Search

Land subsidence is impacting large populations in coastal Asia via relative sea-level rise (RSLR). Here we assesses these risks and possible response strategies for China, including estimates of present rates of RSLR, flood exposure and risk to 2050. In 2015, each Chinese coastal resident experienced on average RSLR of 11 to 20 mm/yr. This is 3 to 5 times higher than climate-induced SLR, reflecting that people are concentrated in subsiding locations. In 2050, assuming these subsidence rates continue, land area, population and assets exposed to the 100-year coastal flood event is 20%-39%, 17%-37% and 18%-39% higher than assuming climate change alone, respectively. Realistic subsidence control measures can avoid up to two thirds of this additional growth in exposure, with adaptation required to address the residual. This analysis emphasizes subsidence as a RSLR hazard in China that requires a broad-scale policy response, utilizing subsidence control combined with coastal adaptation. Chinese coastal populations are concentrated in subsiding locations, and also subject to sea-level rise. Here the authors find that more areas, population and assets are exposed to coastal flooding by 2050 but realistic subsidence control measures can avoid additional risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China is amongst the countries most severely affected by coastal and marine disasters. In this study, the annual variation and geographic distribution of the direct economic losses and fatalities caused by rapid-onset coastal and marine disasters in China have been analysed. This was based on a collection of historical documents and official records. The five main hazards include storm surges, rough seas, sea ice, red tides and green tides. The results show that: (1) Storm surges caused the most economic losses (92% of the total); (2) At national scale, direct economic losses induced by coastal and marine disasters fluctuated with no clear trend; the number of fatalities per year declined, and in relative terms both economic losses and fatalities decreased dramatically throughout time; (3) Substantial heterogeneity exists across the 11 provincial-level administrative regions in terms of the spatial pattern and temporal trends of coastal and marine hazards, exposure, vulnerability and observed impacts. Guangzhou, Fujian, Zhejiang and Hainan provinces experienced the highest direct economic losses and fatalities due to repeated typhoon-induced storm surges. The decline in adverse impacts caused by hazards is due to substantial progress in coastal and marine disaster prevention and migration in China, largely thanks to institutional measures, plus adaptation and mitigation actions at both national and regional levels. Coastal China still faces growing risks due to socio-economic development, climate change, as well as subsidence and new emerging marine disasters (e.g. green tides). Further management needs to promote integrated solutions across socio-economic development, disaster risk reduction and environmental conservation in coastal regions. This should happen at national and international levels as disasters can affect neighboring countries, and their marine environments and socio-ecological systems. Lessons may be learnt from countries experiencing similar problems over the long-term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following article offers a brief overview of current nanotechnology policy, regulation and ethics in Europe and The People's Republic of China with the intent of noting (dis)similarities in approach, before focusing on the involvement of the public in science and technology policy (i.e. participatory Technology Assessment). The conclusions of this article are, that (a) in terms of nanosafety as expressed through policy and regulation, China PR and the EU have similar approaches towards, and concerns about, nanotoxicity-the official debate on benefits and risks is not markedly different in the two regions; (b) that there is a similar economic drive behind both regions' approach to nanodevelopment, the difference being the degree of public concern admitted; and (c) participation in decision-making is fundamentally different in the two regions. Thus in China PR, the focus is on the responsibility of the scientist; in the EU, it is about government accountability to the public. The formulation of a Code of Conduct for scientists in both regions (China PR's predicted for 2012) reveals both similarity and difference in approach to nanotechnology development. This may change, since individual responsibility alone cannot guide S&T development, and as public participation is increasingly seen globally as integral to governmental decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]