9266dc06-ea00-47f1-b2c5-65d615b207b3 Javier Fernandez-Macho Institute for Public Economics and Dpt. of Econometrics and Statistics javier.fernandezmacho@ehu.eus pointOfContact 2025-05-15T23:20:43.08718Z ISO 19115-3 - SEXTANT 1.0 WGS 84 (EPSG:4326) EPSG 7.4 MOSES project - WP6 - Overall sinthetic index of vulnerability 2020-11-12 publication MOSES_WP6_INDEX_OF_VULNERABILITY A final aggregated vulnerability index was obtained by combining all the partial indices belonging to each of the five vectors with V4 scores multiplied by −1 since Vector 4 indicators are of “resilience” rather than of “vulnerability”. Figures 6a and 6b show respectively map and cartogram of the geographical distribution obtained for this vector. As can be seen, except for most of Ireland, the Atlantic European coast ap- pears in redish colours corresponding to higher values of vulnerability. MOSES project Javier Fernandez-Macho Institute for Public Economics and Dpt. of Econometrics and Statistics javier.fernandezmacho@ehu.eus author Mariapilar Gonzalez Institute for Public Economics and Dpt. of Econometrics and Statistics mariapilar.gonzalez@ehu.eus author Jorge Virto Institute for Public Economics and Dpt. of Econometrics and Statistics jorge.virto@ehu.eus author https://sextant.ifremer.fr/geonetwork/srv/api/records/9266dc06-ea00-47f1-b2c5-65d615b207b3/attachments/overall_illustration.jpg /Human Activities/Scientific Activities Thèmes Sextant 2019-01-28 publication geonetwork.thesaurus.local.theme.sextant-theme Oceanographic geographical features GEMET - INSPIRE themes, version 1.0 2018-07-27 publication geonetwork.thesaurus.external.theme.httpinspireeceuropaeutheme-theme CC-BY (Creative Commons - Attribution) vector utf8 oceans -31.4094 6.9463 26.1613 60.74 http://mosesproject.eu/ban/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WP6_Deliverable_SynethicIndex_action1.pdf WWW:LINK MOSES WP6 Data gathering and compilation of indicators http://mosesproject.eu/ban/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WP6_Deliverable_vulnerbility_action2.pdf WWW:LINK MOSES WP6 Data processing and construction of synthetic index http://mosesproject.eu/ban/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/MOSES_WP6_Act3.pdf WWW:LINK MOSES WP6 Analysis and dissemination of results https://sextant.ifremer.fr/services/wms/moses OGC:WMS MOSES_WP6_VECTOR_INDEXGLOBAL Overall sinthetic index of vulnerability https://sextant.ifremer.fr/documentation/moses/WP6.zip WWW:DOWNLOAD MOSES_WP6_vulnerability RÈGLEMENT (UE) N o 1089/2010 DE LA COMMISSION du 23 novembre 2010 portant modalités d'application de la directive 2007/2/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil en ce qui concerne l'interopérabilité des séries et des services de données géographiques 2010-12-08 publication See the referenced specification The cartogram represented in Figure 6b illustrates the relative vulnera- bility of the Atlantic European coast by scaling the surface area of each NUTS3 region in proportion to its vulnerability index score. As can be seen the regions with the greatest vulnerability (10% quantile) belong exclusively to United Kingdom (see the overall ranking in Figure B6). In fact, in the first quarter all but three, Cávado (17th) and Porto (22nd) in Portugal and Eure in France (18th), are on the British coast. More specifically, on a scale of one to ten, the UK regions of Plymouth, Liverpool (9.8), Cheshire West and Chester (9.7), Chorley and West Lancashire (9.6), Lancaster and Wyre, Blackpool, East Merseyside (9.5), Warrington, Somerset and Mid Lancashire (9.2) lead the overall coastal vulnerability ranking, with six more with a score greater than 9.0. In contrast, the rest of Atlantic European countries have no regions with such high score. For example, the highest scores in Portugal belong to Cávado (just below 9.0) and Porto (8.9), in France to Eure (8.9) and Seine-Maritime (7.9), in Spain to Cantabria (7.1) on the Bay of Bis- cay coast, A Coruña and Pontevedra (6.8) on the Galician coast and Fuerteventura (6.8) in the Canary Islands, and in Ireland the highest score corresponds to Mid-West (6.1) in the 72nd position. By countries, the average scores are UK 8.2, Portugal 7.1, France 6.2, Spain 5.4 and Ireland 4.0 (see the country-level bar plots in Figure A6), with an overall Atlantic European average of 7.1. A fuller comparison between countries showing nationwide heterogeneity may be visual- ized using so-called violin plots, a combination of a two-sided rotated kernel density plot with a box-and-whisker plot inside showing the interquartile range (box) and data points at 1.5 times the box length (see Figure 7). In this respect, UK shows a vulnerability score distribution quite com- pact and biased towards high values, while Portugal, in spite oh hav- ing an average score just marginally higher than for the whole Euro- pean Atlantic area, is the country with the highest regional hetero- geneity with a sustantial proportion of regions above the Atlantic European average, but with a large variation due to the lowest vul- nerabilities shown in Madeira (0.8) and Açores (4.0). Similarly, Spain, although with most regions below the Atlantic European average ex- cept marginally the above mentioned Cantabria region, shows a large variation due to the relatively low vulnerabilities of all the Canary Islands. In summary, it can be concluded that within the European Atlantic Arc, the country with the most vulnerable coast is UK, where most regions are above the Atlantic European average. On the other hand, the country with the least coastal vulnerability is Ireland, with a quite compact distribution of all its regions well below the Atlantic Euro- pean average. Nevertheless, considering the whole picture, most of the Atlantic European coast appears to be quite vulnerable.