WEKO3
アイテム
Impacts of Climate Change upon Asian Coastal Areas: The case of Metro Manila
https://doi.org/10.18884/00000948
https://doi.org/10.18884/00000948da55a955-98d6-46b1-afcb-c99d96be3509
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
Impacts_of_Climate_Change_to_Asian_Coastal_Areas_The_Case_of_Metro_Manila (4.9 MB)
|
.png)
|
| Item type | 報告書 / Research Paper_org(1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2018-07-03 | |||||
| タイトル | ||||||
| タイトル | Impacts of Climate Change upon Asian Coastal Areas: The case of Metro Manila | |||||
| タイトル | ||||||
| タイトル | Impacts of Climate Change upon Asian Coastal Areas: The case of Metro Manila | |||||
| 言語 | en | |||||
| 言語 | ||||||
| 言語 | eng | |||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||
| 資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18ws | |||||
| 資源タイプ | research report | |||||
| ID登録 | ||||||
| ID登録 | 10.18884/00000948 | |||||
| ID登録タイプ | JaLC | |||||
| 研究代表者 |
Muto, Megumi
× Muto, Megumi |
|||||
| 研究分担者 | ||||||
| 寄与者識別子Scheme | WEKO | |||||
| 寄与者識別子 | 1335 | |||||
| 姓名 | Morishita, K. | |||||
| 研究分担者 | ||||||
| 寄与者識別子Scheme | WEKO | |||||
| 寄与者識別子 | 1336 | |||||
| 姓名 | Syson, L. | |||||
| 報告年度 | ||||||
| 日付 | 2010-09-01 | |||||
| 日付タイプ | Issued | |||||
| 研究機関 | ||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||
| 内容記述 | JICA Research Institute | |||||
| 抄録 | ||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||
| 内容記述 | Climate models supporting the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predict that climate change will increase local temperatures and precipitation in monsoon regions in Asia, where the number of large cities is increasing and existing urban areas are expanding, particularly along the coasts. In this study, Metro Manila, typical of Asian coastal megacities, is used as a case study to comprehensively simulate impacts of future climate change and identify necessary adaptation measures. In spite of the various uncertainties inherent in predictions, this study translates future global climate scenarios to regional climate scenarios, a process called “downscaling”. The B1 and A1FI scenarios of the IPCC SRES framework provide a basis for discussing local temperature and precipitation changes in Metro Manila. Based on these scenarios, hydrological conditions such as river overflow and storm surge were projected. Flood simulation maps were then constructed showing the range of potential spatial spreads, inundation depths and flooding durations anticipated in the metropolis. Based on the flood simulation maps, socio-economic impact analyses were applied to understand the characteristics and magnitude of flood damage anticipated in the year 2050. The benefit side of the analysis calculated avoided damage at the aggregate level. Tangible direct losses were assessed as in conventional flood control project analyses. Incremental costs to transportation (VOC and time costs), and lost wages and income (sales) due to flooding were combined for tangible indirect costs. Note that the simulated flood maps and impacts are some cases among a wide range of future possibilities resulting from a “cascade of uncertainties” inherent in the various steps of the methodology. If flood control infrastructure improvements were stopped now, and the A1FI climate scenario is assumed, a 100-year return period flood could cause aggregate damages of up to 24% of the GRDP, while damages from a 30-year return period flood would be about 15% of the GRDP. If, however, infrastructure improvement based on the 1990 Master Plan is continued and climate scenario B1 is assumed, the projected damages would be only 9% of the GRDP for a 100-year return period flood, and 3% for a 30-year return period flood. Finally, options for adapting to the scenarios were selected, with the objective of eliminating as much as possible of the flooding projected in the flood simulations. Economic evaluations using economic internal rate of return (EIRR) and net present value (NPV) were conducted by combining the costs of the adaptation options with the damages avoided by implementing those options. The EIRR and NPV evaluations yielded different results, but they both suggest that filling the infrastructure gap identified under the current Master Plan (for status quo climate) is the first and foremost priority. |
|||||
