Table 3 Ranges of vulnerability scores for the variables.
From: Improvement of a coastal vulnerability index and its application along the Calabria Coastline, Italy
Type of variables | Variables | Score | Reference/method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Very low | 2 Low | 3 Moderate | 4 High | 5 Very-high | |||
Geologic | Geomorphology | Rocky, cliffed coasts | Medium cliffs, indented coasts | Low cliffs, alluvial plains | Cobble beaches, estuary, lagoon | Barrier beaches, sand beaches, salt marsh, mud flats, deltas, coral reefs | Thieler and Hammar-Klose4 |
Coastal slope (%) |  > 12 | 8–12 | 4–8 | 2–4 |  < 2 | LĂ³pez Royo et al.18 | |
Shoreline erosion/accretion rates (m/year) |  > (+ 1.5) | (+ 1.5)–(+ 0.5) | (− 0.5)–(+ 0.5) | (− 0.5)–(− 1.5) |  < (− 1.5) | Karymbalis et al.44 | |
Emerged beach width (m) |  > 100 | 50–100 | 25–50 | 10–25 |  < 10 | Pantusa et al.27 | |
Dune | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Mathematical formulation combining the relative scores of dune width and type of dune | |
Hydro-physical process | River discharge (m3/s) | Large river | Medium river | Small river | Stream | Absent | River discharge |
Relative sea-level change (mm/year) |  < 1.8 | 1.8–2.5 | 2.5–3.0 | 3.0–3.4 |  > 3.4 | Karymbalis et al.44 | |
Mean significant wave height (m) |  < 0.3 | 0.3–0.6 | 0.6–0.9 | 0.9–1.2 |  > 1.2 | Karymbalis et al.44 | |
Mean tide range (m) |  > 6.0 | 4.0–6.0 | 2.0–4.0 | 1.0–2.0 |  < 1.0 | Thieler & Hammar-Klose4 | |
Vegetation | Vegetation behind the back-beach | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Mathematical formulation combining the relative scores of width of vegetation behind the back-beach and type of vegetation |
Coverage of Posidonia oceanica (%) |  > 75 | 50 -75 | 25 – 50 |  < 25 | Absent | Percentage | |
