed  to  withstand  greater  pressures  from  winds  (ASCE,  2005).  Wind  damages  to 
structures  increase  non-linearly  as  wind  speeds  increase.  For  example,  Powell  and 
Reinhold  (2007)  found  that  light,  moderate,  and  severe  wind  damage  thresholds 
correspond  to  loss  levels  of  around  2%,  12%,  and  60%  of  insured  value.  Furthermore, 
winds equal to or greater than 55 m/s caused  about 30 times higher losses than winds 
between 25 and 41 m/s. 

2.4  Data used 

Climate  model  outputs  and  spatial  databases  are  combined  in  order  to  assess  the 
impacts  of  climate  change.  The  climate  change  projections  can  be  retrieved  from  the 
WCRP EURO-CORDEX7 initiative. Each climate scenario is based on the combination of a 
Global  Circulation  Model  (GCM)  and  a  Regional  Climate  Model  (RCM)  which  downscales 
geographically  the  GCM  global  climate  projections.  RCMs  have  0.11  degree  spatial 
resolution.  More  information  can  be  found  in  Dosio  and  Paruolo  (2011)  and  Dosio  et  al 
(2012). 

7 http://www.cordex.org/, http://euro-cordex.net 

10 

 
 
                                           
2.4.1  Sea level rise plus storm surges  

In  order  to  determine  locations  of  exposure  and  predict  the  vulnerability  of  transport 
infrastructure due to sea level rise plus storm surges, an inundation model is used that 
has  been  developed  at  European  scale  by  the  PESETA  III  team  working  on  coastal 
impacts.  The  model  (Vousdoukas  et  al,  2016)  estimates  total  water  level  integrating 
mean  sea  level,  tides  and  the  combined  effect  of  waves  and  storm  surges,  and 
superimposes this information on the selected digital elevation model. Furthermore, the 
model  incorporates  the  coastal  protecting  structures,  enhancing  the  reliability  of  the 
projections.  For  the  spatial  analysis  of  inundation  risk  for  airports  and  seaports,  the 
projected  water  level  according  to  RCP8.5  for  the  years  2030  (representing  short-term 
future)  and  2080  (representing  long-term  future)  is  utilized.  The  water  level  is  a 
combination  of  sea  level  rise  projections,  maximum  tidal  amplitude  and  the  100-year 
return level of the episodic hydrodynamic components, i.e. storm surges and waves.  

2.4.2  River floods 

In  order  to  find  transport  infrastructure  under  risk  of  flooding,  the  inundation  maps 
produced by the PESETA III group working on river floods (Alfieri and Feyen, 2016) are 
implemented. These maps are based on an expansion of the cascading model approach 
(Barredo  et  al.,  2007).  The  rainfall-runoff  model  is  calibrated  using  discharge 
observations  at  481  gauging  sites.  21-year  meteorological  datasets  and  generalised 
extreme  value  fitting  are  utilized  to  derive  flood  peaks  for  100-year  return  periods  for 
each  pixel.  The  data  are  downscaled  to  100m  resolution  and  maps  are  derived  for  the 
entire  European  river  network.  Finally,  output  maps  of  more  than  37  000  hydraulic 
simulations  are  merged  into  a  pan-European  flood  hazard  map.  Details  regarding  the 
model can be found in Alfieri et al (2013) and Alfieri et al (2015b). The flood maps were 
calculated  for  a  set  of  scenarios  based  on  an  observed  climate  and  for  specific  flood 
return  periods.  Climatic  projections  were  used  to  derive  the  projected  frequency  and 
intensity  (i.e.,  the  return  period)  of  flood  events  in  the  future.  Hence,  the  impacts  of 
climate  change  in  future  periods  are  represented  by  the  increase  of  frequencies  of 
flooding events. 

2.4.3  Wind gusts 

A wind gust is defined as a rapid, sudden, brief increase in the speed of wind. Gusts are 
reported  when  the  peak  wind  speed  reaches  at  least  8  m/s  and  the  variation  in  wind 
speed  between  peaks  and  lulls  is  at  least  5  m/s  (NOAA,  2017).  As  has  already  been 
mentioned there are reliability issues regarding wind projections and the analysis of the 
impacts  of  winds  has  been  made  in  a  rather  exploratory  manner  considering  only  the 
results of the following run (RCP8.5):  

Table 4. Reference details regarding the climate model on which wind gust data are based 

Institute 

RCM 

Driving GCM 

CLMcom 

CCLM4.8-17 

CNRM-CERFACS-CNRM-CM5 

The  variable  applied  in  this  study  is  daily  maximum  near-surface  wind  speed  of  gust 
(m/s)  and  the  data  refer  to  daily  values  from  1981 to  2100.  The  data  are  used  to  find 
the number of days with wind gusts speeds exceeding certain limits. The number of days 
reported refer to annual average number of days over the three periods of analysis and 
the historic period: 

•  Short term future: 2011-2040 
•  Mid-term future: 2041-2070 
•  Long-term future: 2071-2100 
•  Historic period: 1981-2010 

11 

 
 
2.4.4  Droughts 

The  impacts  of  droughts  on  inland  waterways  are  modelled  with  the  help  of  discharge 
data  obtained  from  the  group  working  on  the  water  sector  of  PESETA  III.  The  data  are 
based on the results of five model runs (Table 5): 

Table 5. Reference details regarding the climate models on which discharge data are based 

Institute 

RCM 

Driving GCM  

Run 

CLMcom 

CCLM4.8-17 

CNRM-CERFACS-CNRM-CM5 

ICHEC-EC-EARTH 

IPSL-INERIS 

WRF331F 

IPSL-IPSL-CM5A-MR 

SMHI 

RCA4 

MOHC-HadGEM2-ES 

MPI-M-MPI-ESM-LR 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

They  refer  to  average  daily  values  of  discharges  (in  m3/s)  and  cover  the  period  from 
1981 to 2099 (only for run 4 the last year of projection is 2098). They are the output of 
the LISFLOOD model, a GIS-based hydrological model (Van Der Knijff et al, 2008). The 
data  are  used  to  calculate  the  number  of  days  for  which  discharges  fall  within  certain 
thresholds. The results are aggregated to four time periods and the values reported refer 
to  annual  average  number  of  days  over  the  three  periods  of  analysis  and  the  historic 
period: 

•  Short term future: 2011-2040 
•  Mid-term future: 2041-2070 
•  Long-term future: 2071-2099 
•  Historic period: 1981-2010 

2.4.5  Transport infrastructure databases 

For  the  location  of  the  airports,  the  geospatial  airport  infrastructure  database  of 
Eurostat, GISCO is used. A map of all airports (2847) is presented in Figure 2; 2788 of 
them are characterised as ‘main’ in the Eurostat airports database. The dataset includes 
EU and neighbouring countries significant for air transport analysis. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Location of airports in the GISCO/Eurostat database 

Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other
contributors, Sources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA,
National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE,
Geonames.org, and other contributors

For  the  location  of  the  seaports,  the  geospatial  seaport  infrastructure  database  of 
Eurostat,  GISCO  is  used.  It  contains  a  point  feature  class  with  the  location  of  2877 
European  ports,  where  1731  of  them  are  classified  as important  and  372  belong  to  the 
Trans-European  Transport  Network  (TEN-T).  Point  coordinates  are  derived  from  several 
input sources, including ports lists from EMSA, Lloyds, Norie’s Seaports of the World, the 
GISCO Ports 2010 dataset and the UN/LOCODE 2007 list. The ports within the database 
cover a wide range  of  different characteristics – from small private marinas up to large 
industrial  harbours  differing  in  types  and  volumes  of  cargo  traffic,  fishing,  and  other 
activities (industry, passenger transport, cruise tourism, yachting). 

13 

 
 
3  Results for airports, seaports and inland waterways  

3.1  Results for airports 

Airports play a central role in the EU for both passenger and freight transportation. The 
International Airports Council estimated the total economic impact of airport and aviation 
related  activities  for  2015  at  €338  billion  across  the  EU.  According  to  EUROCONTROL, 
the air traffic in Europe will nearly double by 2030 in comparison to 2010 and Europe will 
have  difficulties  to  meet  this  huge  demand  due  to  shortage  of  runway  and  ground 
infrastructure  at  major  airports.  Infrastructure  investments  have  already  been  planned 
to enlarge and improve airports' infrastructure.  

Airports are vulnerable to extreme weather events the frequency and severity of which is 
projected  to  increase  due  to  climate  change.  In  this  section  the  impacts  of  climate 
change  on airports are  considered by identifying infrastructure projected to be  exposed 
to extreme weather events of various severity levels.  

3.1.1  Impacts of sea level rise and storm surges on airports 

Several  airports  in  the  EU  are  located  at  coastal  zones  and  face  the  risk  of  inundation 
due  to  sea  level  rise  and  sea  storm  surges.  The  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate 
Change  (IPCC)  projected  that  global  mean  sea  levels  would  rise  by  18–59  cm  above 
1990 levels by the 2090s (where the lower bound corresponds to the lower estimate for 
the lowest emissions scenario, and the higher bound corresponds to the upper estimate 
for  the  highest  scenario).  Sea  level  rise  in  northern  Europe  could  be  higher  than  the 
global  average  by  an  additional  15–20  cm  due  to  changing  climate  patterns  (air  and 
water  currents)  reaching  up  to  38–79  cm  in  Denmark.  Local  sea  level  rise  will  actually 
vary with ocean circulation patterns, gravitational effects, land subsidence or uplift along 
some coastlines, and other factors.  

The number of airports in Europe projected to be affected by sea level rise and extreme 
events are listed in Table 6. According to the analysis, there is a continuous increase of 
sea  levels  and,  as  result,  an  increase  of  the  number  of  airports  that  face  the  risk  of 
inundation until the end of the century. At the North Sea coast, where the impacts of sea 
level  rise  are  more  severe,  a  large  number  of  airports  face  the  risk  of  inundation. 
According  to  the  projections,  the  number  of  airports  to  be  inundated  by  water  levels 
between  1  and  3  meters  will  almost  double  (from  23  to  42)  from  year  2030  to  year 
2080. The number of airports that face the risk of inundation in 2080 is 196. 

14 

 
 
 
Table 6. Number of airports under inundation risk for years 2030, 2080 

2030 

2080 

Country Code 

ind ≤1  1< ind ≤3 

ind >3  ∑ 

ind ≤1  1< ind ≤3 

ind >3  ∑ 

BE 

CY 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

SE 

SI 

UK 

Total 

- 

1 

14 

8 

4 

8 

2 

2 

6 

1 

6 

2 

- 

- 

20 

1 

2 

2 

- 

17 

96 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

3 

- 

- 

- 

- 

14 

23 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

- 

1 

1 

1 

17 

15 

8 

4 

9 

3 

2 

7 

2 

7 

3 

- 

- 

25 

1 

2 

2 

- 

8 

3 

16 

4 

2 

9 

3 

6 

8 

- 

14 

25 

- 

3 

7 

1 

- 

- 

3 

1 

1 

4 

2 

- 

3 

1 

3 

2 

- 

- 

3 

1 

1 

1 

- 

31 

20 

124  146 

16 

42 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3 

8 

1 

1 

20 

9 

4 

20 

6 

2 

12 

4 

10 

10 

- 

14 

30 

1 

4 

8 

1 

39 

196 

Airports are resilient to sea level rise plus storm surges below 1m (ASCE, 2005; FEMA, 
2011a) and could perform as expected with the help soft adaptation measures. However, 
inundation levels between 1m and 3m can adversely impact the operations of airports. 

An  indication  of  the  cost  of  inundation  can  be  found  in  relevant  studies.  According  to 
Schade  et  al  (2006)  and  Schade  et  al  (2013)  the  total  cost  of  permanent  inundation 
could  be  nearly  5  billion  Euro  and  will  vary  according  to  the  design  and  operational 
capacity  of  the  airport.  Furthermore,  according  to Pejovic  et  al  (2009),  for  some  major 
airports,  a  closure  can  cost  more  than  $1  million  per  hour.  Adaptation  of  the  transport 
sector  to  climate  change  should  be  considered  as  part  of  a  broader  multi-sectoral 
approach and a measure against sea level rise is the elevation of dikes. According to the 
literature,  the  cost  of  construction  of  dikes  or  levees  to  protect  against  1  meter  rise  is 
between 756,000 and 4,004,460 euro/kilometre (Hippe, 2015).  

Under  the  assumption  that  building  dikes  (levees)  of  one  kilometre  length  is  the 
adaptation measure of choice and considering the aforementioned costs, the adaptation 
cost  for airports projected to be  exposed to inundation levels up to 1 meter by 2030 is 
between 72 and 385 million Euros and by 2080 between 110 and 584 billion Euros. The 

15 

 
adaptation  cost  for  airports  projected  to  be  exposed  to  inundation  levels  more  than  1 
meter will be higher, while in some cases there will be permanent loss of infrastructure. 

3.1.2  Impacts of river floods on airports 

Inland  airports  can  be  affected  by  river  floods  and  major  impacts  are  projected  for 
airports located close to the coastline of the North Sea. According to the flood maps, 17 
airports are projected to be exposed to inundation levels higher than 3m during a 10year 
event and 26 during a 50year event. The airports (main airports according to the GISCO 
database) that face the risk of inundation in the area of the Netherlands are marked in 
red  in  Figure  3.  Model  estimations  refer  mainly  to  flash  floods  and  major  expected 
impacts include delay in operations and increased maintenance needs. 

Figure 3. Sample of inundated airports in 100 years due to floods 

The number of airports to be inundated under events of different severity are presented 
in Table 7.  

Delays and cancellations have cumulative effect. For example, the closure of airports due 
to  the  volcanic  ash  cloud  from  Iceland  in  2010  lead  to  0.5  billion  euro  loss  per  day 
(Nokkala et al, 2012). Costs of delays considering value of time are estimated based on 
Ludvigsen et al. (2012) and Nokkala et al. (2012). According to the latter, the value of 
time to be used for cost estimation regarding airborne freight transport in EU27 is 33.3 
Euro/ton/hour.  The  categorization  –  international,  community  and  regional  connecting 
points – of the European Parliament is used to estimate tons of freight for each airport. 
It is assumed that the impacts on airports projected to be inundated by up to 1m will be 
limited.  The  results  are  presented  in  Table  8  while  international  and  community 
connecting points are retrieved from the GISCO database. 

The  costs  in  Table  8  refer  to  the  impacts  of  different  severity  events  the  frequency  of 
which is projected to increase significantly in the future due to climate change. The mean 
annual  exceedance  frequency  of  the  100year  return  period  peak  flow  in  Europe  is 
projected to increase by 176% in Europe (Alfieri et al, 2015a) by the end of the century. 
The relevant change of  frequency earlier in the century is 97% and 126% in the short-
term  future  and  mid-term  future,  respectively  (Alfieri  et  al,  2015a).  The  change  of 
frequencies  will  be  even  higher  in  some  countries.  For  example  in  the  Netherlands,  the 
mean annual exceedance frequency of the 100year return period peak flow is projected 
to increase by 468% by the end of the century. 

16 

 
 
 
Table 7. The number of impacted airports due to floods 

Inundation levels (m)  10 years 

20 years 

50 years 

100 years 

< 1m 

Airport 

1m - 3m 

>3m 

Total 

98 

31 

17 

146 

112 

34 

22 

168 

120 

41 

26 

187 

118 

47 

27 

192 

Table 8. Estimated costs for values of time (million Euros) 

Inundation levels (m)  10 years 

20 years 

50 years 

100 years 

Airport 

1m - 3m 

>3m 

Total 

Total 

Int. 

Com.  Int 

Com 

Int 

Com  Int 

Com 

55  

52  

30  

28  

70  

50  

57  

37  

70  

68  

75  

55  

43  

65  

78  

45  

85  

80  

120   94  

125   111   140   123  

165  

214  

236  

263  

3.1.3  Impacts of wind gusts on airports 

Different models do not use the same wind gust parameterization (Schwierz et al, 2010) 
and as has already been mentioned wind gust projections are in general of low reliability. 
This, in combination to the level of detail (e.g. spatial aggregation level, wind direction) 
required to measure the impacts of winds on transport indicate that it is very difficult to 
obtain relevant trustworthy estimates. For this reason, the analysis of the wind data has 
been mainly exploratory and the analysis is restricted to the results of one climate model 
run (Table 4).  

According  to  Peterson  et  al.  (2008),  delays  or  cancellations  of  flights  occurred  at 
sustained  winds  of  17.88  m/s  or  higher  (for  an  hour),  or  gusts  of  25.93  m/s  or  higher 
(no  time  limit).  Pejovic  et  al.  (2009)  did  not  establish  a  threshold  for  high  winds 
(indicated  by  1-hour  mean  wind  speed  above  the  mean),  but  found  that  incremental 
increases in wind speed above the mean could increase the likelihood of delay.  

In  Table  9  results  for  selected  TEN-T  airports  are  presented.  They  refer  to  annual 
average  number  of  days  over  the  specified  periods  with  wind  gust  speeds  within  the 
specified  thresholds.  Areas  to  be  mostly  affected  can  be  found  in  North  France  and 
Norway.

17 

 
 
Table 9. Daily maximum near-surface wind speed of gust for selected TEN-T airports 

 TEN-T airports 

EDDW (BREMEN- DE) 

EGGD (BRISTOL-UK) 

EHRD (ROTTERDAM- NL) 

EIDL (DONEGAL- IE) 

EKBI (BILLUND-DK) 

ENZV (STAVANGER/ 
SOLA-NO) 

ESSV (VISBY-SE) 

LEMD (MADRID, 
BARAJAS-ES) 

LFRC (CHERBOURG 
MAUPERTUS-FR) 

LIMC (MILANO, 
MALPENSA- IT) 

 Period 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

0_5 m/s 

5_10 m/s 

10_15 m/s 

15-20 m/s 

20-25 m/s 

25-30 m/s 

> 30 m/s 

49 

44 

46 

48 

58 

56 

54 

57 

38 

39 

36 

43 

115 

119 

124 

123 

24 

22 

23 

32 

94 

98 

105 

100 

42 

33 

46 

44 

48 

49 

45 

44 

115 

109 

114 

109 

52 

51 

60 

59 

5 

5 

5 

5 

8 

8 

8 

7 

2 

2 

1 

4 

36 

33 

33 

35 

2 

2 

2 

2 

25 

26 

23 

29 

3 

2 

3 

3 

6 

7 

5 

5 

36 

34 

36 

31 

5 

5 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

7 

5 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

5 

4 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

7 

6 

5 

7 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

50 

49 

49 

51 

41 

40 

41 

45 

48 

48 

42 

47 

14 

15 

14 

11 

34 

39 

40 

36 

19 

15 

15 

16 

20 

14 

20 

21 

30 

32 

35 

34 

18 

15 

16 

17 

51 

53 

50 

61 

192 

202 

197 

205 

186 

188 

190 

192 

228 

226 

231 

237 

108 

112 

104 

106 

254 

247 

256 

254 

134 

124 

125 

124 

191 

126 

183 

196 

209 

207 

216 

213 

116 

118 

114 

120 

192 

198 

192 

191 

160 

157 

159 

148 

163 

164 

163 

154 

141 

142 

146 

126 

179 

171 

175 

176 

143 

147 

136 

133 

180 

188 

184 

182 

202 

129 

206 

192 

164 

161 

155 

159 

164 

174 

171 

173 

156 

149 

150 

141 

18 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
3.2  Results for seaports 

Seaports are particularly exposed to extreme weather events and are very important for 
the local and global economy, since nearly 80% of world freight is transported by ship. 
Seaports  of  Europe  are  gateways  to  other  continents.  74%  of  extra-EU  goods  are 
shipped  through  ports.  They  are  also  important  for  intra-European  trade:  37%  of  the 
intra-EU  freight  traffic  and  385  million  passengers  pass  by  ports  every  year.  A  50% 
growth of cargo handled in EU ports is predicted by 2030. Hence, Europe's ports need to 
adapt to handle the increased traffic. Figure 4 illustrates the EU cargo ports that handle 
more  than  1  million  tonnes  of  goods  per  year,  while  the  bars  refer  to  those  ports  that 
handle more than 10 million tonnes of goods per year.  

Figure 4. Europe’s cargo seaports 

The present study aims to evaluate the impacts of extreme sea levels and river floods on 
seaports  by  identifying  the  ports  projected  to  be  exposed  to  different  levels  of 
inundation. The impacts of wind gusts are also considered but in an exploratory way. 

3.2.1  Impacts of sea level rise and storm surges on seaports 

Inundation  due  to  sea  level  rise  and  storm  surges  could  cause  both  temporary  and 
permanent  flooding,  while  such  impacts  are  already  observed  in  EU  countries.  In 
comparison to airports, seaports will be affected more by the projected sea level rise and 
sea storm surges as 64% of all seaports are expected to be inundated according to the 
(IPCC, 2012) projected global mean sea levels and combined effects of local waves and 
storm surges.  

Major  impacts  of  sea  level  rise  and  storm  surges  on  ports  include  disruptions  of 
operations and damages of port infrastructure, and vessels. Hinterland connections, such 
as road and railways to open sea ports, located on coastal areas will also be affected. 

19 

 
 
Results for 2030 and 2080 are illustrated in Table 10. According to the findings in Table 
10 the number of ports that face the risk of inundation is expected to increase by more 
than 50% from 2030 to 2080. This trend is even stronger on the North Sea coast, where 
according  to  the  GISCO  database  over  500  ports  are located  with  traffic  accounting  for 
up to 15% of the worlds cargo transport (EUCC-D, 2013). In total, 852 important ports 
face the risk of inundation by the end of the century is 852.  

Table 10. Number of seaports under inundation risk in 2030 and 2080. 

2030 

2080 

Country Code 

ind ≤1  1< ind ≤3 

ind >3  ∑ 

ind ≤1  1< ind ≤3 

ind >3  ∑ 

BE 

BG 

CY 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

UK 

- 

- 

9 

11 

12 

6 

151 

8 

8 

8 

8 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

19 

5 

14 

7 

16 

2 

4 

2 

40 

10 

- 

- 

- 

- 

13 

5 

12 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

16 

3 

- 

1 

3 

- 

38 

13 

Total 

332 

115 

1 

0 

9 

21 

36 

1 

5 

11 

27 

44 

11 

6 

165  155 

22 

24 

14 

12 

6 

34 

11 

15 

26 

9 

51 

33 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

- 

3 

1 

33 

24 

8 

9 

12 

12 

1 

5 

0 

- 

13 

- 

86 

79 

- 

2 

- 

4 

40 

5 

14 

6 

19 

11 

50 

4 

19 

- 

1 

- 

14 

6 

2 

1 

13 

- 

14 

1 

- 

10 

6 

- 

- 

7 

- 

4 

1 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2 

7 

11 

41 

90 

11 

169 

47 

30 

30 

77 

17 

52 

0 

1 

3 

2 

42 

15 

14 

1 

26 

0 

71 

164 

517  518 

225 

109 

852 

1 

- 

- 

10 

5 

- 

- 

7 

- 

4 

- 

3 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

35 

70 

20 

 
  
  
 
 
 
Seaports  are  resilient  to  sea  level  rise  plus  storm  surges  under  1m  and  can  operate 
without  interruptions  by  adopting  soft  adaptation  strategies.  The  number  of  seaports 
that face the risk to be inundated by more than 1m in 2030 is projected to be 185 and to 
increase  to  334  in  2080.  In  2030,  the  number  of  seaports  projected  to  face  inundation 
levels higher than 3m is 70, and will increase to 109 in 2080. With more information on 
frequency  and  duration  of  inundation  events  and  with  the  help  of  Table  10  it  would  is 
possible to roughly estimate total damage costs. 

Inundated  ports  face  the  risk  of  temporary  closure.  The  total  amount  of  damage  when 
closing the port of Rotterdam for 24 hours could exceed 3 million Euro (Doll et al, 2011), 
while the sea shipping cost for other ports could reach the amount of 0.75 million Euros. 

The cases of seaports projected to be exposed to inundation levels above 1m should be 
analysed  in  detail  and  adaptation  strategies  should  be  considered.  The  three  main 
approaches to adaptation are the following: construction of storm defences, elevation of 
seaport to compensate for projected sea levels and relocation of seaport. Decisions have 
to be taken considering each case separately.  

The last option, relocation, could be an option only where higher inundation levels occur 
(e.g. exceeding the 3 meters) and depending on the importance of the seaport as it is a 
very  expensive  solution.  Port  relocation  requires  the  availability  of  an  alternative 
location,  with  deep  water  and  suitable  transportation  linkages  –  a  rare  commodity  in 
most  coastal  areas  (Becker  et  al,  2011).  Furthermore,  construction  costs  are  high, 
around 4 billion Euros for international ports (Schade et al, 2006;Schade et al, 2013). 

The  cost  of  adaptation  depends  on  the  characteristics  of  the  seaport  and  its  location. 
Assuming that the adaptation measure of choice is the construction of dikes (levees) of 
one  kilometre  length  and  considering  the  construction  costs  reported  in  Hippe  et  al 
(2015), the adaptation cost for ports projected to be exposed to inundation levels up to 
1 meter (Table 10) by 2030 is between 250 million and 1.32 billion Euros and by 2080 
between 392 million and 2.07 billion Euros. It should be noted that hard coastal defences 
–  including  dikes,  seawalls,  breakwaters  made  of  concrete,  steel  etc.  –  can  cause 
environmental  problems  such  as  coastal  erosion  and  habitat  degradation  (Airoldi  et  al. 
2005).  

An  elevated  port  can  be  rendered  inoperable  if  its  intermodal  connections  remain 
unprotected.  For  seaports  inundated  at  levels  between  1  and  3  meters,  beach 
nourishment  might  be  needed.  According  to  Nicholls  et  al,  2010,  in  absolute  terms  for 
the medium scenario, the cost of beach nourishment is expected to increase from €2.2 
billion  per year in the 2010s to €4.6 billion per year by the 2040s (dollar/euro parity is 
taken  as  equal).  The  cost  of  raising  port  ground  levels  by  1m  is  $15  million  per  km2 
according  to  IPCC  (1990).  The  estimation  was  based  on  Dutch  procedures  including 
design,  execution,  taxes,  levies  and  fees  and  the  assumption  that  the  operation  would 
take  place  as  an  one-off  event  (Nicholls  et  al,  2008).  According  to  this  and  in  order  to 
provide  an  indicative  adaptation  cost,  the  cost  (dollar/euro  parity  is  taken  as  equal)  of 
elevation  of  all  seaports  projected  to  be  exposed  to  inundation  levels  between  1  and  3 
meters will be 1.7 billion Euros per km2 by 2030 and 3.4 billion Euros per km2 by 2080.  

3.2.2  Impacts of river floods on seaports 

Some seaports may also be affected by floods and major impacts are projected to take 
place  at  the  coast  of  the  North  Sea.  According  to  the  flood  maps,  31  seaports  will  be 
inundated  during  a  10-year  event  at  levels  higher  than  3m  (Table  11).  The  results 
presented  in  Table  11  refer  to  total  number  of  seaports  projected  to  be  inundated  at 
different levels, during flood events of different severity.  

21 

 
 
 
Table 11. Impacts on seaports due to floods 

Inundation levels (m) 

10 years 

20 years 

50 years 

100 years 

< 1m 

Seaport 

1m - 3m 

>3m 

Total 

94 

30 

31 

97 

34 

33 

155 

164 

106 

36 

39 

181 

106 

42 

42 

190 

For inundation levels exceeding 3 m, higher maintenance, operation and delay costs are 
foreseen.  The  cost  estimates  for  values  of  time  and  delay  are  calculated  according  to 
Ludvigsen  et  al.  (2012)  and  Nokkala  et  al.  (2012).  Only  freight  operators  and  shipper 
costs are considered; passenger delay costs are much lower as there are only few routes 
in Europe with large volumes of daily passengers. Time delay costs to European shippers 
are  estimated  between  €0.19  and  €0.96  million  per  year  (Nokkala  et  al,  2012).  Hence, 
delay costs for a 100year event are estimated between €36.1 million and €182.4 million. 

The frequency of events causing river flows to peak is projected to increase significantly 
in  the  future  due  to  climate  change.  The  mean  annual  exceedance  frequency  of  the 
100year return period peak flow is projected to increase by 176% in Europe by the end 
of  the  century,  by  97%  in  the  short-term  future  period  and  by  126%  in  the  mid-term 
future  period  (Alfieri  et  al,  2015a).  As  a  result,  without  additional  adaptation  measures 
the seaports affected will be affected more frequently in the future 

3.2.3  Impacts of wind gusts on seaports 

Regarding  the  impacts  of  wind  gusts  on  seaports,  data  referring  to  the  historic  period 
can be compared to the three future periods considered. The reliability issues regarding 
the wind gusts data have already been discussed in previous sections. Higher wind gust 
speeds are projected for the North Sea, Baltic Sea, southern Europe and Adriatic Sea. 

The  impact  of  high  wind  speeds  is  largely  operational.  The  infrastructure  itself, 
particularly the buildings, is resilient to very high winds/gusts. Hence, aim of adaptation 
measures should be to minimise the risk of accidents and avoid operational disruptions. 
The  values  in  Table  12  refer  to  the  annual  average  number  of  days  over  the  indicated 
period with wind gust speeds within the indicated limits. When wind gust speeds exceed 
30 m/s ports may be forced to close, while lower values may have an adverse effect on 
operations.

22 

 
Table 12. Daily maximum near-surface wind speed of gust for selected TEN-T seaports 

 TEN-T seaports 

 Period 

0_5 m/s 

5_10 m/s 

10_15 m/s 

15-20 m/s 

20-25 m/s 

25-30 m/s 

> 30 m/s 

DEWYK (Wyk/Föhr- DE) 

DKEBJ (Esbjerg- DK) 

EEPRN (Pärnu- EE) 

FRLRH (La Rochelle-FR) 

GBNHV (Newhaven – 
UK) 

GRJNX (Naxos-GR) 

LVLPX (Liepaja-LV) 

PTAVE (Aveiro-PT) 

SEGOT (Göteborg- SE) 

SEMMA (Malmö-SE) 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

1981-2010 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2100 

101 

103 

102 

102 

44 

46 

45 

47 

27 

29 

20 

27 

21 

20 

22 

22 

19 

16 

17 

17 

9 

10 

10 

8 

29 

31 

25 

30 

21 

22 

27 

25 

40 

39 

35 

37 

0 

71 

72 

79 

190 

191 

199 

191 

227 

220 

228 

227 

208 

202 

203 

212 

118 

123 

119 

124 

131 

131 

128 

137 

130 

128 

126 

135 

213 

213 

215 

220 

188 

193 

196 

193 

186 

187 

188 

186 

0 

255 

258 

248 

30 

28 

25 

34 

36 

38 

32 

38 

34 

36 

33 

35 

101 

96 

102 

90 

106 

110 

112 

106 

93 

101 

91 

92 

31 

32 

28 

34 

57 

53 

46 

50 

49 

48 

50 

48 

0 

18 

18 

20 

1 

1 

0 

1 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

13 

12 

8 

9 

32 

28 

28 

28 

36 

37 

42 

31 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 

6 

5 

6 

2 

3 

3 

3 

0 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

6 

4 

4 

5 

8 

10 

11 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

133 

134 

129 

129 

147 

151 

150 

143 

186 

188 

200 

181 

203 

204 

206 

210 

163 

167 

169 

164 

180 

169 

177 

180 

183 

179 

187 

171 

186 

183 

182 

182 

179 

180 

182 

183 

0 

110 

108 

108 

23 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
3.3  Results for inland waterways 

IWW  play  a  significant  role  in  freight  transportation  in  Europe.  According  to  the 
TRANSTOOLS8  reference scenario, in 2005 approximately 293 million tons of freight was 
transported  among  the  EU  countries  (excluding  national  trade)  using  IWW,  an  amount 
slightly  smaller  to  the  amount  of  freight  transported  by  rail  and  to  the  one  third  of  the 
amount of freight transported by road.  

IWW  is  considered  to  be  a  very  reliable  mode,  but  can  be  more  vulnerable  to  climate 
change  than  road  or  rail  because  of  the  reliance  of  river  navigation  on  water  levels. 
Extreme weather  events affecting IWW include floods during which water levels exceed 
the  maximum  permitted  ones  and  droughts  due  to  which  water  levels  become  critically 
low imposing limitations to navigation services.  

Besides the water levels, the formation of ice can also be disruptive to the operation of 
IWW  especially  in  slow  flowing  rivers;  for  example  shipping  on  the  Danube  was 
interrupted  for  several  days  during  the  winters  of  2005  and  2006  due  to  ice  formation 
(Scholten and Rothstein, 2016). The case of ice is not examined in this report because of 
its  limited  effects  in  terms  of  duration  or  frequency,  which  are  expected  to  be  further 
reduced  due  to  the  projected  increase  of  temperatures  in  the  (mid-  and  long-term) 
future. 

Floods are considered to have less severe impacts on IWW transportation than droughts 
because  of  their  relatively  lower  duration  (Hendrickx  and  Breemersch,  2012;  Scholten 
and Rothstein, 2016; Jonkeren  et al., 2007). In addition, droughts can severely disrupt 
inland  navigation  services  by  reducing  water  levels  either  at  completely  non-navigable 
ones,  or  more  frequently  at  levels  at  which  operators  are  forced  to  reduce  the  vessels' 
load factors. 

Droughts  and  as  a  result  low  water  levels  may  disrupt  IWW  activity  by  imposing 
restrictions  to  the  amounts  of  loads  transported,  increasing  the  number  of  vessels  to 
compensate  reduced  load  factors  or  increasing  the  travel  time  when  vessels  stop  and 
wait for the water levels to rise again. Furthermore, a possible reaction of the market to 
disrupted navigation services might be shifting to more  resilient to climate change (but 
more  environmentally  harmful in  terms  of  carbon  emissions  per  tonne  of  cargo)  modes 
such as road. Jonkeren et al (2011) in a study focusing on the impacts of climate change 
on river Rhine found that the effect of low water levels on modal split is limited. In the 
same  study  it  was  estimated  that  the  majority  of  the  freight  lost  in  IWW  will  be 
transported by road transport (around 70%) with negative impacts on the environment 
(higher emissions) and further loading of an already congested road network.  

In the present study, the economic impacts of droughts will be quantified by focusing on 
the  impacts  of  change  of  transport  activity  in  terms  cargo  transported  or  better  cargo 
transportation  potential  of  a  given  fleet.  The  impacts  of  climate  change  on  IWW  will  be 
estimated by combining physical impacts with activity data on the IWW network.  

3.3.1  Assumptions 

For  the  estimation  of  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  inland  waterways  transport 
several  assumptions  and  simplifications  have  been  made.  The  most  important  are 
summarised in the following points: 

a)  The  impact  of  floods  on  the  inland  waterway  transport  system  are  not 
analysed  in  detail.  Floods  are  considerably  less  disruptive  than  droughts 
because of their relatively low duration and frequency. 

b)  Droughts  are  analysed  focusing  on  four  points  on  the  rivers  Danube  and 
Rhine  because  location  specific  factors  have  to  be  considered.  Taking  into 
account  that  a  substantial  proportion  of  the  total  EU  inland  waterways 

8 More information on the TRANSTOOLS model: http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/transtools/documentation.html 

24 

 
                                           
transport  activity  is  taking  place  on  these  rivers  and  passing  from  Ruhrort 
and  Kaub,  the  results  are  assumed  to  be  indicative  of  the  total  impacts  of 
climate change on inland waterways in the EU. 

c)  The  estimation  of  the  impacts  of  droughts  is  based  on  discharges.  The 
relations  between  water  levels  and  discharges  for  the  four  points  have  been 
determined  using  various  data  sources  and  they  are  assumed  to  remain 
unchanged over the projection period. 

d)  The  assessment  of  the  impact  of  droughts  on  transport  activity  is  based  on 
the  relationship  of  the  bearing  capacity  of  vessels  with  water  levels.  Key 
variable  is  the  level  of  discharges,  or  better,  the  distribution  of  the  time 
periods  according  to  discharge  levels.  Transport  activity  is  given  in  average 
annual day tonnes and is assumed to correspond to normal water levels. 
e)  The transport activity considered is the total activity on the links intersecting 
the points examined. Activity and its distribution to different types of vessels 
are assumed to remain unchanged over the projection period.  

f)  Transport costs per day have been determined by combining cost data (cost 
per tonne) for specific trips with average travel time estimates for these trips. 
The difference between the low and high values used is meant to serve as an 
indication  of  the  variation  of  prices  that  may  occur  for  different  reasons 
including  direction  of  trip  (upstream  or  downstream),  seasonality  etc.  The 
potential  impact  of  water  levels  on  cost  is  not  modelled  explicitly  and  costs 
are assumed to remain constant over time. 

3.3.2  Impacts of river floods on inland waterways 

During  severe  flooding  IWW  services  may  be  interrupted  but  even  with  more  frequent 
floods and longer flooding periods, floods shall be less disruptive than droughts because 
their effects last only for a relatively short period. 

For  this  purpose,  a  detailed  assessment  of  floods’  impacts  on  IWW  is  not  taken  place. 
However, in order to provide an indication of the magnitude of scale of potential impacts, 
the  parts  of  the  network  with  maximum  projected  water  level  difference  exceeding  the 
threshold  of  5m  during  a  100-year  and  10-year  flood  event  are  identified.  The  5m 
threshold is only meant to indicate the change of high water levels.  

To find the parts of the IWW network affected by floods, the inundation maps produced 
by  the  group  working  on  floods  (Alfieri  and  Feyen,  2016)  are  overlaid  with  the  inland 
water  navigation  network  (Figure  5).  According  to  the  model  estimates,  10-year,  20-
year,  50-year  and  100-year  return  periods  of  maximum  depths  are  identified.  Both  the 
TRANSTOOLS  and  the  GISCO  inland  waterways  networks  are  used  since  the 
TRANSTOOLS network is a generalised network that contains freight activity information 
and  GISCO  inland  waterways  represents  the  reality  comprehensively  with  respect  to 
spatial resolution. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Segments with depth difference higher than 5m between the 100-year and 10-year 
return period estimates indicating the difference of severity of the two events 

From  the  per  grid  comparison  of  the  maximum  depths  for  the  100-year  return  period 
and the 10-year return period, it is estimated that the difference of high water levels will 
exceed  5m  for  344.45  km  out  of  the  17419.30  km  of  the  navigable  network.  The 
relevant  segments  of  the  network  are  marked  in  red  in  Figure  5.  Moreover,  the 
frequency  of  floods  is  projected  to  increase  over  time;  more  specifically,  the  mean 
annual  exceedance  frequency  of  the  100year  return  period  peak  flow  is  projected  to 
increase by 176% in Europe by the end of the century while in certain countries such as 
the Netherlands the increase will be significantly higher (Alfieri et al, 2015a). 

3.3.3  Impacts of droughts on inland waterways 

Droughts  and  resulting  low  water  levels  can  seriously  affect  IWW.  Water  levels  are 
directly related to discharges and the riverbed morphology at a specific part of the river, 
which  means  that  the  relationship  between  water  levels  and  discharges  has  to  be 
location  specific.  The  morphology  of  the  riverbed  changes  over  time  and  as  a  result 
water  levels  are  difficult  to  compare  over  long  time-periods.  Hence,  discharges  are 
commonly used for relevant types of analysis instead of water levels (Nilson et al, 2012). 

As an example of the close relationship between water levels and discharges, in Figure 6 
the daily values of the two variables are drawn for four points on Danube for which both 
discharge and water level data are available. The data refer to 2010 and were obtained 
from BMLFUW (2012).  

26 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Relationship between discharges and water levels for four points on the Danube river 
(average daily values for 2010) 

In this study, daily discharge values have been obtained from the group working on the 
water  sector  of  PESETA  III  and  combined  with  empirical  data  on  water  levels  and 
discharges9  in order to identify critical discharge levels which are then used to estimate 
the impacts on transport activity and relevant costs for different scenarios. The relation 
between  water  levels  and  discharges  might  change  drastically  over  time  and  the  U.S. 
Geological Survey estimated for the Mississippi and Misouri rivers changes of the waters 
levels  corresponding  to  the  same  discharges  more  than  two  meters  during  the last  two 
centuries10  .  Very  detailed  data  are  required  to  estimate  these  changes  and  the 
relationship  between  water  levels  and  discharges  in  this  project  is  assumed  to  remain 
constant during the projection period. 

The  analysis  is  conducted  focusing  on  critical  points  on  the  Rhine  and  Danube  rivers 
which  account  for  a  large  part  of  the  total  activity  on  the  IWW  network.  Only  on  Rhine 
takes place around 70% of the total IWW transport activity of the former EU15 member 
states (Jonkeren, 2007). Four points have been selected in total based on a combination 
of criteria including their importance as freight nodes, the effect of low water levels and 
the availability of data. The selected points are the following: Wildungsmauer (Danube), 
Hofkirchen  (Danube),  Ruhrort  (Rhine)  and  Kaub  (Rhine)  and  their  position  is  shown  in 
Figure  7.  They  were  also  analysed  in  the  ECCONET  project  (Beuthe  et  al,  2014; 
Hendrickx and Breemersch, 2012) while Kaub is referred to as a key bottleneck of Rhine 
in several studies (Jonkeren et al, 2007; 2011; 2014; Beuthe et al, 2014). Jonkeren et al 
(2011) argue that they “have chosen Kaub as a reference point, because it is here that 
restrictions  related  to  low  water  levels  are  most  severe.  For  the  barge  trips  that  pass 
Kaub, the water level at Kaub is the critical point for the maximum possible load factor 
and thus also for the costs (or price) per tonne transported.” 

9 E.g. ELWIS, 2016; Scholten and Rothstein, 2016; https://www.pegelonline.wsv.de/gast/start 
10 https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/aquatic/jwlosinski_5001295.html 

27 

 
   
   
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 7.Selection of critical points on the rivers Danube and Rhine 

Low  water  levels  affect  IWW  transportation  by  reducing  the  navigability  of  vessels. 
Practically,  up  to  a  certain  level  of  water  the  maximum  draught  of  the  ship  cannot  be 
utilised  and  the  ship  has  to  be  operated  at  limited  capacity,  i.e.  the  cargo  that  can  be 
transported is reduced. As a result, more vessels have to be  operated or ships have to 
wait until water levels will rise or the total amount to be transported has to be reduced 
in absolute values. Although the positive relationship between cargo amounts and water 
levels  has  been  proven  using  detailed  data  for  specific  gauges,  the  number  of  ships 
seems to be weakly connected to water levels for both the Danube and the Rhine rivers 
(Scholten and Rothstein, 2016).  

Furthermore,  under  certain  demand  it  is  expected  that  prices  should  have  a  negative 
relationship with water levels. Jonkeren (2007) found that price per tonne may increase 
significantly during periods of low water levels especially for vessels passing from Kaub. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  results  in  Scholten  and  Rothstein  (2016)  are  less  clear.  In 
general, market prices are affected by various factors, including seasonal demand, mode 
competition, direction of the trip (the prices for upstream trips are higher than those for 
downstream  trips  as  fuel  consumption  is  higher),  the  closure  of  a  gauge  for  other 
reasons etc. The consideration of price differentiation according to water levels is beyond 
the scope of this study, especially taking into account the long term projections used and 
data restrictions.  

The  main  steps  taken  in  this  study  for  the  estimation  of  the  economic  impacts  of  low 
water levels are briefly the following:  

•  At  first,  discharge  data  are  used  to  calculate  the number  of  days  with  discharge 

values within location-specific thresholds.  

•  Then,  the  results  are  combined  with  data  on  IWW  freight  activity  and  indicators 
regarding the impact of water levels on the bearing capacity of different types of 
vessels to estimate the impact on the amounts of cargo transported.  

28 

 
 
 
•  Finally,  the  resulting  cost  or  benefit  is  estimated  by  combining  freight  activity 

with transport cost values and comparing with the reference period.  

These steps will be described in more detail in the following sections. 

Discharges 

For the estimation of the impacts of low water levels discharge data of the 5 model runs 
reported in Table 5 have been used. 

In  order  to  be  able  to  compare  between  the  different  scenarios  and  points  a  common 
indicator  is  calculated.  The  number  of  days  with  discharges  below  the  5th  percentile  of 
the  1981-2010  reference  period  is  calculated  for  each  of  the  four  periods  and  the  five 
model runs. The results are presented in Table 13.  

Table 13. Average annual number of days with discharges below the 5th percentile of the historic 
period (1981-2010) 

Locations on rivers  Run  1981-2010  2011-2040  2041-2070  2071-2099 

Ruhrort 

Kaub 

Wildungsmauer 

Hofkirchen 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

14 

14 

13 

12 

8 

11 

14 

12 

11 

6 

12 

5 

10 

11 

4 

10 

8 

9 

8 

3 

8 

20 

5 

23 

13 

4 

18 

4 

24 

9 

2 

5 

1 

13 

0 

4 

12 

1 

13 

0 

9 

41 

0 

27 

19 

6 

38 

0 

28 

14 

0 

8 

0 

13 

3 

0 

21 

0 

15 

5 

For  both  points  (Wildungsmauer  and  Hofkirchen)  on  Danube  and  all  the  scenarios  but 
one  for  Hofkirchen,  the  number  of  days  with  low  discharges  is  projected  to  become 
smaller.  For  the  locations  selected  on  Rhine,  for  two  runs  in  Kaub  and  three  runs  in 
Ruhrort,  the  number  of  days  with  low  discharges  is  projected  to  increase,  following  an 
initial  decline  and  two  consecutive  increases  over  the  projection  periods.  The  annual 
average number of days with discharges below the 5th percentile for the historic (1981-
2010) period is in line (18 days) with the number of days with discharges below the 95th 
percentile of the flow-duration curve as calculated in the ECCONET project (Nilson et al, 

29 

 
2012)  for  the  same  gauges  and  the  1961-1990  time  series.  In  the  ECCONET  project  a 
general trend of over time decline of the number of days with discharges undershooting 
the 95th percentile of the flow-duration curve was observed during the observed period 
(1950-2005) for both Rhine and Danube. 

Bearing capacity 

The  impacts  of  low  water  levels  on  transport  activity  and  as  a  result  on  the 
corresponding costs depend on the draught of the vessel and the gauge of the  channel 
or river. Before the complete seizure of transport activity, as water levels become lower, 
vessels operate at reduced capacity in order to reduce their draught.  

The thresholds of water levels and discharges depend on the characteristics of the river 
or channel at a specific point and vary significantly. As a general indication, according to 
Middelkoop et al (2001) when the Rhine discharge is below 1000 to 1200 m3/s ships on 
the  route  from  Rotterdam  to  Basel  via  Germany  have  to  reduce  their  loads,  while  for 
Vienna  the  total  regulated  low  water  level  is  900  m3/s  (values  from  www.viadonau.org 
reported in NEWADA (2010)). 

The  technical  characteristics,  including  draught  and  loading  capacity,  of  the  vessels 
operating on the inland waterway network are specified in UNECE (1996).  

Table  14  presents  the  bearing  capacity  (as  proportion)  of  different  types  of  vessels  at 
given  water  levels.  It  has  been  constructed  based  on  relevant  information  provided  in 
Scholten  and  Rothstein  (2016)  that  has  been  adapted  to  correspond  to  the  CEMT 
classification of inland waterways in order to be compatible with the freight activity data. 

Table 14. Bearing capacity of different ship types at different water levels (taken from Scholten 
and Rothstein (2016) and adjusted) 

Gauge (m) 

CEMT 2 

CEMT 3 

CEMT 4 

CEMT 5 

CEMT 6 

3.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

1 

1 

0.95 

0.5 

1 

1 

1 

0.95 

0.45 

1 

1 

1 

0.95 

0.4 

1 

1 

1 

0.8 

0.3 

1 

0.8 

0.65 

0.5 

0.2 

Table 14 is combined with the transport activity data to estimate the total capacity to be 
carried through a point at given water levels. However, as discharges are used instead of 
water levels, the discharges corresponding to the water levels in Table 14 for the specific 
points on Rhine and Danube have been estimated using data from various sources11. 

11 Data sources considered include the following: ELWIS, 2016; Scholten and Rothstein, 
2016;  Bolle 
https://www.pegelonline.wsv.de/gast/start; 
http://undine.bafg.de/servlet/is/8606/ 

and  Schwab, 

1980; 

30 

 
 
 
                                           
Using the discharge levels corresponding to the water levels of Table 14, the distribution 
of the number of days of each of the four time periods (the historic plus the three future 
periods) to the six following groups is calculated: 

•  Q0: number of days with discharges corresponding to gauge below 1.5m 
•  Q1:  number  of  days  with  discharges  corresponding  to  gauge  between  1.5m  and 

2m 

•  Q2:  number  of  days  with  discharges  corresponding  to  gauge  between  2m  and 

2.5m 

•  Q3:  number  of  days  with  discharges  corresponding  to  gauge  between  2.5m  and 

3m 

•  Q4:  number  of  days  with  discharges  corresponding  to  gauge  between  3m  and 

3.5m 

•  Q5: number of days with discharges corresponding to gauge higher than 3.5m 

In  Figures  8,  9,  10  and  11  the  distribution  for  the  four  points  for  each  of  the  five  runs 
(Table 5) is presented. Besides the variation between the different runs, it is interesting 
to  observe  for  certain  runs  an  over-time  trend  towards  decreasing  the  number  of  days 
with lower  water  levels  and  increasing  the  number  of  days  with  higher  water  levels.  In 
these cases, the IWW network is projected to operate with fewer disruptions due to low 
water levels in the specific locations. 

31 

 
 
 
Figure 8. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water levels for 
Ruhrort 

Figure 9. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water levels for 
Kaub 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water levels for 
Wildungsmauer 

Figure 11. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water levels for 
Hofkirchen 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
Freight activity 

For the estimation of the economic impacts of low water levels, transport activity figures 
of  the  TNET  model  (Ibañez  et  al,  2016)  for  2015  are  used  (Figure  12).  Only  freight 
transport is considered and the demand is based on the ASTRA-EC (ASSIST, 2014; TRT, 
2003) projections. Transport activity is expressed in average year day tonnes carried by 
each type of vessel. Following the assignment of demand on the IWW network, transport 
flows  for  each  link  are  estimated.  The  activity  on  the  four  points  of  interest  (Ruhrort, 
Kaub, Wildungsmauer and Hofkirchen) is calculated by considering the flows (in terms of 
tonnes) on the links intersecting these points.  

Figure 12. Transport activity by vessel type at the four points in Rhine and Danube 

Economic valuation 

Finally, the monetary costs or benefits are calculated by combining current activity data 
with  bearing  capacity  restrictions  and  transportation  cost.  It  is  assumed  that  the  TNET 
activity data refer to water levels that allow vessels to operate at full capacity. 

To  define  the  range  of  unit  transport  costs,  data  from  various  sources  have  been 
considered  including  Scholten  and  Rothstein  (2016)  and  Bruinsma  et  al  (2012).  The 
range aims to capture price variation that may be attributed to various reasons including 
season, direction of trip (upstream-downstream), data etc. 

Regarding the Rhine market, according to the ECCONET project (Bruinsma et al, 2012), 
transport  cost  varies  from  3.5€/t  to  7.5€/t  for  the  Rotterdam-Duisburg  trip  and  from 
9€/t  to  20€/t  for  the  Rotterdam-Basel  trip.  According to  Scholten  and  Rothstein  (2016) 
the price range for trips from and to the ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp is 
from 15€/t to 25€/t for Danube and from 5€/t to 12€/t for Rhine. 

Transport  cost  values  for  specific  trips  on  Danube  and  Rhine  have  been  combined  with 
the  corresponding  average  travel  time  obtained  from  TNET  (Ibañez  et  al,  2016)  to 
calculate transport cost per tonne per day. Finally, the daily transport cost values applied 
to estimate the economic impacts are 4€/tonne/day (low) and 8€/tonne/day (high).  

In Figure 13 the annual average costs or benefits for each projected future period (2011-
2040, 2041-2070, 2071-2099) in comparison to the historic period (1981-2010) and for 
each run (Table 5) are presented. The values in Figure 13 refer to the average value of 

34 

 
 
the  cost  range  used.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Table  15  the  range  of  the  average  annual 
cost or benefit considering the lower and upper transport cost values are presented.  

For the majority of the cases (selected model runs and locations) a benefit is estimated 
as a result of the reduction of low water days. In the last period, a cost is estimated only 
for Ruhrort for three out of the five model runs and for Kaub for one  model run. As an 
indication  of  the  scale  of  magnitude,  Jonkeren  (2007)  estimate  the  annual  welfare  loss 
due to low water levels for Kaub to €28 million while in 2003 the loss was estimated to 
be €91 million and in 1991 €79 million. 

From the two points on Rhine, where freight activity by inland waterways is significantly 
higher  than  in  Danube,  the  impacts  are  proportionally  higher  in  Kaub,  which  is 
considered  to  be  a  key  bottleneck  on  Rhine  and  seems  to  be  benefiting  from  the 
projected discharges.  

Figure 13. Average annual cost or benefit of low water levels (in comparison to the reference 
period) 

35 

 
 
 
Table 15. Range of average annual cost or benefit (in million €) of low water levels in comparison with the reference period 

Point 

Run 

Ruhrort 

Kaub 

Wildungsmauer 

Hofkirschen 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

2011-2040 

2041-2070 

2071-2099 

Low 

7.24 

9.28 

17.80 

13.46 

12.65 

9.09 

13.03 

43.30 

26.55 

-4.27 

0.89 

2.43 

2.81 

2.46 

1.77 

0.98 

2.17 

3.52 

3.11 

1.67 

High 

14.49 

18.56 

35.60 

26.91 

25.31 

18.18 

26.06 

86.61 

53.09 

-8.54 

1.78 

4.86 

5.63 

4.92 

3.54 

1.97 

4.34 

7.05 

6.22 

3.33 

Low 

15.49 

-2.55 

39.40 

High 

30.99 

-5.10 

78.80 

-15.52 

-31.05 

24.66 

49.89 

22.30 

185.16 

26.04 

23.48 

7.89 

7.56 

16.95 

5.13 

8.41 

5.22 

4.31 

17.48 

4.52 

8.05 

12.33 

24.95 

11.15 

92.58 

13.02 

11.74 

3.94 

3.78 

8.47 

2.57 

4.21 

2.61 

2.16 

8.74 

2.26 

4.02 

36 

Low 

14.59 

-44.70 

52.07 

-29.86 

-9.16 

29.56 

-17.71 

116.07 

9.57 

11.32 

4.45 

1.53 

10.99 

2.44 

2.93 

3.00 

0.05 

10.82 

1.61 

2.43 

High 

29.17 

-89.40 

104.13 

-59.71 

-18.32 

59.12 

-35.42 

232.15 

19.13 

22.63 

8.91 

3.07 

21.97 

4.89 

5.86 

6.00 

0.09 

21.65 

3.22 

4.87 

 
3.4  Adaptation  

The  impact  of  climate  change  on  airport,  seaport  and  inland  waterways  operations 
depends  on  local  conditions  and  the  design  of  infrastructure.  Hence,  before  proposing 
specific  adaptation  measures  it  is  necessary  to  carry  out  vulnerability  analysis  and  risk 
assessment.  Adaptation  measures  to  climate  change  impacts  should  be  incorporated  in 
technical  regulations  regarding  design  modification  or  rehabilitation  of  infrastructure. 
Parameters  to  be  considered  for  the  determination  of  adaptation  measures  refer  to 
characteristics  of  climate  change  related  events  and  include  spatial  extent,  intensity, 
severity,  frequency,  predictability,  duration  and  rate  of  occurrence  (gradual  to  sudden) 
(Schneider  et  al.,  2001).  A  selection  of  general  adaptation  measures  for  airports  and 
seaports is presented in Table 16. 

Table 16. Adaptation Strategies (adapted from NOAA, 2015) 

Climate 
Change 
Stressor 

Transport 
Mode 

Action Example 

Protect infrastructure with dikes and levees (Steward et al, 
2011) 

Elevate critical infrastructure (Schwarz, 2011) 

Airport 

Repairs, replacement and redesign (Peterson et al, 2008) 
(Steward et al., 2008) 

Abandon or move coastal transportation system (Schwarz 
2011) 

Incorporate climate change into future transportation 
planning (Peterson et al 2008) 

Same as airports 

Sea Level Rise 
Storm Surge 

Seaport 

Construction of storm retention basins (Schwarz, 2011) 

Changes of infrastructure design, change in material 
specifications, protective strategies for critical components 
(Meyer, 2008) 

Floods 

Airport 

Stringent design for flooding and for building in saturated 
soils (Meyer, 2008) 

Wind gust 

Airport 

Incorporate potential of climate change into existing 
systems of planning for irregular operations (Steward et 
al, 2011) 

Incorporate relevant information into asset management 
and maintenance (Steward et al, 2011) 

Change design factors to incorporate more turbulent wind 
conditions (Meyer, 2000) 

Hardening facilities for higher wind loads (Steward et al, 
2011; Klin et al., 2011) 

For the estimation of the impacts of climate change on IWW it was decided to focus on a 
selection  of  points  of  the  IWW  network.  Due  to  the  nature  of  this  mode’s  network,  the 
location specific characteristics that define the gauge or discharge levels have to be taken 
into account in order to evaluate the impact of projected discharges. The results for the 
selected points show that for the two points on Danube the number of low water days is 
projected  to  decrease;  a  similar  trend  is  projected  for  Kaub  on  Rhine  according  to  the 
majority  of  the  selected  model  runs  and  for  Ruhrort  according  to  two  out  of  the  five 

37 

 
model  runs  that  have  been  considered.  The  location  specific  nature  of  the  relationship 
between discharges and water levels does not allow to generalise the total outcome and 
the  variation  of  the  projections  of  the  model  runs  indicates  that  the  risks  of  droughts 
should not be ignored.  

The issue of adaptation of IWW is covered by reviewing relevant literature, the results of 
relevant  projects  such  as  ECCONET,  EWENT,  WEATHER  and  the  reports  produced  by 
local, national or international organisations (AGN-UNECE, www.viadonau.org etc.). 

ECCONET  has  identified  main  adaptation  measures  and  together  with  stakeholders 
evaluated  them  in  terms  of  feasibility  (Ubbels  et  al,  2011;  2012).  The  following  is  a 
summary of adaptation measures: 

•  Development of lightweight structures, small vessels and vessels with flat hulls in 
order to increase the bearing capacity of vessels when water levels become lower. 
Install  adjustable  tunnels  and  blisters  to  enhance  the  navigability  of  the  vessel 
under different (e.g. low water) conditions. 

• 

•  Continuous instead daytime only operation especially of small vessels to increase 

the total operating hours. 

•  Use coupled convoys to increase volumes transported. 
•  Strategic alliances between IWW and other modes to improve the seamlessness of 

the supply chain during low water days. 

•  Take  maintenance  measures  and  improve  river  engineering  to  improve  the 

• 

navigability on the river under different water level conditions. 
Improve  prediction  methods  of  low  water  levels  to  improve  the  planning  of 
shipments. 

The  cost  effectiveness  of  adaptation  measures  is  assessed  in  Breemersch  et  al  (2012) 
and Holtman et al (2012). Breemersch et al (2012) conclude that the weight reduction of 
bigger  ships  is  the  most  cost-effective  solution.  However,  bigger  ships  have  probably 
already reduced weight up to the marginal cost. Weight reduction for smaller ships is not 
so attractive due to the small margin of gain and relatively high cost. Installation of flat 
hulls  can  be  promising but is  costly  while  even  the  most  interesting  technical  measures 
such  as  retractable  aprons  have  relatively  high  cost  which  makes  them  unappealing 
under the projected changes of dry periods. Regarding operational measures Holtman et 
al  (2012)  conclude  that  the  continuous  operation  of  smaller  ships  increases  transport 
costs  but  the  operation  of  smaller  ships  in  coupled  convoys  can  be  very  effective.  For 
more  details  on  the  assessment  of  the  adaptation  measures  refer  to  the  ECCONET 
project12, Breemersch et al (2012) and Holtman et al (2012). 

12 https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm 

38 

 
                                           
4  Conclusions 

The  impacts  of  climate  change  on  airports,  seaports  and  IWW  in  Europe  have  been 
examined.  For  the  cases  of  airports  and  seaports,  it  has  been  possible  to  identify 
infrastructure  at  risk  and  provide  indicative  costs  while  for  IWW  the  impacts  of  climate 
change at critical points are assessed.  

According  to  the  results,  various  European  airports  located  relatively  close  to  the  coast 
are  projected  to  be  exposed  to  higher  sea  water  levels  and  face  an  increase  of  storm 
surge heights by the end of the century. Airports to be mainly affected by the end of the 
century  are  located  in  Norway,  Germany,  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland,  among  others. 
Eight of those airports are projected to be exposed to inundation levels higher than 3m. 
Furthermore,  inland  airports  could  be  affected  by  river  floods  and  the  most  severe 
impacts are projected to take place in regions near the North Sea coastline.  

Regarding seaports, more severe impacts are projected for northern Europe, where also 
the  biggest  cargo  seaports  of  Europe  are  located.  According  to  the  results  852  ports  in 
the EU face the risk of  inundation by the end of the century, while the number  of ports 
that face the risk to be exposed to water levels higher than 3 m will double from 2030 to 
2080. 

For  inland  waterways,  the  focus  has  been  on  specific  locations  of  Rhine  and  Danube 
where  the  majority  of  freight  activity  in  the  EU  takes  place.  For  most  of  the  cases 
considered  a  reduction  of  low  water  days  is  projected;  according  to  this,  the  inland 
waterway transport system could operate with less drought-related disruptions. 

The estimation of the impacts of climate change on transport requires relatively detailed 
data  for  both  the  identification  of  infrastructure  at  risk  and  the  quantification  of 
disruptions  or  damages.  However,  besides  the  general  difficulty  to  provide  climate 
projections  at  spatially  disaggregate  level,  it  is  also  very  difficult  to  provide  reliable 
projections for elements that can significantly affect transport such as wind. The need for 
detailed data makes the assessment of the impacts of climate change on transport for a 
large area such as Europe particularly challenging. In this respect, the limitations of this 
study were largely set by the data obtained. 

The  results  of  the  analysis  indicate  at  first  the  sectors  at  risk  and  the  magnitude  of 
damage  to  be  attributed  to  different  impacts.  Furthermore,  the  most  vulnerable  areas 
and sites are identified indicating those spots that need to be closer examined.  

Further analysis is required to quantify the impacts in detail and follow up projects should 
focus  on  mapping  in  detail  Europe’s  critical  infrastructure  at  risk  from  climate  change, 
and  estimating  relevant  costs.  More  detailed  analysis  would  require  information  on  the 
frequency  and  duration  of  the  weather  events  considered.  Furthermore,  the  qualitative 
characteristics  of  infrastructure  of  major  seaports  and  airports  need  to  be  taken  into 
account.  Infrastructure  at  risk  should  be  examined  case  by  case  in  order  to  take  into 
consideration particularities of the area, resilience of infrastructure and of course details 
regarding transport activity and economic importance. Studies focusing on specific cases 
and  pilot  projects  could  indicate  important  factors  (e.g.  of  success)  and  highlight  the 
main  characteristics  of  a  general  methodology  for  analysing  the  impacts  of  climate 
change on certain transport sectors. 

39 

 
References 

ACRP  (Airport  Cooperative  Research  Program),  2012.  Airport  Climate  Adaptation  and 
Resilience, Synthesis 33: Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience reviews the range of 
risks  to  airports  from  projected  climate  change  and  the  emerging  approaches  for 
handling them. TRB. DOI: 10.17226/22773 

Airoldi,  L.,  Abbiati,  M.,  Beck,  M.,  Hawkins,  S.,  Jonsson,  P.R.,  Martin,  D.,  Moschella,  P., 
Sundelöf,  A.,  Thompson,  R.  and  Aberg,  P.  2005.  An  ecological  perspective  on  the 
deployment and design of low-crested and other hard coastal defence structures. Coastal 
Engineering, 52, 10, 1073-1087 

Alfieri,  L.,  Salamon,  P.,  Bianchi,  A.,  Neal,  J.,  Bates,  P.  and  Feyen,  L.  2013.  Advances  in 
pan-European  flood  hazard  mapping,  Hydrological  Processes,  28,  4067-4077,  DOI: 
10.1002/hyp.9947 

Alfieri,  L.,  Burek,  P.,  Feyen,  L.  and  Forzieri  G.  2015a.  Global  warming  increases  the 
frequency  of  river  floods  in  Europe.  Hydrology  and  Earth  System  Sciences,  19,  2247–
2260 

Alfieri, L., Feyen, L. Dottori, F. and Bianchi, A. 2015b. Ensemble flood risk assessment in 
Europe under high end climate scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 35, 199–212 

Alfieri,  L.  and  Feyen,  L.  2016,  Flood  impact  assessment  for  Europe  in  view  of  climate 
AA 
DG 
change. 
№340202/2015/721213/SER/CLIMA.C.3  –  JRC  34181-2015  NFP  "Climate  Impacts  and 
Adaptation in Europe, focusing on Extremes, Adaptation and the 2030s (PESETA3) 

Deliverable 

Interim 

CLIMA, 

report 

7a, 

for 

Ang-Olson, J. 2009, What Does Climate Change Mean for Airport Planning? Presentation 
to Transportation Research Board 

ASCE  (American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers),  2005.  Minimum  Design  Loads  for  Buildings 
and Other Structures – ASCE 

ASCE  (American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers),  2006.  Flood  Resistant  Design  and 
Construction (24-05) 

ASSIST,  2014.  The  ASTRA-EC  model  user  guide.  Project  co-funded  by  European 
Commission 7th RTD Programme. Fraunhofer-ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany. 

Baglin,  C.  2012.  Airport  climate  adaptation  and  resilience.  National  Research  Council 
(U.S.),  Transportation  Research  Board,  Airport  Cooperative  Research  Program,  United 
States,  &  Federal  Aviation  Administration.  Washington,  D.C.:  Transportation  Research 
Board. 

Barredo,  J.  I.,  de  Roo,  A.  and  Lavalle,  C.  2007.  Flood  risk  mapping  at  European  scale, 
Water Sci. Technol., 56, 11–17, DOI:10.2166/wst.2007.531 

Becker,  A.,  Inoue,  S.,  Fischer,  M.  and  Schwegler,  B.  2011.  Climate  change  impacts  on 
international  seaports:  knowledge,  perceptions,  and  planning  efforts  among  port 
administrators. Climatic Change, 110, 1-2, 5–29. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0043-7 

Becker,  A.,  Acciaro,  M.,  Asariotis,  R.,  Carera,  E.,  Cretegny,  L.,  Crist,  P.,  Esteban,  M., 
Mather,  A.,  Messner,  S.,  Naruse,  S.,  Ng,  A.K.Y.,  Rahmstorf,  S.,  Savonis,  M.,  Song,  D., 
Stenek, V. and Velegrakis, A.F. 2013. A Note on Climate change adaptation for seaports: 
A challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society, Climatic Change 120, 4, 683-
695. Available: htp://www.dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0843-z 

Beniston,  M.,  Stephenson,  D.B.,  Christensen,  O.B.,  Ferro,  C.,  Frei,  C.  Goyette,  S., 
Halsnaes, K., Holt, T., Jylhä, K., Koffi, B., Palutikof, J., Schöll, R., Semmler, T., Melillo, J. 
M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe (eds.) 2014. Climate Change Impacts in 
the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, USGCRP, United States Global 
Change Research Program. 841 pp 

40 

 
Beuthe,  M.,  Jourquin,B.,  Urbain,N.,  Lingemann,I.,  Ubbels,B.  2014,  Climate  change 
impacts  on  transport  on  the  Rhine  and  Danube:  A  multimodal  approach.  Transportation 
Research Part D, 27,6–11 

BMLFUW,  2012.  Hydrographisches  Jahrbuch  von  Österreich  2010,  ed.  Hydrographischer 
Dienst, Bundesministerium fuer Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, 
Wien 

Bolle,  A.  and  Schwab,  R.,  1980,  Jahrbuch  der  Hafenbautechnischen  Gesellschaft, 
Siebenunddreissiger Band 1979/80, Springer, ISBN-13:978-3-642-81463-1 

Breemersch,  T.,  Heyndrickx,  C.,  Bruinsma,  F.,  Rietveld,  P.,  2012.  Cost  Effectiveness  of 
IWT, Deliverable 4.2 of ECCONET project. Report prepared for the European Commission, 
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport.  
Available: https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017) 

Bruinsma,  F.,  Koster,  P.,  Holtmann,  B.,  van  Heumen,  E.,  Beuthe,  M.,  Urbain,  N., 
Jourquin, B., Ubbels, B., Quispel, M., 2012. Consequences  of Climate Change for  Inland 
Waterway  Transport,  Deliverable  3.3  of  ECCONET  project.  Report  prepared  for  the 
European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Energy  and  Transport.  Available: 
https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017) 

Bucchignani,  E.  &  J.M.m  Gutierrez,  2015.  Definition  of  different  EWI’s,  to  support  the 
management  of  European  CI.  INTACT  Deliverable  D2.1,  project  co-funded  by  the 
European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme. 

Curtis,  S.  (ed)  2007.  Hurricane  Katrina  Damage  Assessment:  Louisiana,  Alabama,  and 
Mississippi. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Doll, C., Klug, S., Köhler, J., Partzsch, I., Enei, R., Pelikan, V., Sedlacek, N., Maurer, H., 
Rudzikaite,  L.,  Papanikolaou,  A.  and  Mitsakis,  V.  2011.  Adaptation  Strategies  in  the 
Transport  Sector.  Deliverable  4  of  the  research  project  WEATHER  (Weather  Extremes: 
Impacts on Transport Systems and Hazards for European Regions) funded under the 7th 
framework  program  of  the  European  Commission.  Project  coordinator:  Fraunhofer  ISI, 
Karlsruhe, 30.9.2010.  

Dosio,  A.,  and  Paruolo,  P.,  2011.  Bias  correction  of  the  ENSEMBLES  high-resolution 
climate change projections for use by impact models: Evaluation on the present climate. 
Journal of Geophysical Research D: Atmospheres, 116, 16, DOI: 10.1029/2011JD015934 

Dosio,  A.,  Paruolo,  P.,  and  Rojas,  R.  2012.  Bias  correction  of  the  ENSEMBLES  high 
resolution  climate  change  projections  for  use  by  impact  models:  Analysis  of  the  climate 
change  signal.  Journal  of  Geophysical  Research  D:  Atmospheres,  117,  17, 
DOI:10.1029/2012JD017968 

ELWIS,  2016.  Elektronischer  Wasserstraßen  – 
https://www.elwis.de/Aktuelles/index.html.  

Informationsservice,  Available: 

EUCC-D, 2013, Coastal & Marine, Coastal Climate Change, Ports and renewable energies: 
impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation, Volume 22, No:1. 

EUROCONTROL,  2008.  Performance  Review  Report  2007:  An  Assessment  of  Air  Traffic 
Management  in  Europe  during  the  Calendar  Year  2007,  EUROCONTROL  Performance 
Review Commission, Brussels 

EUROCONTROL,  2013.  Challenges  of  Growth  2013,  Task  8:  Climate  Change  Risk  and 
Resilience, STATFOR, EUROCONTROL, Brussels 

Eurostat, 2017. Maritime ports freight and passenger statistics, Available:  
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Maritime_ports_freight_and_passenger_statistics 

FEMA  (Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency),  2011a.  Coastal  Construction  Manual. 
Principles  and  Practices  of  Planning,  Siting,  Designing,  Constructing,  and  Maintaining 

41 

 
Residential 
http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3293?id=1671 

Buildings 

(Fourth 

Coastal 

Areas 

in 

Edition). 

Available: 

FEMA  (Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency)  2011b.  Highlights  of  ASCE  24-05. 
Available: http://www.floods.org/PDF/ASCE24_Highlights_1008.pdf 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2011. Impact of Design Features  on Pavement 
Response  and  Performance  in  Rehabilitated  Flexible  and  Rigid  Pavements.  Available: 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/10066/10
066.pdf. 

Fowler, H. J. , Ekstrom, M., Blenkinsop, S. and Smith, A. P. 2007. Estimating change in 
extreme  European  precipitation  using  a  multimodel  ensemble,  Journal  of  Geophysical 
Research, 112, D18104. DOI:10.1029/2007JD008619 

Frei,  C.,  Scho,  R.,  Fukutome,  S.,  Schmidli,  J.  and  Vidale,P.  2006.  Future  change  of 
precipitation  extremes  in  Europe:  Intercomparison  of  scenarios  from  regional  climate 
models, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D06105. DOI: 10.1029/2005JD005965 

Hendrickx,C.,  Breemersch,T.,  2012.  The  effect  of  climate  change  on  inland  waterway 
transport.  Transport  Research  Areana-Europe  2012,  Procedia  –  Social  and  Behavioral 
Sciences 48, 1837 – 1847. 

Hippe,  A.,  Becker,  A.,  Fischer,  M.,  Schwegler,  B.,  2015.  Estimation  of  Cost  Required  to 
Elevate US Ports in Response to Climate Change: A Thought Exercise for Climate Critical 
Resources, CIFE Working Paper #WP138, December 

Holtmann, B., van Heumen, E., Beuthe, M., Urbain, N., Jourquin, B., Ubbels, B., Quispel, 
M.,  Bruinsma,  F.,  Koster,  P.,  2012.  Evaluation  Of  Adaptation  Measures:  Nodus  Model 
Results And Detailed Cost Analyses, Deliverable 3.4 of ECCONET project. Report prepared 
for  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Energy  and  Transport.  Available 
here: https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017) 

Ibañez-Rivas,  N.,  Christodoulou,  A.,  Valeri,  E.  (in  press).  TNET  platform:  an  integrated 
transport modelling framework incorporating multimodal networks. JRC Science for Policy 
report. JRC100591 

ICF  (ICF  International),  2008.  Potential  Impacts  of  Global  Sea  Level  Rise  on 
Transportation  Infrastructure;  prepared  by  ICF  International  for  U.S.  DOT  Center  for 
Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. 

IPCC  (Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change),  2012.  Special  report  on  managing 
the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX), 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K 

Jonkeren,  O.,  Rietveld,  P.  and  van  Ommeren,  J.,  2007.  Climate  Change  and  Inland 
Waterway Transport - Welfare Effects of Low Water Levels on the river Rhine, Journal of 
Transport Economics and Policy, 41, 3, 387–411 

Jonkeren,  O., Jourquin, B. and Rietveld, P., 2011. Modal-split effects of climate change: 
The effect of low water levels on the competitive position of inland waterway transport in 
the river Rhine area, Transportation Research Part A, 45, 1007–1019 

Jonkeren,  O.,  Rietveld,  P.  and  van  Ommeren,  J.,  2014.  Climate  change  and  economic 
consequences for inland waterway transport in Europe, Regional Environmental Change, 
14, 953–965, DOI: 10.1007/s10113-013-0441-7 

Klin,  T.P.,  Putnam,  J.E.,  Stewart,  B.  and  Vigilante,  M.I.,  2011.  Climate  Change  and 
Adaptation,  in  Adapting  transportation  to  the  impacts  of  climate  change,  transportation 
research  circular,  E-C152.  Transportation  Research  Board  of  National  Academies, 
Washington D.C. June. 

Koetse,  M.J  and  Rietveld,  P.  2009.  The  impact  of  climate  change  and  weather  on 
transport:  An  overview  of  empirical  findings.  Transportation  Research  Part  D,  14,  205-
221. 

42 

 
Ludvigsen,  J.,  Klæboe,  R.,  Nokkala,  M.,  Hietajärvi,  A.-M.,  Leviäkangas,  P.,  Oiva,  K., 
Athanasatos,  S.,  Michaelides,  S.  and  Papadakis,  M.  2012.  Costs  and  consequences  of 
extreme weather on European freight and logistics industries and supply chains. EWENT 
project working memo D4.4. Available: www.ewent.vtt.fi. 

Makkonen,  L.,  Ruokolainen,  L.,  Räisänen,  J.  and  Tikanmäki,  M,  2007.  Regional  Climate 
Model Estimates for Changes in Nordic Extreme Events, Geophysica, 43, 1–2, 25–48 

Meyer,  M.D.,  2008.  Design  Standards  for  U.S.  Transportation  Infrastructure:  The 
Implications  of  Climate  Change,  prepared  in  support  of  Potential  Impacts  of  Climate 
Change on US Transportation, Special Report 290, for the Transportation Research Board 
of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 

Daamen,K., 

Middelkoop,H., 
Lang,H., 
Parmet,B.W.A.H.,  Schädler,B.,  Schulla,J.,  Wilke,K.  2001.  Impact  of  climate  change  on 
hydrological  regimes  and  water  resources  management  in  the  Rhine  basin.  Climate 
Change, 49, 1-2, 105-128 

Kwadijk,J.C.J., 

Gellens,D., 

Grabs,W., 

Nadal, N., R. Zapata, I. Pagan, R. Lopez and J. Agudelo, 2010. Building Damage due to 
Riverine and Coastal Floods. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 136, 
3, 327-336. ASCE. May/June 2010. 

Nemry, F, Demirel, H., 2012, Impacts of Climate Change on Transport: A focus on road 
and  rail  transport  infrastructures,  JRC  Scientific  and  Policy  Reports,  ISBN  978-92-79-
27037-6 (pdf) 

NEWADA 2010. Available here: 
http://www.rsoe.hu/projectfiles/newadaOther/output/wp4/staus_quo_reports_on_water
way_maintenance/Newada_4-1_SQR_waterway_maintenance_v10_vi 
December, 2016) 

(retrieved 

on 

Nicholls,  R.J.,  Hanson,  S.,  Herweijer,  C.,  Patmore,  N.,  Hallegatte,  S.,  Morlot,  J.C., 
Chteau,  J.,  Wood,  R.  2008.  Ranking  Port  Cities  with  High  Exposure  and  Vulnerability  to 
Climate  Extremes:  Exposure  Estimates,  OECD  Environment  working  papers,  pg.1-62, 
0.1787/011766488208 

Nicholls,  R.J.,Brown,  S.,  Hanson,  S.  and  Hinkel,  J.,  2010.  Economics  of  coastal  zone 
adaptation  to  climate  change,  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development  / 
World Bank 48pp. , Washington, US(World Bank Discussion Papers,10). 

Nikulin, G., Kjellström, E., Hansson, U., Strandberg, G. and Ullerstig A. 2011. Evaluation 
and Future Projections of Temperature, Precipitation and Wind - Extremes over Europe in 
an  Ensemble  of  Regional  Climate  Simulations.  Rossby  Centre,  Swedish  Meteorological 
and Hydrological Institute, Sweden. Tellus, 63A, 41–55.  

Nilson,  E.,  Lingemann,  I.,  Klein,  B.,  Krahe,  P.  2012.  Impact  of  Hydrological  Change  On 
Navigation  Conditions,  Deliverable  1.4  of  ECCONET  project.  Report  prepared  for  the 
European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Energy  and  Transport.  Available  here: 
https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017) 

Nokkala,  M.,  Leviakangas,  P.,  Oiva,  K.,  2012.  The  costs  of  extreme  weather  for  the 
European transport systems EWENT project D4, ISBN 978-951-38-7853-5, Available: 
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2012/T36.pdf  

NOAA, 2015. US Climate Resilience Toolkit. Available: 
https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/transportation-climate-change-sensitivity-matrix 

NOAA, 2017. Term definitions. Available here: https://graphical.weather.gov/ 

NOAA  and  San  Francisco  BCDC  (San  Francisco  Bay  Conservation  and  Development 
Commission) 2013. Oakland International Airport Vulnerability and Risk Profile. Adapting 
http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/wp-
to 
content/uploads/2013/03/AirportProfileSheet_20130326.pdf. 

Available: 

Rising 

Tides. 

43 

 
NRC  (National  Research  Council)  2008.  Transportation  Research  Board  Special  Report 
290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. Available:  
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf. 

OFCM  (Office  of  the  Federal  Coordinator  for  Meteorological  Services  and  Supporting 
Research)  2002.  Weather  Information  for  Surface  Transportation:  National  Needs 
Assessment  Report  (No.  FCM-R18-2002).  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce  /  National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Pejovic,  T.,  Williams,  V.A.  Noland,  R.B.  and  Toumi,  R.  2009.  Factors  Affecting  the 
Frequency  and  Severity  of  Airport  Weather  Delays  and  the  Implications  of  Climate 
Change for Future Delays. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation 
Research Board, 2139, 97-106. DOI:10.3141/2139-12. 

Peterson,  T.C.,  McGuirk,  M.,  Houston,  T.G.,  Horvitz,  A.H.  and  Wehner,  M.F.  2008. 
Climate  variability  and  change  with 
for  transportation.  90  pages. 
Transportation Research Board.  
Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290_variability.pdf. 

implications 

Powell, M.D. and Reinhold, T.A. 2007. Tropical cyclone destructive potential by integrated 
kinetic energy. American Meteorological Society. Available: 
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Powell/BAMS_IKE_Paper_final.pdf 

Rockel, B., Woth, K., 2007. Extremes of near-surface wind speed over Europe and their 
future  changes  as  estimated  from  an  ensemble  of  RCM  simulations,  Climatic  Change, 
81:267–280, DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9227-y 

Schade W, Doll C, Maibach M, Peter M, Crespo F, Carvalho D, Caiado G, Conti M, Lilico A, 
Afraz N. 2006. COMPETE Final Report: Analysis of the contribution of transport policies to 
the competitiveness of the EU economy and comparison with the United States. Funded 
by European Commission – DG TREN. Karlsruhe, Germany 

Schade  W.,  Senger,  F.,  Rothengatter,  W.,  Rühle,  O.,  Brouwer,  I  2013.  TEN-T  Large 
projects, Investments and costs, Report, Available: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495838/IPOL-
TRAN_ET(2013)495838_EN.pdf 

Schneider, S., Sarukhan, J., Adejuwon, J., Azar, C., Baethgen, W., Hope, C., et al., 2001. 
Overview  of  impacts,  adaptation,  and  vulnerability  to climate  change.  In  J.  J.  McCarthy, 
O.  F.  Canziani,  N.  A.  Leary,  D.  J.  Dokken,  &  K.  S.  White  (Eds.),  Climate  change  2001: 
Impacts,  adaptation,  and  vulnerability:  Contribution  of  Working  Group  II  to  the  Third 
Assessment  Report  of  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (pp.  75-103). 
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 

Scholten,  A.  and  Rothstein,  B.  2016.  Navigation  on  the  Danube  -  Limitations  by  low 
water  levels  and  their  impacts,  JRC  Technical  Reports,  ISBN  978-92-79-64798-7, 
doi:10.2788/236234 

Schwartz,  H.G.  2011.  Adapting  to  climate  change:  Another  challenge  for  the 
transportation  community,  in  Adapting  transportation  to  the  impacts  of  climate  change, 
transportation  research  circular,  E-C152.  Transportation  Research  Board  of  National 
Academies, Washington D.C. June. 

Schwierz, C., Köllner-Heck, P., Zenklusen, E., Mutter, D., Bresch, N, Vidale,P., Wild, M., 
Schaer,  C.  2010.  Modelling  European  winter  wind  storm  losses  in  current  and  future 
climate. Climatic Change, 101, 485–514. DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9712-1 

Sierra, J.P., Genius, A., Lionello, P., Mestres, M., Mösso, C. Marzo, L. 2017. Modelling the 
impact  of  climate  change  on  harbour  operability:  The  Barcelona  port  case  study.  Ocean 
Engineering, 141, 64-78. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.06.002 

Steward, B., Klin, I. and Vigilante, M. 2011. Climate change adaptation and preparedness 
planning  for  airports,  in  Adapting  transportation  to  the  impacts  of  climate  change, 

44 

 
transportation  research  circular,  E-C152.  Transportation  Research  Board  of  National 
Academies, Washington D.C. June. 

TRB  (Transportation  Research  Board),  2008.  Highway  Capacity  Manual.  National 
Research Council.  
Available: http://sjnavarro.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/highway_capacital_manual.pdf. 

TRT, 2003, Il modello ASTRA-Italia per la valutazione strategica di politiche di trasporto, 
Milano. 

Ubbels,  B.,  Quispel,  M.,  Holtman,  B.,  Bruinsma,  F.  2011.  Assessment  Of  Adaptation 
Strategies,  Deliverable  2.2.2  of  ECCONET  project.  Report  prepared  for  the  European 
Commission,  Directorate-General 
for  Energy  and  Transport.  Available  here: 
https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017) 

Ubbels,  B.,  Quispel,  M.,  Bruinsma,  F.,  Holtman,  B.  2012.  Oveview  of  Adaptation 
Strategies,  Deliverable  2.2.1  of  ECCONET  project.  Report  prepared  for  the  European 
Commission,  Directorate-General 
for  Energy  and  Transport.  Available  here: 
https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017) 

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) 1996. European Agreement on 
Main  Inland  Waterways  of  International  Importance’  (AGN),  ECE/TRANS/120/Rev.4. 
Economic Commission for Europe, Inland Transport Committee, United Nations, Geneva 

U.S.  CCSP  (U.S.  Climate  Change  Science  Program)  2008.  SAP  4.7:  Impacts  of  Climate 
Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, 
Phase I. Published March 2008. Available: 
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-7/final-report/. 

Van Den Brink, H.W., Konnen, G.P., Opsteegh, J.D., Van Oldenborgh, G. J. and Burgers, 
G.  2005.  Estimating  return  periods  of  extreme  events  from  ECMWF  Seasonal  forecast 
ensembles, International Journal of Climatology, 25: 1345–1354 

Van  Der  Knijff,  J.  M.  ,  Younis,  J.  and  De  Roo,  A.  P.  J.  2008.  LISFLOOD:  a  GIS‐based 
distributed  model  for  river  basin  scale  water  balance  and  flood  simulation.  International 
Journal 
DOI: 
Information 
10.1080/13658810802549154 

Geographical 

189-212, 

Science, 

of 

Velegrakis,  A.F.  2013.  Ports:  Range  of  physical  settings  and  environmental  controls, 
Assessing  climate  risks  for  seaports:  Scoping  workshop  Brussels  4‐5  March  2013, 
https://ec.europa.eu/assets/jrc/events/20130304-sea-ports/20130304-sea-ports-
velegrakis.pdf 

Von  Storch,  H.,  Woth,  K.  2006.  Storm  surges  –  the  case  of  Hamburg,  Germany,  2006 
ESSP  OSC  panel  session  on  “GEC,  natural  disasters,  and  their  implications  for  human 
security in coastal urban areas 

Von  Storch,  H.,  Woth,  K.,  2008.  Storm  surges:  perspectives  and  options,  Sustain  Sci 
3:33–43, DOI 10.1007/s11625-008-0044-2 

Vousdoukas,  M.,  Vousdoukas,  E.,  Mentaschi,  L.,  Dottori,  F.,  Giardino,  A.,  Bouziotas,  D., 
Bianchi,  A.,  Salamon,  P.,  Feyen,  L.  2016.  Developments  in  large-scale  coastal  flood 
hazard mapping. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16, 1841–1853 

Woth,  K.  2007.  Future  extreme  events  in  European  climate:  an  exploration  of  regional 
climate model projections. Climatic Change, 81, 71–95 DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9226-z 

Yang, Z., Ng, A.K.Y., Tae-Woo.Lee, P. d, Wang, T., Zhuohua. Qu, Sanchez Rodrigues V., 
Pettit, S., Harris, I., Zhang, D., Lau, Y. 2017. Risk and cost evaluation of port adaptation 
measures  to  climate  change  impacts.  Transportation  Research  Part  D:  Transport  and 
Environment. In press, available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.004 

45 

 
 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

ASCE  American Society of Civil Engineers 

GCM 

Global Circulation Model 

IPCC 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IWW 

Inland Waterways 

JRC 

Joint Research Centre 

PESETA Projection  of  Economic  impacts  of  climate  change  in  Sectors  of  the  European 

Union based on bottom-up Analysis 

RCM 

Regional Climate Model 

TEN-T  Trans-European Transport Network 

46 

 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Data exchange with the other impact study groups ..................................... 4 

Figure 2. Location of airports in the GISCO/Eurostat database ..................................13 

Figure 3. Sample of inundated airports in 100 years due to floods .............................16 

Figure 4. Europe’s cargo seaports .........................................................................19 

Figure 5. Segments with depth difference higher than 5m between the 100-year and 10-
year return period estimates indicating the difference of severity of the two events ......26 

Figure 6. Relationship between discharges and water levels for four points on the 
Danube river (average daily values for 2010) ...........................................................27 

Figure 7.Selection of critical points on the rivers Danube and Rhine ...........................28 

Figure 8. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water 
levels for Ruhrort..................................................................................................32 

Figure 9. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water 
levels for Kaub .....................................................................................................32 

Figure 10. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water 
levels for Wildungsmauer ......................................................................................33 

Figure 11. Distribution of the four time periods for the 5 model runs according to water 
levels for Hofkirchen .............................................................................................33 

Figure 12. Transport activity by vessel type at the four points in Rhine and Danube ....34 

Figure 13. Average annual cost or benefit of low water levels (in comparison to the 
reference period) ..................................................................................................35 

47 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1. Current weather induced costs for transport in million Euros (source: WEATHER 
project) ................................................................................................................ 8 

Table 2. Current costs due to extreme weather, including all phenomena in million or 
billion Euros (ca.2010) (source: EWENT project) ....................................................... 8 

Table 3. Impact functions and their thresholds per transport mode. ...........................10 

Table 4. Reference details regarding the climate model on which wind gust data are 
based ..................................................................................................................11 

Table 5. Reference details regarding the climate models on which discharge data are 
based ..................................................................................................................12 

Table 6. Number of airports under inundation risk for years 2030, 2080 .....................15 

Table 7. The number of impacted airports due to floods ...........................................17 

Table 8. Estimated costs for values of time (million Euros) .......................................17 

Table 9. Daily maximum near-surface wind speed of gust for selected TEN-T airports ..18 

Table 10. Number of seaports under inundation risk in 2030 and 2080. .....................20 

Table 11. Impacts on seaports due to floods ...........................................................22 

Table 12. Daily maximum near-surface wind speed of gust for selected TEN-T seaports
 ..........................................................................................................................23 

Table 13. Average annual number of days with discharges below the 5th percentile of 
the historic period (1981-2010) ..............................................................................29 

Table 14. Bearing capacity of different ship types at different water levels (taken from 
Scholten and Rothstein (2016) and adjusted)...........................................................30 

Table 15. Range of average annual cost or benefit (in million €) of low water levels in 
comparison with the reference period ......................................................................36 

Table 16. Adaptation Strategies (adapted from NOAA, 2015) ....................................37 

Table A1. Climate change stressors and airports. (adapted from NOAA, 2015) ............49 

Table A2. Climate change stressors and seaports & waterways (adapted from NOAA, 
2015)..................................................................................................................50 

48 

 
Appendix 

Table A1. Climate change stressors and airports. (adapted from NOAA, 2015)  

Climate 
stressor 

Physical infrastructure  

Service, access, maintenance and operations 

Runways, taxiways, aprons  Airfield buildings and 

Operations, maintenance and safety 

structures 

Increased 
temperature 
and extreme 
heat 

Concrete pavement 
buckling, Loss of non-
concrete pavement 
integrity. (FHWA, 2011). 
(Baglin, 2012). 

Needs for cooling and 
increased water and 
energy demand for 
cooling (Ang Olson, 2009; 
TRB, 2008; Baglin, 2012) 

-More runway space in order to take off in order to meet safety 
margins, particularly at high altitudes or hot weather airports. 
(Ang-Olson, 2009; NRC, 2008; U.S. CCSP, 2008; Baglin, 2012)  

-Extreme high temperatures may limit the types of aircraft that 
can take off on certain days, reduce the ability of certain airports 
to take certain aircrafts, cause delays and cancellations due to 
the need to limit daytime flights, or put restrictions on payload to 
lower weight (Ang-Olson, 2009; Baglin, 2012; NRC, 2008).  

Precipitation-
driven  inland 
flooding 

Produce standing water on 
pavements, causing delays 
(OFCM, 2002). 

Sea 
Level 
Rise + storm 
surge 

Runways and taxiways, 
are vulnerable to flooding 
due to storm surge and 
sea level rise (Baglin, 
2012). 

Temporary flooding 

Produce  standing  water  on  pavements,  causing  delays  (OFCM, 
2002).  

Temporary or permanent 
disruption of the airport. 
The region's airfield 
capacity is insufficient to 
absorb air traffic, 
resulting in negative 
impacts on the region's 
economy. 

Airports are designed for a working economic life of 70 years  or 
less,  therefore  routine  repairs,  replacement,  and  re-design  can 
take  into  account  sea-level  rise  (Peterson  et  al., 2008).  Airports 
are  not  expected  to  be  replaced  in  the  foreseeable  future  and 
there are practical difficulties with raising the elevation of airfield 
surfaces.  The  most  likely  response  is  to  raise  the  elevation  of 
surrounding berms or dikes. However, these could be overtopped 
in an extreme event.  

Storm  surges  may  cause 
flight 
cancellations  and 
delays (U.S. CCSP, 2008). 

Storm surge and heavy 
precipitation can flood 
buildings, access roads, 
and disrupt fuel supply 
and storage (ICF, 2008). 

Due  to  a  severe  storm,  airport  services  can  be  completely 
disrupted  by  high  wind  speeds,  precipitation,  flooding,  electrical 
(NRC,  2008)  delays  and 
outages,  and  debris 
cancellations  can  have  ripple  effect  (it  can  take  airlines  a  long 
time to return their timetables to punctuality.) 

impacts 

Wind gust 

No documented impact. 

High winds can cause 
damage to terminal 
buildings at airports. High 
winds can cause 
construction materials to 
blow loose, placing debris 
and objects in the 
pathways of moving 
aircraft (Ang-Olson, 
2009; OFCM, 2002) 

Aviation  commerce  starts  to  be  impacted  at  sustained  winds  of 
10.28 m/s or greater or winds gusts over ~15.42 m/s. Delays or 
cancellations of flights occurred at sustained winds of 17.88 m/s 
or higher (for an hour), or gusts of 25.93 m/s or higher (no time 
limit) (Peterson et al., 2008).  

Pejovic et al. (2009) did not establish a threshold for high winds 
(indicated  by  1-hour  mean  wind  speed  above  the  mean),  but 
found that incremental increases in wind speed above the mean 
could increase likelihood of delay.  

49 

 
 
 
 
Table A2. Climate change stressors and seaports & waterways (adapted from NOAA, 2015)  

Climate 
stressor 

Increased 
temperature 
and extreme 
heat 

Physical infrastructure  

Service, access, maintenance and operations 

Terminals and Other 
Buildings 

Piers, Wharves and 
Berths 

Operations, maintenance and safety 

Terminals often have open 
paved areas for storing 
cargo; higher 
temperatures and extreme 
heat can cause these 
paved surfaces to 
deteriorate more quickly 
(U.S. CCSP, 2008). 

Most dock and wharf 
facilities are made of 
concrete and lumber, 
which are less sensitive to 
temperature fluctuations 
(U.S. CCSP, 2008). 

High temperatures can improve port operating conditions in cold 
regions. Higher winter temperatures can increase safety and 
reduce interruptions if frozen precipitation shifts to rainfall, 
reducing ice accumulation on vessels, decks, riggings, and docks 
and reducing the occurrence of dangerous ice fog and the 
likelihood of ice jams in ports (NRC, 2008; IFC, 2011; Peterson 
et al., 2008). 

Precipitation-
driven inland 
flooding 

Flooding can damage port 
structures and equipment 
in buildings  

Flooding can damage 
piers, wharves, and 
berths. 

-Increases in weather-related delays are likely with more 
precipitation. 

-Floods can completely submerge navigation locks and render 
them inoperable, leading to lock closure and disrupting river 
traffic (Peterson et al., 2008). 

Higher sea levels can 
increase the risk of chronic 
flooding and eventually 
lead to permanent 
inundation of the facilities, 
especially for facilities that 
are not elevated or 
otherwise protected 
(USCCSP, 2008). Sea level 
rise can also exacerbate 
coastal erosion and 
flooding due to high tides 
(IFC, 2011).  

Sea level with respect to 
dock level is an important 
consideration for 
clearance of dock cranes 
(e.g., the bottom of the 
crane will sit in water is 
the deck height is not 
high enough) and other 
structures; higher water 
levels may require facility 
retrofits (NRC, 2008). 

Storm surge and direct 
wave action can damage 
marine port buildings 
(Nadal et al., 2010). 
(Curtis, 2007). Fast 
moving water can 
undermine or damage 
building foundations (U.S. 
CCSP, 2008). 

Strong waves can batter 
piers and scour pier 
supports, leaving berths 
inoperable; and storm 
surge can wash away 
asphalt paving (Nadal et 
al., 2010). There may be 
serious damage to both 
the piers/ wharves as well 
as the vessels. 

Most buildings are built to 
withstand 3-second gust 
wind speeds of up to 38 
m/s. Wind damage to 
structures increases non-
linearly as wind speed 
increases. 

High winds can damage 
or destroy piers, wharves, 
and berths (IFC, 2011). 
Wind has its most 
damaging effects on 
unreinforced structures 
(U.S. CCSP, 2008). 

Sea Level 
Rise + storm 
surge 

Wind gust 

Sea level rise coupled with storm events can increase the risk of 
coastal flooding, which can inundate rail and road access to the 
seaport, or inundate maritime facilities (NOAA and San Francisco 
BCDC, 2013)  

Potential impacts due to a severe storm, seaport services can be 
completely disrupted.  

Small boat handling, tugboat movement, ferry docking, barge 
handling are all restricted during high winds (NRC, 2008; OFCM, 
2002). 

50 

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: http://europea.eu/contact 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: http://europa.eu 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe 
Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact). 

K
J
-
1
A
-
2
8
8
9
6
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/378464 

ISBN 978-92-79-97039-9