DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/4430

Executive summary

Aims

Understanding the impacts of climate change on target fish stocks is of critical importance to supporting and future-proofing the fishing industry and marine economy.

This project used a literature review, alongside expert engagement, to discuss the predicted effects of climate change on fish stocks, the likely effects on the Scottish fishing industry and to provide recommendations to fill information deficits and inform policy.

Key findings

The Scottish marine ecosystem and the fisheries it sustains face a dynamic and uncertain future due to a changing climate:

• Climate change and ocean acidification is expected to have ecosystem-level impacts, which will likely result in distribution and ecological changes to key commercial species in Scottish waters.
• As the distributions of commercial species shift geographically, and weather becomes less predictable, fishing grounds increase or decrease in importance.
• Climate change stresses could impact the value and utility of traditional Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) assessments, which indicate the maximum quantity of fish that can be caught sustainably.
• Area-based management tools, including single species-protection Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), may become ineffective as conservation and management tools in the long term. This is due to changing distributions, abundances and life histories.
• Limiting the pressure from disruptive fishing methods may increase resilience of inshore ecosystems, such as maerl beds and estuaries, to the impacts of climate change.
• Redistribution of commercial species around Scotland may lead to new opportunities for the industry. However, the supporting network of the industry, such as consumers and supermarkets, needs to work in step to support diversification.
• Ways of strengthening current modelling could be explored. For example, by the factoring in of scenarios such as those relating to ecosystem changes or interactions between increasing temperature and ocean acidification.

Recommendations

Future policies may require increased focus on adaptability and flexibility, to achieve successful management of Scottish fisheries. We propose five steps that will contribute to achieving this.

• Baseline monitoring: Further research and data monitoring would build a greater understanding of the impacts of climate change in the region and of the capacity for Scottish fisheries to adapt.
• Risk assessment: Risk assessments conducted at a local level would identify the most significant threats to individual fisheries under various climate change scenarios. This would enable local fisheries to identify their level of exposure and vulnerability to climate change, to prioritise adaptive capacity at both ecological and socio-economic levels.
• Trigger points: The outputs of modelling and risk assessments could inform a trigger-based approach system for fast implementation and to tackle food availability and security issues. Triggers may be based around ‘tipping points’ identified by risk assessments. Reaching a trigger would activate a pre-determined sequence of actions.
• Stock assessment and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): Factoring climatic and other environmental variables into MSY calculations and stock assessments will likely increase fisheries resilience through increasing the ability to forecast and provide more accurate reference points to inform quotas.
• Collaboration: Aligning and coordinating fisheries policy with other policies that may impact fisheries management directly or indirectly (eg MPA management) is important to track the dissemination of knowledge and informed actions and decisions. Relationships alongside international foundations will also help to manage shared seas and fish stocks in partnership. Finally, there is a role for supermarkets, retailers and others in educating consumers as the industry adapts to new target species.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Introduction

Background and context

The implications of climate change are already apparent in Scotland’s marine environment; warming seas, reduced oxygen, ocean acidification and rising sea levels are affecting marine ecosystems and the impacts are expected to become more frequent and severe in the coming decades (Baudron et al., 2020; Stoker et al., 2020; Townhill et al., 2023). Increased sea temperatures and other impacts, such as increased water acidity and ocean acidification, are predicted to influence fish and shellfish communities and the wider marine community (Cheung et al., 2021; Findlay et al., 2022). Overall, climate change related impacts are projected to alter the viable habitat for several species and add pressure to target fish populations. Therefore, understanding the impacts of climate change on target fish stocks is of critical importance to supporting and future-proofing the fishing industry and marine economy. As Scotland’s fisheries enter a new phase with a renewed focus on responsible and sustainable management, as outlined in the Fisheries Act and Scotland’s Fisheries Management Strategy (Scottish Government, 2020), it is essential to develop new policies to ensure that Scotland’s fisheries are climate resilient.

Climate change risks and opportunities

The latest UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (HM Government, 2022) (UKCCRA3) has a Summary for Scotland which identifies sixty-one risks and opportunities from climate change in Scotland. Two of the risks identified to natural environment are particularly relevant to the marine sector and have direct implications for fisheries management in Scotland.

N14

Risks to marine species, habitats and fisheries from changing climatic conditions, including ocean acidification and higher water temperatures, requires action.

N15

Opportunities to marine species, habitats and fisheries from changing climatic conditions.

The Scottish Government has a statutory duty to respond to the risks identified in UKCCRA3, and consequently, there is a requirement to examine the risks posed by climate change to the Scottish fishing industry and the marine habitats on which it depends, and to identify ways to reduce, mitigate and manage these risks.

Project aims

The Future Fisheries Management Strategy – 2020-2030 (FFM Strategy) has set out the commitment for Scotland to manage responsible and sustainable fisheries into the future (Scottish Government, 2020). Additionally, the Climate Change Committee’s most recent assessment of progress in adapting to climate change in Scotland – Is Scotland climate ready? (2022) – concludes that progress has stalled. It calls for time-bound quantitative targets for accountability with adaptation needed to be embedded across all government activity. It emphasised the role of improved monitoring and evaluation, with some changes in climate-related risks currently not sufficiently known or understood. To inform how adaptation could be incorporated into fisheries policies going forward this research aims to answers five main questions:

1. How will climate change modify the distribution and productivity of key commercial fish species (mackerel, herring, haddock, monkfish (or anglerfish), cod, hake, whiting and saithe)?
2. How will climate change impact the fisheries of these target species and consequently their resilience?
3. How do the projected changes compromise the delivery of policy outcomes to:
4. Reach Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) within a stock;
5. Implement area-based management tools by application of fisheries management measures for existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and key biodiversity locations outside of these sites; and
6. Limit inshore activity to current levels?
7. To what extent will distribution shifts provide access to new commercial species for exploitation, and how can this be maximised?
8. How should policy action be designed to not only reduce risk and exposure to risk, but also avoid maladaptation and lock-in?
9. This research prioritises the development of appropriate climate change monitoring, research, and evaluation objectives which should be included in fisheries management decisions going forward. It also considers what amendments to policies might be required in order to include climate variables into fisheries metrics, and tools to aid adaptation within these policies to support commercial fisheries respond to the risks and opportunities outlined in the Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme (SCCAP).

Methodological approach

The overall approach in this research follows a three-phase plan using a desk-based literature review, engagement with experts and analysis of the results (Figure 1).

The literature review was based on a broad body of peer-reviewed journal articles, government studies, non-governmental organisation reports, and other technical reports. Any sources that met the inclusion criteria were then subject to a robustness check for quality, significance and overall confidence. The review outcome was prioritised according to the following inclusion criteria:

• Date of publication: sources published from 2010 onwards were included.
• Topic relevance: Literature sources were required to cover, at a minimum, one of the key words or search terms.
• Region: Priority was given to sources from Scotland, the North Sea, and the UK. Sources based in the Northeast Atlantic and Europe were given second priority followed by sources based in the North Atlantic, and the Arctic Ocean. Sources with a general global context and sources from other countries with adjacent seas were also included at the lowest priority level.
• Species: To answer research Q1 and Q2, studies with only the commercial species of interest were included.

An online workshop was also conducted by the project team with the aim of gaining insight to the questions posed through engaging with experts and discussing the outcome of the literature review. Input from the attendees was logged and used to inform this report.

Further details of these steps, search terms, key words and species of interest can be found in Appendix A: Methodological approach.

Key findings

Changes in distribution and productivity of key commercial fish species

Scottish waters are currently exhibiting warming trends with increases to sea surface temperature (SST) higher than the global average. Several species have exhibited changes in range and distribution over the last 30 years due to these climate change impacts. The timing of life events is also changing. It is predicted future warming could result in mismatched spawning, causing greater ranges and longer larval phases. As distributions shift, and changes to life cycles occur, food availability and species interactions are altering. These shifts have been identified as a major threat to Scottish fisheries by experts. These changes resulting in ecosystem mismatches, are leading to lower body mass of adult fish and overall declines in productivity. It is of key importance that fisheries management incorporates understanding of these issues into future strategy.

The waters surrounding the British Isles are currently seeing extreme warming with increases to sea surface temperature (SST) of over 1 ^○C above the global average during the last 25 years (Pinnegar et al., 2017; Townhill et al., 2023). Along with these changes in temperature, changes in the frequency of severe weather events, mixing of the water column, and the altering of seawater chemistry through ocean acidification and reduced oxygen levels are also impacting the marine environment (Cheung et al., 2012). As found throughout the literature, these recorded changes in climate are already shifting species distribution, altering major life events such as spawning and hatching and changing the productivity levels of marine organisms (Payne et al., 2021).

Plankton

In order to fully assess the impact of climate on commercial fish stocks, understanding its impacts on plankton is vital, as these micro-organisms form the base of all marine ecosystems. Changes in plankton communities affect all higher trophic levels, including shellfish, fish, and seabirds (Holland et al., 2023). As Scotland strives to achieve ‘Good Environmental Status’ plankton will play a large role as ‘model organisms’ in measuring environmental changes, as they are dependent on solar energy, temperature, water stratification and dissolved nutrients (Edwards et al., 2020). The recent assessment of coastal and shelf pelagic habitats in the Greater North Sea as ‘not good’, under the current definition, and a general decrease in zooplankton and phytoplankton abundance and/or biomass over the last 60 years is cause for concern (OSPAR, 2023).

At a global and regional scale, many species of plankton have been observed to be exhibiting changes in life cycles in the northeast Atlantic due to rises in SST, altered stratification and nutrient levels (Holland et al., 2023). Along with these changes in life cycle and SST, altered Northeast Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (a physical phenomenon resulting in fluctuation of atmospheric pressure over the North Atlantic Ocean impacting weather conditions) and the increase of harmful algal blooms (HABs) have also been found to be leading factors in plankton distribution shifts (Pitois, et al., 2012; Bresnan et al., 2013). These changes in climate and life cycles have led to dominant plankton species such as the copepod crustacean Calanus finmarchicus declining in biomass by 70% since the 1960s and shifting northward in distribution at up to 22 km a year (Edwards et al., 2013; Olin et al., 2022). As these shifts and declines in biomass continue to occur, key fish species may also adapt by shifting distributions to match those of their prey.

3.1.2 Commercial fish

Like plankton, climate change is considered a leading cause of fish distribution shifts in Scottish waters. A study conducted by Simpson et al. (2013) found 72% of the most abundant fish species in UK waters exhibited climate induced shifts. Baudron et al. (2020) identified that 19 observed species all exhibited changes in range and distribution over a 30-year period. Globally, these shifts have been observed to be trending in a poleward direction (Engelhard et al., 2014; Nunez-Riboni et al., 2019). Engelhard et al. (2014) observed that cod and haddock exhibited major shifts over the last century. Pelagic fish species are estimated to move up to 600 km and demersal fish species an average of 223 km through to 2050 (Townhill et al., 2023; Pinnegar et al., 2013). At the same time, species have also been observed moving into deeper water to adapt to impacts of climate change (Pinnegar et al., 2017). As species distributions shift, this brings new challenges to fisheries management as fish are subject to changes in prey availability and predator-prey interactions. The recent expansion of more hake into the North Sea increasing competition with saithe for food and resources is a prime example of the challenges such shifts can present (Cormon et al., 2016). These distributional shifts were identified as a major threat to the Scottish fishing industry by experts during the workshop.

Depth and habitat suitability are two notable limiting factors to species ability to shift distributions in response to climate change. Demersal fish are generally limited by the suitability of the seabed for spawning, foraging and as a nursery. This typically results in smaller distributional shifts northward than are observed in pelagic species (Simpson et al., 2013). While pelagic species can shift northward more easily and have been found to respond quickly to changes in temperature over much of their lifecycles, some also spawn at specific localities that promote access to suitable nursery areas for hatched larvae (Baudron et al., 2020). Herring are a prime example of these possible constraints as they are demersal spawners (Wright et al., 2020).

As life events such as spawning may be constrained by habitat suitability, they may also alter through climate induced changes (Hughes et al., 2014). It has been predicted that future warming could result in earlier spawning causing a greater dispersal distance (+70%) and longer larval duration (+22%), although another study has shown the opposite effect where warming delays spawning in Scottish waters for sandeel (Wright et al., 2017). Nevertheless, larval recruitment to nursery grounds is likely to be affected (Wright et al., 2020). Species such as mackerel and cod have been observed supporting this prediction as they have been found altering their spawning times and locations (Jansen et al., 2011; Bruge et al., 2016). A study conducted by McQueen and Marshall (2017) estimated cod spawning periods have shifted at a rate of 0.9 weeks per decade in the Irish Sea, and between 0.8 and 1 week per decade in the northern North Sea.

3.1.3 Productivity

Food availability can impact fish recruitment through larval mortality, as suggested by a series of studies. These cascading effects on marine food-webs can exert bottom-up effects on the ecosystem impacting low trophic levels such as copepods and forage fish to higher trophic levels including marine mammals and seabirds (Pitois, et al., 2012). Historically abundant species such as C. finmarchicus are particularly important food sources for larval fish as they are a direct line to growth and survival in the first year of life (Nunez-Riboni et al., 2019; Olin et al., 2022). Species such as C. helgolandicus are also currently expanding from the south, quickly becoming an important copepod prey item for higher trophic species in the North Sea (Régnier, et al., 2017).

As changes in plankton life events and biomass occur, trophic mismatch may occur, leading to failed fish recruitment (Edwards et al., 2011). Declines in European cod and ecologically important sandeel stocks are often correlated to the mismatch of plankton blooms and larval hatching (Brander et al., 2010; Kristiansen et al., 2014). Studies carried out off the east coast of Scotland have observed trophic mismatch from both the timing of copepod production and sandeel hatch dates correlated with changing rates of SST (Régnier, et al., 2017). A second study carried out by Régnier, et al., (2019) found the average difference in hatching and egg production between sandeels and copepods to be 19.8 days on average. This gap is projected to increase as SST continues to increase. Low levels of first year herring have also been found to be correlated to this trophic mismatch (Clausen et al., 2017). As many marine organisms are ectothermic, temperature plays an important role in regulating physiological rates such as metabolic, growth and maturation. Changes in temperature can lead to variation in mortality distribution and phenology (Régnier, et al., 2019).

Food availability and body size are two of the main driving factors for fish growth (Baudron et al., 2011). A global decline of 14%–24% between 2000 and 2050 in adult size for most fish species due to warming oceans was predicted by Cheung et al. (2015). This phenomenon is known as the temperature size rule (TSR) (Ikpewe et al., 2021). Achieving maximum body size is essential for ecological performance (Simpson et al., 2011). It is unclear whether larger juvenile sizes would compensate for declines in adult sizes. These alterations in the ability to reach growth requirements are likely to have long-lasting consequences on fish population dynamics pertaining to age-size structure, egg size, reproduction, overwintering mortality rates, and ultimately, recruitment (Huang et al., 2021). Physiological stress leading to extra energy expenditure and growth reduction will in turn lower overall production (Prokešová et al., 2020). Loss of ecosystem productivity was identified as one of the greatest threats to fisheries during expert engagement.

Cumulative impacts resulting from the changing ocean climate is generally considered to be a significant threat for fisheries amongst experts. While temperature is a main factor in fish growth and recruitment, oxygen supply can also limit the maximum body size of fishes (Forster et al., 2012; Townhill et al., 2017). The increased metabolic rate associated with higher temperatures results in an increased requirement for oxygen; the lower oxygen content of warm water adds an additional constraint (Breitburg et al., 2018). Physical phenomena such as the NAO has also been identified as a driver in growth rates and recruitment directly and indirectly. NAO affects many physical mechanisms, including wind speed and direction, differences in air temperature and rainfall, heat content, sea surface temperature, gyre circulation, mixed layer depth, salinity, high-latitude deep water formation, and sea ice cover. These mechanisms impacted by NAO can have adverse impacts on the abundance, recruitment, catchability, and body condition of fish stocks (Báez et al., 2021).

Furthermore, ocean acidification may contribute to decreased recruitment, growth, and survival of stocks; as temperatures continue to rise, some species may become more vulnerable (Cheung et al., 2012; Edwards et al., 2020). It is important to note that while decreases in growth and productivity are recorded, trends may not be reflecting the level of resilience from species to species. A study conducted by Kaschner et al. (2010) looking at key commercial fish species found boreal (northern) species including cod and haddock to have a lower temperature optimum compared to the temperate species saithe and whiting. Haddock had the greatest reduction of adult body size in response to warming, however they also showed the quickest reversal of this reduction once temperatures started to decrease. This is one example of how temperature induced stress may be adapted differently from one species to another leading to different rates of long-term impacts. The observed decreases in productivity and changes in distribution will plausibly lead to future decreases in total catch value and weight (Jones et al., 2015; Kühn et al., 2023). Due to the dynamics of the current ecosystems, it is vital that more attention is given to detecting quick changes in productivity and shifts, to allow a response before these undesirable effects are irreversible (Ojea et al., 2021). Globally, adapted fisheries management could successfully help to control the productivity and distribution challenges of stocks under climate change pressure (Gaines et al., 2018).

Impacts of climate change on fisheries and industry resilience

Changes to distribution and productivity could impact fisheries through loss of abundance and decreases in landings. As fish distributions shift, access may also be limited as distances travelled from ports to fish increase and stocks cross political jurisdiction boundaries. Fishing effort may also be limited as climate continues to change weather patterns and extreme weather, such as storms, increase in frequency. The discussed impact on recruitment will affect fishing effort, leading to lower catch per unit effort (and thus a higher effort to achieve a given catch). Industry resilience could be impacted by these changes. Adaptation at an ecological and socioeconomic level is needed to help increase overall resilience.

The implications of depleting stock abundance can be detrimental to marine ecosystems and societies relying on the marine environment for food and economic stability (Simpson et al., 2011; Ikpewe et al., 2021). As key commercial fish species shift northward in distribution to more suitable water temperatures, and productivity levels fluctuate, some previously abundant stocks are decreasing in Scottish waters (Pinnegar et al., 2013). These shifts in distribution and productivity must be addressed as the abundance of key commercial fish communities deplete. As stocks deplete, the resilience of fisheries is also damaged due to a reduction in genetic and generational diversity (Cheung et al., 2012; Ojea et al., 2021). Although building the resilience of fisheries in the face of the outlined challenges is difficult, there are ways to aid resilience to stocks of key commercial fish species (Ojea et al., 2021).

3.2.1 Impacts to fisheries

As discussed in Section 3.1, key species such as cod and mackerel are predicted to shift out of Scottish waters in large numbers as temperatures rise over the next 30 years. While there may be a decrease of landings in cold water species, these shifts also open opportunities for emerging fisheries (Cheung et al., 2012; Townhill et al., 2023). Warm water species shifting north will instigate new challenges and opportunities for Scottish fisheries, as outlined in Case Study 1. As abundance of some species decrease or increase, quotas will need to be reassessed according to current availability of stocks in Scottish waters. Emerging species will be discussed in more detail through Section 3.4.

• Access to resources is another factor to consider when analysing impacts on fisheries from climate induced changes. For example, experts indicate that if climate change were to increase the frequency and intensity of storms, it could result in a decrease in available fishing effort days, reducing the ability of fishing boats to access stocks (Cheung et al., 2012). Further losses to fisheries will be seen in the form of quality of landings as body size and productivity of major stocks decrease. As fish distributions shift, access may also be limited as distances travelled from ports increase and stocks cross political boundaries where quotas may vary (Gullestad et al., 2020; Maureaud et al., 2020; Pinsky et al., 2020). Experts highlight the ripple effect of the dispute on the industry considering the example of mackerel fisheries. A past dispute between Northern European countries outlined by Pinnegar et al. (2017) provides a model example of the challenges transboundary shifts present; an apparent shifting of mackerel from out of Norwegian waters between 2009 and 2011 resulted in disagreements over allowed catches by Norwegian vessels in EU waters as Iceland and the Faroe Islands both laid claim to increased quotas for mackerel. The mobility of fleets could be seen as a pivotal tool for long term fisheries adaptation to climate induced shifts in ecosystems. Despite this increasing adaptive capacity, there will likely be trade-offs between factors such as increasing fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions, with a potential requirement for vessel changes. It should also be noted that distribution changes are not currently reflected in fisheries agreements for shared stocks, as experts highlighted during the engagement, stressing the importance of addressing quota distribution. These challenges may require transformational change in the management system of international agreements regarding relative stability and fishing quotas (Ojea et al., 2021).

Case Study 1: Emerging Scottish hake fishery impacts as an example of shifting distributions and emerging fisheries challenges and opportunities

Hake is a good example of the problems that can be caused by the mismatch between fisheries allocations and current fish stock distributions. Within the CFP of the EU, fishing opportunities are allocated in such a way as to ensure the relative stability of the fishing activities of each Member State for each stock concerned. However, relative stability and total allowable catch (TAC) use a fixed allocation based largely on historical catch records for each country in 1973–1978. When these relative stability allocations were devised, hake landings in the North Sea were negligible. As a result, relative stability allocates only 3% of the TAC to the North Sea. However, the North Sea now has 34% of the entire hake stock, which led to massive discarding of hake that couldn’t be returned to port. Scottish fleets landed 3,035 tonnes of hake in the North Sea. In 2011, with 2,678 tonnes of this coming from quota swaps, yet they still discarded 4,993 tonnes (Baudron et al., 2020). As evidence mounts for changes in the distribution of commercial fish, up-to-date data is crucial if fish stocks are to be managed sustainably. Collaborating with scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders to develop adaptive management approaches that consider the changing distribution of fish species can help optimise the exploitation of new commercial species.

Resilience in fisheries

Climate related challenges presented to Scottish fisheries impact the level of resilience. Overall, the resilience of fisheries can be looked at through two lenses: an ecological lens, understood to entail the ability of ecosystems or species to recover after a disturbance; or a socio-economic lens, stated to include the capacity to adapt in case of stress or change along with institutional resilience, as the capacity of a natural resource governance system to absorb a disturbance while maintaining its major structures and functions (Ojea et al., 2021). Both sides are equally important to consider building a comprehensive understanding of the implications of climate change on Scottish fisheries.

While there are challenges with fisheries resilience such as genetics and age diversity (as discussed previously), recovery time is also a determining factor in a species’ ability to incorporate a pattern of resilience (Ojea et al., 2021). There are many ways species can adapt to build resilience as climate changes. Resilient species can adapt to environmental fluctuations through incorporating broader environmental niches, adult range and distribution shifts, habitat diversity and dietary flexibility (Mason et al., 2021). Although species are characterised by the ability to adapt to changing environments to survive (natural selection) it is important to consider how quickly this evolution and adaptation may take place relative to rate of climate related changes. Failure to adapt can often result in a collapsed fishery as highlighted in Case Study 2.

From a socio-economic point of view, autonomous adaptation has played, and will continue to play a vital role in the fishing industry as highlighted during the expert engagement workshop. Nevertheless, it was pointed out that there are certain management challenges to consider as climate change may impact the resilience of fisheries in many ways. For instance, many aspects of resilient-friendly fishing practices can be damaging from an ecological perspective. An example of this is fishermen utilising a ‘crop rotation’ style of fishing: as fish stocks in certain areas deplete, fishermen are able to respond to the change and move to a new area until that area is depleted. While this cycle does build socio-economic resilience, it does so at the cost of ecological resilience. As this cycle repeats, areas may not recover well, setting up stocks for continued failure. Such practices eventually create a unique management challenge that will need support to incentivise fishermen to adopt more sustainable methods. Baudron et al. (2020) noted that beyond productivity and recruitment, fishing is one of the main factors impacting the abundance of commercial fish species. This is further supported by Brander et al. (2010) suggesting that reducing fishing pressure can become a strategy to reduce the impacts of climate change. In addition, an important factor impacting fisheries resilience is overexploitation (Ojea et al., 2016), this should be considered in strategies aiming to build further resilience through introducing new policies to ensure sustainable fishing practices are enforced and to create opportunities for fishermen to seek diversification and alternate income sources. As highlighted by experts during the workshop, controlling fishing pressure is vital as stocks can respond to factors like lower fishing mortality, that can potentially override climate effects, in turn, providing temporary relief from climate change and ensuring resilience.

Case Study 2: Alaskan snow crab fishery as an example showing how climate can quickly destabilise a strong fishery if a species cannot adapt to changes in a timely manner

Fisheries management in Alaska is considered some of the most effective in the world; nevertheless, despite this highly regarded management system collapse is still a threat. The eastern Bering Sea snow crab fishery in Alaska worth 150 million USD provides a prime example of how fast climate can destabilise a large fishery. Three years after an all-time high of abundance in 2018, the snow crab stock collapsed in 2021 with more than 10 billion crabs disappearing from the eastern Bering Sea shelf. Several observations suggested that temperature and population density were the two key variables resulting in the collapse. The collapse is recorded as one of the largest global reported losses of motile marine macro fauna resulting from marine heatwaves. The caloric requirements for snow crabs nearly double as temperatures rise from 0°C to 3°C. This, coupled with a limited foraging area, suggest that starvation likely played a role in the collapse. This example of a collapsing snow crab population suggests that considering environmental influence in estimates of biomass used to set catch limits can be important but does not resolve the standing question of how to consider environmental change in management targets. The example also highlights the importance of adaptive capacity of species as there continues to be uncertainty for future warming trends.

Climate change impact on delivering policy outcomes

Reaching Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) within a stock

The effects of climate change on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) vary by region, depending on factors like water temperature and local hydrodynamics. Some areas may experience more negative impacts on MSY due to climate change and ocean acidification, leading to declines in fish yields during certain seasons. Fish populations may also become more vulnerable to short-term natural climate variability in the presence of other stressors such as overfishing. Climate change could increase trophic mismatch which leads to a decline in recruitment and therefore MSY. These factors highlight the complexity introduced when considering MSY in light of climate change effects which calls for a review of traditional MSY approaches.

Future biological, physiological, and geographical shifts due to climate change pose significant challenges to achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY) within fish stocks. MSY is a theoretical concept in fisheries management, which aims to find the balance between harvesting a renewable resource and maintaining its sustainability for future generations (Rindorf et al., 2017). MSY represents the highest yield that can theoretically be taken from a stock in the long term without risk to stock sustainability. MSY can be determined through either surplus production models or age-structure models. The former uses catch and effort or abundance data, while the latter considers factors like growth, maturation, selectivity, mortality rates, and recruitment to determine optimal harvest levels. MSY-based fisheries management revolves around the management of fishing mortality, and hence the FMSY index (the rate of fishing mortality consistent with achieving MSY) is central.

Winter et al. (2020) highlights the role of the Allee effect, which describes the decline in growth rate at a small population density, in worsening the impact of human-induced stressors including fishing and climate change on fish stocks through the promotion of hysteresis (a phenomenon where the response of fish populations to environmental changes exhibits a lag or delay in its trajectory). Hysteresis can lead to a collapse in population and recovery failure, which can be irreversible. Climate change has the potential to strengthen density dependent interactions such as Allee effects, where growth rate declines at a small population density, which could increasingly challenge fisheries management (Winter et al., 2020).

Increases in water temperature due to climate change can affect the growth rates and maturation of juvenile fish, leading to a lower maximum size-at-age, as discussed previously (Marshall et al., 2019; Hunter et al., 2019). Baudron et al. (2011) discusses the implications of a warming North Sea for the growth of haddock. Baudron et al. (2014) shows that as temperatures increase, fish tend to have smaller body sizes, which can lead to a decrease in yield-per-recruit of these stocks by an average of 23%. Although this suggests that undertaking stock projections including environmental drivers such as temperature could affect perception of the stock status and improve the accuracy of yield forecasts, this would only be the case where projections of environmental drivers were reliable with a clear causal link between a specific driver and metrics such as fish recruitment, growth and mortality, which often is not the case. Thus, hysteresis is a reason why it may not be appropriate to build environmental variables explicitly in stock assessment models due to the use of potentially inaccurate timings of impacts.

As discussed in Section 3.1, water temperature changes can also alter fish distribution and migratory patterns, encouraging certain species to shift to cooler waters, thereby increasing the complexity of sustainable stock management (Marshall et al., 2019; Bahri et al., 2021). Spawning times are also affected by SST which in turn impacts the survival of eggs and larvae, and ultimately the size of the adult population (Bahri et al., 2021). Changes in climate can also affect the productivity of marine ecosystems, which can in turn affect the abundance and distribution of fish stocks (Marshall et al., 2019). Pinnegar et al. (2013) states that long-term climate change may make MSY more difficult to achieve by reducing the overall carrying capacity (the maximum population that a given ecosystem can sustainably support over the long term), which means that the stock may not be sustained at levels observed in previous years. Additionally, extensive fishing can cause fish populations to become more vulnerable to short-term natural climate variability, making them less able to buffer against the effects of poor year classes. A predictive study by Régnier et al. (2019) found that projected warming scenarios could increase the trophic mismatch between predator and prey, leading to a decline in recruitment (the number of young fish that enter the population each year). Further studies have found evidence that climate change can affect recruitment, which is predicted to hinder the ability of fisheries to attain MSY of the stock (Kühn et al., 2023).

According to a paper by Van Leeuwen et al. (2016), the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on MSY is dynamic and varies according to the site’s hydrodynamic regime (the prevailing patterns of water movement, including currents, tides, and circulation). The paper studied three sites in the central and southern North Sea with varying hydrodynamic regimes: seasonal thermal stratification, permanently mixed, and large inter-annual variability. Based on the models, under a medium emissions climate change scenario, the site characterised by large interannual variability was predicted to decrease in yield, especially in winter. This was primarily due to the impacts of ocean acidification on the benthic system due to its role in passing carbon to higher trophic levels. The remaining two sites, one with seasonal thermal stratification and the other with permanently mixed waters, showed an increase in fisheries yield in response to the stressors. This demonstrates that sites with varying hydrodynamic regimes will show differing responses to climate change and ocean acidification and ultimately represent different trends in fisheries harvest.

All these factors can make it more difficult to sustainably harvest fish at the same level as was previously possible and therefore hinder the ability to achieve MSY within a commercial fish stock. These complexities call for proactive and adaptive management approaches to sustainably exploit fisheries resources under changing climatic conditions (Marshall et al., 2019; Bastardie et al., 2022). Regenerating degraded stocks to levels that are higher than those required to generate MSY would help populations become sufficiently large and diverse as to be more resilient to climate change (Kemp et al., 2023). This is because larger and more diverse populations are better able to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Therefore, it is important to manage fisheries in a way that allows fish stocks to regenerate to levels higher than those required for MSY. Similarly, Bastardie et al. (2022) suggests that the risk of losing an entire stock due to climate change is greater than the risk of losing a small portion of it.

As highlighted during the workshop, FMSY is often treated in policy as a simplified and specific numerical goal that assumes constant conditions, predictable fish population dynamics, and no external factors affecting the ecosystem. In reality, FMSY is a dynamic and variable metric that is regularly updated whenever there is a significant change to a stock assessment which serves to account for ongoing climate change. It may be used as a reference point to guide the allowable catch limits for a particular fishery, to prevent overfishing and promote sustainability by capping the maximum allowable catch based on the calculated MSY value. Ecosystems are dynamic, and fish populations are influenced by various factors, including climate change, habitat alteration, predation, and fishing practices. These factors can cause fluctuations in fish abundance and distribution. Therefore, the use of MSY may not be appropriate in all situations and could be adapted to the specific ecological and environmental context.

Overall, the impacts of climate change on fish populations leads to a requirement for a fundamental re-evaluation of traditional fisheries management practices. Policies that treat MSY as a static, numerical target may no longer be sufficient in the face of changing ecosystems and climates (Travers-Trolet et al., 2020). To adapt to these new complexities and uncertainties, a proactive and adaptive approach is essential. Reframing fisheries policy can provide resilience against the unpredictability of climate change, and as global demand for resources and food security grows, understanding and applying these principles become increasingly vital for a sustainable future.

Area-based management tools

Area-based management tools including areas closed to fishing (either temporarily or permanently) or MPAs can provide refuge for fish populations, protection for nursery areas, and regenerate degraded habitats. However, the efficacy of these tools as an effective conservation measure varies across species. Whilst suited to sessile species, their effectiveness as a fisheries management tool is species specific. Climate change, in time, may also alter the effectiveness of area-based management as tools due to stock distribution shifts. Hence, area-based management where the objective is to increase biodiversity may be more resilient with time.

There are a number of locations in Scottish waters where fishing closures are enacted, on particular species, or at particular times of year (eg spawning periods). Global evidence suggests that area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas (MPAs) and other examples of marine spatial planning, may have varying levels of effectiveness for highly mobile species in a world increasingly affected by climate change, with some no longer being optimally located. Grafton et al. (2023) states that climate change is one of the key drivers of risks for marine capture fisheries (MCFs) and poses critical risks for important natural capital stocks. The projected changes in fish distribution resulting from climate change pose complex challenges for the implementation and success of closed areas in achieving conservation objectives (Grafton et al., 2023). Climate change can potentially alter the effectiveness of these areas by causing shifts in the distribution of target species, which may move beyond the boundaries of the protected area (Pinnegar et al., 2017). This can make technical measures such as area closures less effective in protecting target species, especially for highly mobile species such as many commercial fish. Another way in which climate change affects the efficacy of area-based management tools is by interacting with non-climatic drivers, such as overfishing and the seabed abrasion associated with some fishing activity, which increases vulnerability to climate change and potentially weakens ecosystem resilience (Hoppit et al., 2022). Nevertheless, there is evidence that using MPAs as an approach to promote resilience, especially in key, early life stages, helps to buffer marine communities against the impacts of climate change and is of vital importance (Wilson et al., 2020; Grafton et al., 2023).

Case Study 3: Sandeels in Scottish waters and the North-west Orkney MPA

Although is rare for MPAs to be designed specifically for the conservation of commercial fish species in Scotland, the North-west Orkney Nature Conservation (NC) MPA is an example where sandeels are protected primarily due to its role as a key prey species for marine mammals and seabirds (JNCC, 2021). Despite this MPA being no longer directly relevant to the commercial fishing industry due to the recent closure of sandeel fisheries, the protection of sandeels has an indirect impact on commercial fisheries as Atlantic cod, haddock and whiting are among the species which prey upon sandeels. Regular larval surveys have been taking place within the MPA and the results indicated that persistent numbers of sandeel larvae are exported from this MPA thus replenishing surrounding populations (JNCC, 2021).

Case Study 4: Scotland’s first no-take zone in the Firth of Clyde in Lamlash Bay, Isle of Arran (designated in 2008)

Scotland’s first fully protected marine reserve was established within the Firth of Clyde in Lamlash Bay, Isle of Arran in 2008, with the goal of regenerating the local marine environment and enhancing commercial shellfish and fish populations (Howarth et al., 2012). In the summer of 2010, the University of York in conjunction with the Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST), conducted various underwater surveys in order to determine how the area was responding to its protection. They found that, since the site was designated a no-take zone (NTZ), there has been a substantial increase in biodiversity along with the size, age and density of many commercially important species (Stewart et al., 2020). This case study has been used on many occasions as evidence for increasing the levels of protection in UK waters and the success of this MPA has been recognised at an international level.

As highlighted by these case studies, area-based management tools such as MPAs can play an indirect role in fisheries management by providing a refuge for fish and shellfish populations and their key early life-stages, by protecting and regenerating degraded critical habitats (Wilson et al., 2020; Kemp et al., 2023). They can also enhance the resilience of ecosystems to climate change by protecting and regenerating ecosystem complexity (Kemp et al., 2023). Indirectly, MPAs can support fisheries through a phenomenon known as the spill over effect, which occurs when the impacts of these protected areas extend beyond their boundaries and into the surrounding fishing areas, although this is not the primary goal of MPAs (Stobart et al., 2009). From an ecological standpoint, spill over effects result from an increase of fish biomass within the protected area due to a reduction of mortality which can subsequently ‘spill over’ into the surrounding area via the migration of adults, or the dispersion of eggs or larvae. These protected areas serve as reservoirs for reproduction, as the larvae and juveniles produced within them disperse to adjacent areas, replenishing populations in the surrounding fishing grounds. All these factors carry economic benefits, as evidence suggests they translate into the potential for increased catch for fishermen. Despite the increased abundance of fish due to the positive effects of area-based management and MPAs on fish stocks, it is important to note that fishermen may face limitations in terms of what and how much they can catch due to already established quotas. This highlights the necessity of adaptive and dynamic management strategies that allow for changes to be made at a fast enough rate for fishermen to reap the rewards (Pinnegar et al., 2017).

Area-based management tools are generally static in nature and are rarely designed to consider ecological responses to climate change. As previously stated, climate-induced changes in ocean conditions and extreme events challenge MPA resilience, emphasising the importance of designing flexible, proactive, and climate-resilient MPAs (Hopkins et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2022). Ensuring the benefits of MPAs for fisheries, the wider ecosystem, and associated ecosystem services, while avoiding maladaptation and promoting sustainability, is essential (Brooker et al., 2018). Management is typically slow to adapt to these changes by modifying long-held management rules in the face of climate change (Pinnegar et al., 2017), an observation that was reflected in the engagement workshop.

While there are obvious advantages to having well informed and well managed area-based management tools implemented throughout Scottish waters, Wilson et al. (2020) states that there are barriers to adopting climate change adaptation strategies, such as a lack of scientific studies evaluating different adaptation strategies and shortcomings in current governance structures. Additionally, decisions about area-based management implementation have the potential to increase the tension between conservation, economic consideration, energy production, fisheries, and infrastructure (Hoppit et al., 2022).

This indicates that the role and impact of MPAs in supporting commercial fisheries can vary widely depending on local factors, and their effectiveness may not be universally applicable across all fisheries. Therefore, other area-based management tools should be considered in conjunction with MPAs in order to promote resilience in commercial fisheries against climate change. Although, it is acknowledged that MPAs often have alternative objectives beyond fish resilience and commercial fish stocks, for example in supporting seabird populations.

In light of these findings, adapting to changes in climate are of critical importance and there are developing areas where this can be informed through data driven modelling. The development of habitat suitability modelling techniques can help predict the potential impact of climate change on the natural distribution of species, which can inform the management of MPAs (Pinnegar et al., 2017). These models look at current tolerated temperatures by certain species and predict distribution shifts, if it is known how the environment may change in the future. Previous models have predicted that commercially important species over the next 50 years are likely to continue to shift, and in the north-east Atlantic specifically (Cheung et al., 2010; Lindegren et al., 2010; Cheung et al., 2011).

Overall, there is an intricate relationship between area-based management tools such as MPAs, climate change and the role of policy. While area-based management can offer benefits to fisheries by acting as sanctuaries for fish populations and safeguarding habitats critical for the life cycle of commercial fish, their effectiveness may be influenced by climate change-induced shifts in species distribution and other local factors such as size of the area and current management strategies. As climate change poses a significant risk to MCFs and crucial natural capital stocks, the need for adaptive and climate resilient area-based management strategies become evident. Additionally, tensions between sectors highlights the intricacy and complexity of policy and decision making that is involved. In the face of climate change, it is critical that tailored, flexible, and science-based policy frameworks are implemented to ensure the success of area-based management tools in promoting both ecological resilience and sustainable fisheries.

Limiting inshore activity to current levels

The intended policy to limit inshore activity to current levels will not be compromised by climate change, but may rather help to address the challenges posed by reducing the pressure on inshore fish stocks and ecosystems, while also protecting seabed habitats. Climate change is projected to have many effects on commercial fish species, including those that are currently fished inshore or utilise the inshore environment at some point in their life cycle. These effects include changes in habitat suitability, distribution, and productivity. Disruptive fishing methods, such as trawling and dredging, can damage seabed habitats important for inshore fish and shellfish. Therefore, limiting the pressure from disruptive fishing methods may increase resilience of inshore ecosystems to the impacts of climate change.

In August 2021, the Scottish Government set out its intention to consult on applying a cap to fishing activity in inshore waters that will limit activity to current levels and set a ceiling from which activities that can disrupt the seabed may be reduced as evidence becomes available. This is now part of a wider package of inshore measures which are currently being developed in collaboration with stakeholders with an immediate focus on improving inshore fisheries management, by helping to transition to more agile, localised systems of management, that make more regular use of scientific advice to balance environmental, social and economic outcomes.

The commercial shellfish species harvested in the inshore region are exposed to risks from climate change. Research conducted on the scallop fishery off the Isle of Man indicated a positive correlation between seawater temperature during spawning season and the number of young scallops produced each year. Additionally, adult scallops in warmer years had larger gonads, indicating higher egg production (Cheung et al., 2012). While king scallops seem to be relatively resilient to CO₂-induced ocean acidification, their allocation of resources between tissue and shell production varies seasonally in response to this stressor (Cameron et al., 2019). As well as this, climate change has the potential to increase likelihood of HABs, resulting in shellfish harvesting area closures (Bresnan et al., 2013). Therefore, although climate change may lead to an improvement in scallop recruitment around the UK, there is a risk that the productivity of the fishery may decrease, or that the fishery will have to be closed due to potential impacts on human health.

Nephrops, which are in the colder segment of their thermal range in Scotland, are anticipated to not exhibit any major changes under the temperature projections (Serpetti et al., 2017). Studies suggest that increased marine temperature has caused an earlier shift in their larval phenology, however so far this has had minimal effects on larval retention and advection distance overall (McGeady et al., 2021). Populations of Nephrops found off the west coast of Scotland are supplemented by larvae exported from western Irish Sea Nephrops populations, which may be important for recruitment when native larval retention is low (McGeady et al., 2021). However, habitat suitability for Nephrops populations along the west coast of Scotland may decrease in the future due to climate change (Townhill et al., 2023). Therefore, although Nephrops populations are exhibiting adaptability to the effects of climate change, as evidenced by the limited impact on larval retention and advection, the potential decline in habitat suitability along the west coast of Scotland raises concerns about the long-term persistence of these populations.

Fishing effort within the inshore region ranges from low-impact fishing methods using divers to handpick scallops, static gear such as creels and pots to target crab and lobster, to more disruptive mobile gear methods such as dredging and trawling (Davies et al., 2021). Within the Scottish territorial sea, otter trawls for Nephrops and shrimp, and dredges for scallops and mussels appear to have the highest averaged inshore fishing intensity between 2010 and 2020 (ICES, 2021; Figure 2). However, bottom trawling and dredging were identified in Scotland’s Marine Assessment as one of the most widespread and direct pressures across Scottish waters (Moffat et al., 2020).

Many commercial species at risk from climate change will utilise the coastal benthic environment at some point during their life cycle, likely as nursery or spawning areas (Wright et al., 2020). It is crucial to identify points in a species’ life cycle where they are most susceptible to the impacts of climate change to minimise human pressures on struggling stocks (Wright et al., 2020). For example, Atlantic herring, a commercially important species which is projected to have a decrease in habitat suitability in the UK due to climate change (Townhill et al., 2023), has been recorded as utilising a variety of coastal benthic environments as spawning grounds around Scotland, including live maerl beds, kelp, sea firs, and broken mollusc shell beds (Frost and Diele, 2022). However, bottom trawling and dredging activities can alter the physical and biological characteristics of these benthic environments, putting them at risk (Ryan and Bailey 2012; Frost and Diele, 2022).

Disruptive fishing methods also put pressure on inshore ecosystems that are at risk from climate change. Scottish maerl beds, which play a crucial role not only in the spawning of herring but also in supporting other economically significant fish and shellfish including gadoid species and scallops, are highly susceptible to environmental changes, with estimated projections suggesting an 84% decline due to climate change scenarios (Kamenos et al., 2004a; Kamenos et al., 2004b; Simon-Nutbrown et al. 2020; Frost and Diele, 2022). As well as this, fjords and estuaries have been found to contain habitats with large organic carbon reservoirs and high organic carbon accumulation potential (Epstein and Roberts, 2023). Preserving organic carbon reservoirs has been recognised as a critical aspect of climate change mitigation. Trawling and dredging of the seabed may contribute to the disruption of benthic organic carbon reservoirs, with one study suggesting that 7.9 Mt year^-1 of carbon is disturbed by mobile bottom fishing gear within 3 nm of the UK (Epstein and Roberts, 2023). However, this disturbance of seabed organic carbon does not necessarily equate to the loss of organic carbon from the sediment as further research is still required to determine its end fate (Epstein et al., 2022). Therefore, maintaining coastal ecosystems through limiting disruptive fishing methods can be essential to provide a refuge for both species and ecosystems at risk of climate change, and may help to preserving stores of organic carbon.

Overall, the projected changes in climate do not compromise the delivery of the intended policy outcomes, as the intention to limit inshore fishing to current levels in light of the emerging evidence could become an important step in protecting inshore fish stocks and ecosystems from the impacts of climate change. Through preventing an increase in fishing pressure, and setting a ceiling on disruptive fishing methods, the policy will help towards a sustainable inshore fishery, while limiting impacts on essential inshore seabed habitats. This will provide refuges for both species and ecosystems that are at risk of climate change, while also building resilience to projected climate change scenarios.

Data sources: ICES, 2021; Marine Scotland, 2023

Figure 2: Scottish Inshore Fishery Effort Average (2010 – 2020)

Maximising access to new commercial species

Climate change is leading to a redistribution of fish species in the waters around Scotland, creating new opportunities for commercial fisheries whose traditional species may no longer be available. Species such as anchovy and seabass are projected to become more abundant in Scottish waters. Fishermen may be able to exploit new commercial species that become available in their waters, but they will need to adapt their operations and diversify their targets. There are also several constraints that inhibit UK suppliers from benefiting from these potential opportunities; domestic consumer preferences in the UK are generally for a limited range of species. Supermarkets can play a major role in this transition by educating consumers about new local commercial species and offering them a wider range of sustainable seafood options. Another constraint is that many of the new commercial species will need to be exported to markets where there is already an established demand. In order to capitalise on these potential emerging opportunities, Scotland needs to establish market access early for these new species.

New commercial species

As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, climate change is leading to distribution changes in commercial fish species in the Northeast Atlantic. While some species will experience a decrease in suitable habitat as a result of future climate change, many species may see an increase in suitable habitat (Townhill et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2020; Serpetti et al., 2017), and will therefore expand into areas where they can be targeted for exploitation by commercial fisheries in Scotland.

There have already been distributional shifts in species with warm water affinity in the UK, with observed increases in abundance of Lusitanian (southern) species being recorded during warmer periods, with coinciding decreases in the abundance of colder water boreal species. One of the primary reasons for this is that temperature is a constraint on marine ectothermic organisms, which affects critical biochemical and physiological rates such as oxygen demand, behaviour and development. Within the past three decades, a significant increase in the spatial occurrence of a number of fish species has been recorded. Presence-absence analysis conducted in the Northeast Atlantic found that of the 35 fish species observed with typically southerly distributions, 94% showed significant increases in spatial occurrence in the seven northernmost International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) divisions, including anchovy, horse mackerel, anglerfish, hake, megrim, blue whiting, mackerel, pollack, saithe and Norway pout. These increases were particularly pronounced for the two southernmost species, horse mackerel and anchovy, which were observed in six of the seven northernmost ICES divisions (Baudron et al., 2020). This increase in some Lusitanian species may be due to the growth of existing local populations. For instance, warmer temperatures may have allowed more anchovies to survive the winter, leading to an expansion of their range and an increase in their abundance in the southern and central North Sea (Wright et al., 2020). The occurrence of species with typically southerly distributions into new locations is positively correlated with sea-surface temperature (Montero-Serra et al., 2015). Seabass populations expanded into the UK in the 1990s and early 2000s during periods where there were warmer temperatures, however this expansion was halted due to over-fishing and two consecutively cold winters in 2009/10 and 2010/11 (Wright et al., 2020). However, sea surface temperature may be just one of several contributory factors. For example, mackerel distribution is also influenced by density-dependent factors, as mackerel have been recorded using areas of lesser habitat suitability in years when the stock size was large, suggesting that mackerel may also expand into new areas in response to competition for resources (Brunel et al., 2018).

Ecological models can give us a good indication of what is likely to happen under different emissions scenarios, giving an insight into possible futures for the marine environment. This information can be useful to inform decision-making and to develop strategies to mitigate future risks and maximise opportunities. However, it is important to remember that these models are a predictive tool to examine possible futures. Obtaining current, up-to-date data, is essential for understanding how ecosystems are responding to change, and for validating these predictions. Townhill et al. (2023) modelled the future suitability of habitat for 49 fish and shellfish species that are commercially important for the period 2030 to 2050 and 2050 to 2070, based on data from 1997-2016, in the waters surrounding the United Kingdom. The study used an ensemble of five ecological niche models, using climate projections based on three different future carbon emissions trajectories from two sources: the A1B (medium) emissions scenario from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) 3 Special Report Emissions Scenarios (SRES) dataset, and the CMIP5 Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 (medium emissions, high mitigation) and 8.5 (high emissions, low mitigation) projections. The findings of this research indicate that waters around Scotland may become more suitable for commercial species, including but not limited to; blue whiting, brill, anchovy, hake, seabass, sprat, John dory, pollack, poor cod, pouting, red gurnard, sole, surmullet, tub gurnard, turbot, and witch (Townhill et al., 2023). More information, and model outputs for this study based around Scotland, can be viewed in Appendix B. Another modelling study, by Fernandes et al. (2016), who utilised the RCP 2.6 (low emissions) and an RCP 8.5 scenarios in their study, found that Scotland showed an increase in the potential catch of pelagic species under both low emissions and higher emissions scenarios up to 2050, but this effect was reversed thereafter for the high emissions scenario. Species that are eurythermal (thermally tolerant), or those belonging to the colder segment of their thermal range, such as mackerel, horse mackerel and Nephrops, will not exhibit any changes under the temperature projections (Serpetti et al., 2017). One such thermally tolerant species, whiting, is predicted to increase strongly under rising temperature scenarios, as it has a higher optimum temperature than other species, while certain predators, such as cod and grey seals, are predicted to decline (Serpetti et al., 2017). These projected distribution shifts may provide access to new commercial species for exploitation by fishermen whose traditional catch is no longer as plentiful. This has already been seen to an extent in the development of summer squid fisheries in the Moray Firth due to increased squid abundance (van der Kooij et al., 2016). Monitoring and tracking the distribution shifts of fish species can provide valuable information for fisheries management and help identify areas where new commercial species may become available (Serpetti et al., 2017).

Maximising access to new commercial species

Climate change is causing fish populations to migrate to new areas, potentially creating opportunities for harvesting new commercial species in the waters surrounding Scotland. However, several factors can hinder access to these new resources.

Quota systems can act as an obstacle to maximising access to new commercial species due to the inflexibility of quota systems that are based on historical data and agreements between nations. For example, under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), TAC quotas are set annually based upon advice from ICES and political negotiations among member states, with the aim of maintaining relative stability of fishing activity for each country and fish stock. Since the departure of the UK from the EU and therefore the CFP, the basis of setting quotas is still based on stock advice provided by ICES, with the process of agreeing and sharing quotas requiring negotiation and arrangements between the UK and its neighbours. However, the relative stability fixed allocation keys, which vary depending on the species stock, have remained unchanged for many species since 1983, raising concerns about their representativeness and effectiveness in a changing environment (Harte et al., 2019). Therefore, as evidence mounts for changes in the distribution of commercial fish, up-to-date data is crucial if fish stocks are to be managed sustainably. Collaboration between fisheries scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders to develop adaptive management approaches that consider the changing distribution of fish species can promote both access to new resources and the long-term sustainability of these fisheries (Serpetti et al., 2017; Baudron et al., 2020).

Another constraint is the domestic consumer preference for a limited range of traditional species (Pinnegar et al., 2013). Large quantities of the fish traditionally consumed in the UK, such as cod, is derived from imports from countries further north, such as Iceland and Norway, whilst the majority of fish caught in the UK, including Nephrops and mackerel, is exported to southern European countries such as Spain and Portugal (Pinnegar et al., 2017). This feature of the UK fisheries market was also emphasised at the expert workshop. In 2021, Scottish fisheries landed 185,140 tonnes of mackerel with a value of £210 million, and 22,505 tonnes of Nephrops with a value of £70 million (Scottish Government, 2022). Total UK exports of mackerel for the same year was 55,922 tonnes with a value of £96 million, primarily exported to The Netherlands and other EU countries, but also China (SeaFish, 2023). For Nephrops, 24,141 tonnes were exported with a value of £111 million in 2021, primarily exported to France and Spain (SeaFish, 2023). Supermarkets provide around 88% of fish products in the UK by volume and value, and their influence is potentially enough to orchestrate mass scale change in the habits of the public. Pinnegar et al. (2017) reported that Sainsbury’s 2011 “switch the fish” campaign to challenge customers to try an alternative finfish species, including some of those that are more reflective of current climatic conditions in waters around the UK and Ireland, resulted in a significant increase in seabass sales of 57% and pollack sales of 15%. These campaigns may need to be expanded to provide sustainable seafood and avoid climatic maladaptation.

New commercial species that may become available due to climate change may need to be exported to markets where there is already an established demand. These include markets for anchovy, brill, John dory, pouting, seabass, sole, sprat, and turbot, all of which had less than 200 tonnes landed in Scotland in 2021 with a value of less than £1 million. By comparison, in 2021, Scotland’s total anchovy landings were around 1 tonne, whereas the Spanish fishery landed 49,582 tonnes, valued at over €84 million (EUMOFA, 2023; Scottish Government, 2022). Similarly, 30 tonnes of seabass were caught in Scottish waters in 2021, worth approximately £246,000, while French fisheries caught 2,516 tonnes, valued at €36.5 million (EUMOFA, 2023; Scottish Government, 2022). For Scotland to capitalise on these potential emerging opportunities, market access should be established early, as many of the species projected to increase their distribution in Scotland are commercially valuable within foreign markets.

Summary of key findings

The review of literature presented above illustrates a dynamic and uncertain future for the Scottish marine ecosystem and the fisheries it sustains, under the influence of a changing climate. Nevertheless, some key messages are apparent and recurring.

• There are expected to be ecosystem-level impacts due to climate change, which will likely result in distribution and ecological changes to key commercial species in Scottish waters;
• As the distributions of commercial species shift geographically, fishing grounds increase or decrease in importance and weather becomes less predictable, impact on the Scottish fishing industry is inevitable;
• Climate changes stresses could result in impacts on the value and utility of traditional MSY assessments, and a review of these may be required;
• Climate change, in time, may alter the effectiveness of area-based management tools due to fish species motility and therefore, protected sites where the objective is to increase biodiversity may be more resilient with time;
• Limiting the pressure from disruptive fishing methods may increase resilience of inshore ecosystems to the impacts of climate change;
• Redistribution of commercial species around Scotland may lead to new opportunities for the industry, but the supporting network of the industry (consumers, supermarkets etc.) needs to work in step to support diversification.

These findings point to a series of fisheries management challenges:

• The monitoring of productivity and distribution of commercially and ecologically important species;
• Transformational changes in management systems of international and local agreements regarding food stability, the introduction of new commercial species, and fishing quotas;
• The review of traditional MSY approaches, to ensure MSY and carrying capacity targets are met in the face of climate challenges;
• The use of area-based management tools to help buffer marine communities against climate change through increasing biodiversity;
• The management of fishing pressure to be adaptive and flexible going forward as fish populations may become more vulnerable in the presence of stressors such as overfishing or less resilient fishing practices;
• Changes in the habits of consumers, through supermarket campaigns, may also be needed to promote sustainable local seafood and avoid climatic maladaptation as well.

These key finding and challenges inform the following section discussing options for adaptation and development of future policy.

Current policy

Current strategies

Current strategies for fisheries management in Scotland incorporate scientific advice from organisations such as ICES on the status of fish stocks in the North Atlantic and the sustainable use of marine resources. Scotland, like other European countries, relies on ICES assessments to inform fisheries management decisions and many commercial stocks are jointly managed with other Coastal States.

The Marine Directorate is responsible for the management of fishing vessels in Scotland through implementing rules and policies in relation to sustainable harvest and protecting the marine environment. At a UK level, the Marine Directorate works with a number of other organisations and governmental departments including the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Seafish. Marine Directorate uses ICES advice in order to inform quotas and implement fishing limits.

Scotland’s Fisheries Management Strategy 2020-2030, also known as the Future Fisheries Management (FFM) Strategy, is a strategy implemented by the Scottish Government which outlines the approach to managing Scottish fisheries from 2020 to 2030 as part of the Blue Economy Action Plan. The FFM Strategy sits broadly within Scotland’s National Marine Plan (NMP) framework. It encompasses issues such as ecosystem-based management, spatial management and MPAs, recycling of gear, climate change mitigation and adaptation plans, and stakeholder collaboration and community involvement. The FFM Strategy complements the objectives set out in the UK Fisheries Act (2020) and subsequently the input into the Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS).

There are systems in place for co-management within the Marine Directorate where groups such as the Fisheries Management and Conservation Group (FMAC) and the Regional Inshore Fisheries Groups (RIFGs) are consulted both formally and informally to gain insight into the issues that stakeholders face and encourage buy in.

The Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP), formerly Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme (SCCAP), is a five-year programme that aims to help prepare and adapt Scotland for climate change. Public consultation on the SNAP for 2024 – 2029 has recently been opened by the Scottish Government (Scottish Government, 2024). With a focus on five outcomes (i) Nature Connects; ii) Communities; iii) Public Services and Infrastructure; iv) Economy, Industry and Business; v) International Action), it is hoped that this programme will help fulfil the aims in relation to Scottish fisheries.

Challenges and barriers

Future policies may require increased focus on adaptability and flexibility in order to achieve successful management of Scottish fisheries.

As fish stocks shift distributions, it is possible that shifts across international boundaries can occur as previously discussed. Effective management requires collaboration and coordination with neighbouring countries. International agreements and cooperation may be challenged by varying interests and priorities. Another challenge is the introduction of new species moving into Scottish waters that may not have established markets causing issues with domestic consumer preferences. This may increase the need to export which does not align with Scotland’s goals in relation to emissions and is less sustainable. Due to the growing variability of weather patterns as a result of climate change, there is also potential for challenges to arise in ability of fishermen to access fish stocks and meet effort-day targets.

Some species at the margin of their distribution are more vulnerable to exploitation (Rindorf et al., 2020). As such, knowledge of fish distribution is key to understand and manage these resources. Knowledge gaps surrounding this area of research is also a barrier. Due to changes in distribution, established MPAs for specific species may also be less beneficial to the target species in light of climate change.

This review has highlighted the importance of adaptability and flexibility in the fisheries management system.

Recommendations and conclusions

Recommendations for policy development, implementation, and monitoring

Following from the key findings of the literature review, here we recommend ideas for policy development, including methods for implementation and monitoring that will allow commercial fisheries management to become more adaptable in an uncertain future and address potential challenges the fishing industry might face. These recommendations and actions aim to enable effective, resilient and adaptable management by encouraging a balanced, realistic approach that reflects actual environmental changes rather than worst case scenarios or global fisheries predictions.

Baseline monitoring programmes

The types of habitats and related fisheries need to be further understood for specific fisheries and sectors within Scotland to enable better understanding of the capacity for adaptation and how best to support the industry in future. Therefore, research needs to be prioritised to fill significant evidence gaps or reduce uncertainty in the current level of understanding to assess the need for additional action. Further discussion of data gaps and suggested future research can be found in Section 5.2.

Risk / vulnerability assessments

As part of policy implementation and monitoring, climate risk assessments enable preparation and prioritisation. At a national level, a climate vulnerability assessment of Scotland’s marine environment and economy (Winne et al. 2022), identified and evaluated methodologies and suggested how to strengthen and enhance vulnerability assessments. Risk or vulnerability assessments conducted at a local level could identify the most significant threats to individual fisheries under various future climate change scenarios, which would enable local fisheries to identify their level of exposure and vulnerability to climate change to prioritise adaptive capacity at both ecological and socio-economic levels. The assessment outputs would result in comparative and risk-equivalent advice (eg prioritising restoration of key habitats such as nursery or spawning habitats for commercial fish species).

Trigger points

The outputs of modelling, alongside outputs from risk assessments, may be used to inform a trigger-based approach system for fast implementation of actions and to tackle the issues around food availability and security. Triggers may be based around ‘tipping points’ identified by risk assessments and reaching such a trigger would activate a pre-determined sequence of actions.

Using indicative metrics (ie thresholds or targets) such as physical parameters eg temperature, monitoring data (eg egg counts) or catch metrics (MSY or bycatch levels) could be used to enable fishing fleets to adapt to maximise the potential access to new commercial species without over or under compensating. Similarly bycatch levels could be used to understand distribution shifts of new species. A multitude of metrics could be used to set triggers on a local scale, either as a single trigger point, a ‘limit’ of acceptable change or several triggers as part of a fishery’s adaptive pathway (eg a trigger ‘to plan’ and potentially another trigger ‘to act’ to base an intervention response on) as part of its strategy. A trigger-based system is already adopted by ICES using reference points such as MSY Btrigger, a pre-determined trigger level for spawning stock biomass, as a metric.

Set triggers would force the review of data to ensure robust informative action, which would also increase flexibility and adaptability. It would require that a level of planning and research has been implemented, which would allow management decisions to be based on sound knowledge and understanding, rather than on transient global or political pressures.

Dynamic MSY reference points

Striving to regenerate stocks will strengthen the resilience of the stock to short-term stresses, promote genetic diversity within populations, and allow for a buffer in a changing climate. Pretty Good Yield (PGY) has been proposed in the past to account for uncertainty of estimation and implementation of MSY. The aim is to manage fishing mortality within certain boundaries of FMSY. MSY is modelled using population parameters such as mortality rates and recruitment and does not directly consider environmental variables. Instead, any significant change to a stock assessment also leads to a revision in FMSY, and Scottish Government scientists suggest that these regular revisions serve to account for ongoing climate change. A better understanding of climate change processes may allow for climatic and other environmental variables to be explicitly factored into MSY calculations and stock assessments. This will likely further increase fisheries resilience through improving the ability to forecast and provide more accurate reference points to inform quotas. Due to the unpredictability and rate of climate change, the use of historical trends may not be sufficient going forward.

Collaboration with stakeholders and co-management

Co-management is an increasingly important asset to help reduce barriers to management that are generally perceived as top-down. Using this more inclusive method of management, taking into account the perspectives of different stakeholders and ensuring their needs are represented will encourage buy in to new policies and success of initiatives. Co-management strategies are already in place, as discussed in Section 4.1, with the FFM Strategy having a strong focus on co-management at both local and national levels. Continuing to build on these relationships, strengthen the framework and increase trust will support the recommended policy changes. However, it will be important to consolidate the definition of co-management incorporating what it means for all stakeholders to ensure policy, industry and science are using the same definition and are working towards the same goals. Utilising the skills and practical knowledge of fishermen and incorporating that into policy is a key factor in moving forward with fisheries management in general, but also in the context of climate change. Another strategy to aid policy implementation and monitoring involves emphasis on international collaboration. Exploring partnerships with neighbouring countries and international organisations will be vital to help address shared challenges.

Aligning and coordinating fisheries policy with other policies that may impact fisheries management directly or indirectly (eg MPA management) is of vital importance to track the dissemination of knowledge and informed actions and decisions. Relationships alongside international foundations will also help to manage shared seas and fish stocks in partnership.

The policy suggestions above would result in various tools which could be used by the industry and communicated with marine stakeholders. The tools would require information to be fed from these stakeholders into those systems (eg fishermen observing changes in species or size and alerting fisheries policy) to be effective, creating a virtuous circle between stakeholders, policymakers and the industry. Supermarkets are just one of these stakeholders, who play a major role in increasing demand for new commercial species by educating consumers about new commercial species and supplying new domestic consumer preferences to the market.

Sustainable fishing practices

There are many methods that can be adopted to help aid the sustainability of fishing practices in Scotland. As fish stock distributions shift, the distance travelled from ports may increase, potentially resulting in increased fuel use and increased emissions. Continually exploring and implementing environmentally conscious fishing practices such as the use of fishing gear with lower environmental impact (ie reduced seabed impact, or reduced bycatch) could result in a more resilient ecosystem which should help support fishing activities through higher ecosystem biomass. Utilising seasonal closures where appropriate (for example, in specific areas during critical spawning periods), along with measures in and around known nursery areas can allow fish populations to reproduce without disturbance, building the resilience of the stock for mutual environmental and industry benefit.

Research requirements

Key gaps

As climate change in Scottish waters progresses, it is important that future policies account for a complete picture of the marine ecosystem to ensure effective fisheries management measures are put in place that are resilient, flexible and adaptive. Ecologically, changes to plankton and fish distribution shifts may need to be evaluated on a larger scale to inform fishing quotas and management strategies accordingly. Monitoring and tracking the distribution shifts of fish species will also be important for future fisheries management as well as a basic knowledge of the distribution of commercial and non-commercial fish species and areas important to specific life-stages (eg spawning and nursery areas).

In order to improve understanding of the impacts discussed in Section 3, additional information is required to develop knowledge gaps in several areas. Filling these gaps will allow policymakers to continue to make informed decisions to help develop the best possible solutions. Knowledge gaps at the species level could be prioritised to better understand the links between climate warming, plankton, fisheries and top predators (eg marine mammals and seabirds) in more detail to allow for more accurate predictions of future ecosystems (Edwards et al., 2011). Filling these gaps will allow ecosystem-based management decisions to build overall strength in the ecosystem in turn strengthening stock resilience. Other areas to explore may include studying trade-offs between temperature induced changes in body size of individuals occurring at different life stages (Ikpewe et al., 2021), or identifying points in a species’ life cycle where they are most susceptible to the impacts of climate change to minimise human pressures on struggling stocks. Both are vital pieces of information that could help increase productivity and recruitment in stocks.

To further strengthen the adaptive capacity of Scottish fisheries, understanding the rates of genetic adaptation of individual species could be developed to aid in identifying possible future trends. Currently, there is not sufficient research into the variability in projected maximum catch potential and changes in MSY across different regions and scenarios of climate change (Travers-Trolet et al., 2020). Further gaps in knowledge include understanding specific mechanisms through which climate change might affect MSY, such as changes in fishing mortality rates and ecosystem dynamics; effectiveness of different management strategies in mitigating the negative effects of climate change on MSY; effects of climate change on pelagic nutrient supply, such as nitrification rates, and how these impacts translate to changes in fish biomass and fisheries yield (van Leeuwen et al., 2016), and finally; impacts of stresses induced by climate change on stock trajectory (Bastardie et al., 2022). There is a growing need for monitoring programs and pilot studies to support policymakers with scientific evidence regarding the effects of different warming scenarios on MSY, and to align research needs with policy ambition.

The effectiveness of applying caps to limit inshore fishing should be discussed further to make the most informed decisions. Along with discussing cap limits, the specific impacts of climate change on area-based management are not well understood and require further investigation. Potential interactions between climate change and other stressors, such as pollution or overfishing, which can cause compounding effects on MPAs and the species/ecosystems they are supposed to protect, are not yet fully understood or quantified. There is also uncertainty around the ability of MPAs to protect and restore ecosystems (and in turn, supporting fish stocks) under changing climate conditions due to distribution shifts of stocks, with previously established species vacating designated areas, and new species possibly favouring alternative locations. As with the example of the North-west Orkney NCMPA for the conservation of sandeel, removing a cause of mortality (ie fishing) from an area where climate change effects are identified as high, can allow some buffering effects and improve resilience to climate change. This highlights the requirement for the development of adaptive management strategies in this area. Identifying the range of different policy levers already available to deal with the issues climate change presents would be beneficial. As an example, quota swapping at both the national and sub-national level is a method used already to deal with shifting stocks. Making use of lessons learned from other countries and utilising best practices will be important.

Data and modelling

Enhanced research and monitoring data could result in better understanding of the capacity for Scottish fisheries to adapt. For example, more data at the local scale would help develop understanding of the effects on MSY to inform quotas relevant to the area and differentiate local trends from national or global trends. These could be incorporated as part of the Joint Fisheries Statement Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs). Any monitoring programs will need to be done in accordance with FFM Strategy regulatory and monitoring framework.

It is important to use recent data and model future changes in fish distribution and/or size to give true representation of what is a priority and realistic view of current stocks. The types of modelling recommended include investigating the effects of various climate change scenarios and habitat suitability modelling as described in Section 3.3.2. ICES is developing whole-ecosystem modelling and forecasting methodology to provide advice on climate change impacts (ICES, 2023). Data collected can be fed into these models and projections will be used to inform things such as local trigger points, MSY, TAC and stock assessments. At this stage the focus should be on preparation and gathering of data that can be fed into the models, in preparation for when the capability becomes available in the future. This further research and data collection would also be valuable to inform climate risk assessments for important commercial species so knowledge can be disseminated within the Marine Directorate and to fishermen more easily. Increasing and improving the data base will inform a range of tools and management strategies to address the threat of climate change; one of which would be the use of risk assessments.

Increased research in local regions could result in a stronger evidence base to inform ecological models. The outputs from these models under different climate scenarios may result in more accurate local future projections which could be used to develop actions to inform policy and feed into risk assessments. Examples of these informative actions could include data-driven harvest strategies for species for which new target markets are emerging and the inclusion of environmental variables in stock projections, if further research suggests this will lead to improvements.

Gaps pertaining to modelling and data also need to be met in order to form a complete picture for fisheries policy and adaptation. Models currently do not factor in all possible scenarios, such as changes in the planktonic food web or interactions between increasing temperature and ocean acidification. Incorporation of more data could increase the robustness of models and reduce uncertainty of outputs. For example, the use of a multi-decadal data set with multiple sources for plankton distribution and phenology would be useful in informing distribution shifts and monitoring productivity of the ecosystem as a whole (Holland et al., 2023).

Future research

Here we suggest potential future research topics which may help to fill the gaps identified through this literature review and enhance wider understanding of the key driving factors behind the expected changes in fish stocks and the fishing industry.

Species distribution and ecology

A key research area is to refine knowledge of current distributions of both commercial and non-commercial fish species as well as areas relevant to key parts of their life cycle (eg spawning and nursery areas) to identify where management measures are necessary and determine margins. Additionally, studying distribution shifts to identify areas where new commercial species may become available will be beneficial. Further to this, research into biodiversity implications of climate induced shifts, including, for example, the northward shift of the copepod crustacean C. finmarchicus.

Lifecycle and physiological changes of species (eg early spawning effects and dietary changes with temperature, as seen in the Alaskan Snow Crab in Case Study 2) as well as food chain linkages and multispecies interactions within area closures and MPAs (eg plankton shifts). Finally, research into habitat suitability for Nephrops on the west coast of Scotland would be greatly beneficial given its importance for the region.

Fishing industry

Comparing projected species moving into UK waters against the potential market in the UK, could indicate levels of risk and highlight where markets may need to be further developed. In this case, using a combination of predictive data such as habitat suitability models and evidence of abundances from ICES should provide more robust estimates. Using habitat suitability models alone are unlikely to be robust enough. For example, habitat suitability for haddock was expected to decrease around Scotland from some studies (eg Townhill et al., 2023), but according to ICES abundance estimates, haddock has increased dramatically in recent years. This is also the case for cod and whiting, which raises the need for caution when utilising the predictive power of ecosystem-based fisheries models.

Another potential study stemming from this review could be to investigate the extent to which fishermen have had to alter their fishing practices in recent years as a direct or indirect result of climate change effects. Factors that may be affected could include whether they have had to change or diversify where they fish, invest in different gear types, or whether they have noticed new species in bycatch. A study of this nature would be valuable and would be in line with the increasing desire for co-management among policymakers, industry, and scientists. Obtaining this direct input from the industry is key for informing policy.

Another research area directly relevant to the fishing industry would be to continue to research and implement the use of more environmentally friendly gear types and the corresponding potential benefits on the marine environment, including reduced catch of non-target species and age-groups and reduced seabed disturbance. And finally, we recommend further research into how climate induced shifts in fish stocks away from ports will affect the distances travelled by fishing vessels and therefore fuel use and resulting emissions.

Ultimately, the greater the knowledge base and understanding of our marine environment, the more informed decision making and planning can be, leading to more effective fisheries management. While this report suggests potential areas for focus, marine and fisheries scientists will be best placed to drive future research efforts for maximum environmental and industry benefit.

References

Báez, J.C., Gimeno, L. and Real, R., 2021. North Atlantic Oscillation and fisheries management during global climate change. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 31, p.319-336.

Bahri, T., Vasconcellos, M., Welch, D.J., Johnson, J., Perry, R.I., Ma, X. and Sharma, R. eds., 2021. Adaptive management of fisheries in response to climate change: FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper No. 667 (Vol. 667). Food & Agriculture Org.

Bastardie, F., Feary, D.A., Brunel, T., Kell, L.T., Döring, R., Metz, S., Eigaard, O.R., Basurko, O.C., Bartolino, V., Bentley, J. and Berges, B., 2022. Ten lessons on the resilience of the EU common fisheries policy towards climate change and fuel efficiency-A call for adaptive, flexible and well-informed fisheries management. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, p.947150.

Baudron, A. R., Needle, C. L., and Marshall, C. T. 2011. Implications of a warming North Sea for the growth of haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus. Journal of Fish Biology, 78(7), p.1874-1889.

Baudron, A.R., Brunel, T., Blanchet, M.A., Hidalgo, M., Chust, G., Brown, E.J., Kleisner, K.M., Millar, C., MacKenzie, B.R., Nikolioudakis, N. and Fernandes, J.A., 2020. Changing fish distributions challenge the effective management of European fisheries. Ecography, 43(4), p.494-505.

Baudron, A.R., Needle, C.L., Rijnsdorp, A.D. and Marshall, C., 2014. Warming temperatures and smaller body sizes: synchronous changes in growth of North Sea fishes. Global Change Biology, 20(4), pp.1023-1031.

Brander, K.M., 2010. Cod Gadus morhua and climate change: processes, productivity and prediction. Journal of Fish Biology, 77(8), p.1899-1911.

Breitburg, D., Levin, L.A., Oschlies, A., Grégoire, M., Chavez, F.P., Conley, D.J., Garçon, V., Gilbert, D., Gutiérrez, D., Isensee, K. and Jacinto, G.S., 2018. Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science, 359(6371), p.eaam7240.

Bresnan, E., Davidson, K., Edwards, M., Fernand, L., Gowen, R., Hall, A., Kennington, K., McKinney, A., Milligan, S., Raine, R. and Silke, J., 2013. Impacts of climate change on harmful algal blooms. MCCIP Science Review 2013: 236-243

Brooker, E., Devenport, E., Hopkins, C.R., Hennige, S., Roberts, J.M. and Duncan, C., 2018. Scotland as a case study for how benefits of marine ecosystem services may contribute to the commercial fishing industry. Marine Policy, 93, pp.271-283.

Bruge, A., Alvarez, P., Fontán, A., Cotano, U., and Chust, G. 2016. Thermal niche tracking and future distribution of Atlantic mackerel spawning in response to ocean warming. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, p.1-13.

Brunel, T., van Damme, C.J., Samson, M. and Dickey‐Collas, M. 2018. Quantifying the influence of geography and environment on the northeast Atlantic mackerel spawning distribution. Fisheries Oceanography, 27. P.159–173.

Buxton, C.D., Hartmann, K., Kearney, R. and Gardner, C., 2014. When is spillover from marine reserves likely to benefit fisheries?. PloS One, 9(9), p.e107032.

Cameron, L.P., Reymond, C.E., Müller-Lundin, F., Westfield, I., Grabowski, J.H., Westphal, H. and Ries, J.B., 2019. Effects of temperature and ocean acidification on the extrapallial fluid pH, calcification rate, and condition factor of the king scallop Pecten maximus. Journal of Shellfish Research, 38(3), pp.763-777.

Cheung, W.W., Frölicher, T.L., Lam, V.W., Oyinlola, M.A., Reygondeau, G., Sumaila, U.R., Tai, T.C., the, L.C. and Wabnitz, C.C., 2021. Marine high temperature extremes amplify the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries. Science Advances, 7(40), p.eabh0895.

Cheung, W.W., Pinnegar, J., Merino, G., Jones, M.C. and Barange, M., 2012. Review of climate change impacts on marine fisheries in the UK and Ireland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22(3), pp.368-388

Cheung, W.W., Dunne, J., Sarmiento, J.L. and Pauly, D., 2011. Integrating ecophysiology and plankton dynamics into projected maximum fisheries catch potential under climate change in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68(6), pp.1008-1018.

Cheung, W.W., Brodeur, R.D., Okey, T.A. and Pauly, D., 2015. Projecting future changes in distributions of pelagic fish species of Northeast Pacific shelf seas. Progress in Oceanography, 130, pp.19-31.

Cheung, W.W., Lam, V.W., Sarmiento, J.L., Kearney, K., Watson, R.E.G., Zeller, D. and Pauly, D., 2010. Large‐scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology, 16(1), pp.24-35.

Clausen, L.W., Rindorf, A., van Deurs, M., Dickey‐Collas, M. and Hintzen, N.T., 2017. Shifts in North Sea forage fish productivity and potential fisheries yield. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(3), p.1092-1101.

Colléter, M., Gascuel, D., Albouy, C., Francour, P., de Morais, L.T., Valls, A. and Le Loc’h, F., 2014. Fishing inside or outside? A case studies analysis of potential spillover effect from marine protected areas, using food web models. Journal of Marine Systems, 139, pp.383-395.

Cormon, X., Kempf, A., Vermand, Y., Vinther, M. and Marchal, P., 2016. Emergence of a new predator in the North Sea. 2016. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(5), P. 1370–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw050

Davies, B.F., Holmes, L., Rees, A., Attrill, M.J., Cartwright, A.Y. and Sheehan, E.V., 2021. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management works—How switching from mobile to static fishing gear improves populations of fished and non‐fished species inside a marine‐protected area. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(11), pp.2463-2478.

Edwards, M., Atkinson, A., Bresnan, E., Helaouet, P., McQuatters-Gollop, A., Ostle, C., Pitois, S. and Widdicombe, C., 2020. Plankton, jellyfish and climate in the North-East Atlantic. MCCIP Science Review, 2020, pp.322-353.

Edwards, M., Bresnan, E., Cook, K., Heath, M., Helaouet, P., Lynam, C., Raine, R. and Widdicombe, C., 2013. Impacts of climate change on plankton. MCCIP Science Review, 2013, pp.98-112.

Edwards, M., M. Heath and A. McQuatters-Gollop, 2011. Plankton in MCCIP Annual Report Card 2010-11, MCCIP Science Review, p.10.

Engelhard, G.H., Righton, D.A. and Pinnegar, J.K., 2014. Climate change and fishing: a century of shifting distribution in North Sea cod. Global Change Biology, 20(8), p.2473-2483.

Epstein, G., Middelburg, J.J., Hawkins, J.P., Norris, C.R. and Roberts, C.M. (2022) The impact of mobile demersal fishing on carbon storage in seabed sediments. Global Change Biology 28, 2875-2894.

Epstein, G. and Roberts, C.M., 2023. Does biodiversity‐focused protection of the seabed deliver carbon benefits? A UK case study. Conservation Letters, 16(1), p.e12929.

EUMOFA (European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products) 2023. Fishery Landings Comparison between countries. https://eumofa.eu/data#landingsTab

Fernandes, J.A., Papathanasopoulou, E., Hattam, C., Queirós, A.M., Cheung, W.W., Yool, A., Artioli, Y., Pope, E.C., Flynn, K.J., Merino, G. and Calosi, P., 2016. Estimating the ecological, economic and social impacts of ocean acidification and warming on UK fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 18(3), pp.389-411.

Findlay, H.S., Artoli, Y., Birchenough, S.N.R., Hartman, S., León, P. and Stiasny, M., 2022. Ocean Acidification around the UK and Ireland. MCCIP Science Review 2022.

Forster, J., Hirst, A.G. and Atkinson, D., 2012. Warming-induced reductions in body size are greater in aquatic than terrestrial species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 109, p.19310–19314. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210460109

Frost, M. and Diele, K., 2022. Essential spawning grounds of Scottish herring: current knowledge and future challenges. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 32(3), pp.721-744.

Gaines, S.D., Costello, C., Owashi, B., Mangin, T., Bone, J., Molinos, J.G., Burden, M., Dennis, H., Halpern, B.S., Kappel, C.V. and Kleisner, K.M., 2018. Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change. Science Advances, 4(8), p.eaao1378.

Grafton, R.Q., Squires, D. and Steinshamn, S.I., 2023. Towards resilience-based management of marine capture fisheries. Economic Analysis and Policy, 77, pp.231-238.

Gullestad, P., Sundby, S. and Kjesbu, O.S., 2020. Management of transboundary and straddling fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic in view of climate-induced shifts in spatial distribution. Fish ,21. P.1008–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12485

Harte, M., Tiller, R., Kailis, G. and Burden, M., 2019. Countering a climate of instability: the future of relative stability under the Common Fisheries Policy. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76(7), pp.1951-1958.

HM Government, 2022. UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2022. Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-climate-change-risk-assessment-2022

Holland, M.M., Louchart, A., Artigas, L.F., Ostle, C., Atkinson, A., Rombouts, I., Graves, C.A., Devlin, M., Heyden, B., Machairopoulou, M. and Bresnan, E., 2023. Major declines in NE Atlantic plankton contrast with more stable populations in the rapidly warming North Sea. Science of The Total Environment, 898, p.1-11.

Hopkins, C.R., Bailey, D.M. and Potts, T., 2016. Scotland’s Marine Protected Area network: reviewing progress towards achieving commitments for marine conservation. Marine Policy, 71, pp.44-53.

Hoppit, G., Schmidt, D.N., Brazier, P., Mieszkowska, N. and Pieraccini, M., 2022. Are marine protected areas an adaptation measure against climate change impacts on coastal ecosystems? A UK case study. Nature-Based Solutions, 2, p.100030.

Howarth, L.M., 2012. Exploring the fishery and ecological effects of Lamlash Bay no-take zone. Science report for Community of Arran Seabed Trust.

Huang, M., Ding, L., Wang, J., Ding, C. and Tao, J., 2021. The impacts of climate change on fish growth: A summary of conducted studies and current knowledge. Ecological Indicators, 121, p.106976.

Hughes, K.M., Dransfeld, L. and Johnson, M.P., 2014. Changes in the spatial distribution of spawning activity by north-east Atlantic mackerel in warming seas: 1977–2010. Marine Biology, 161. P.2563–2576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2528-1

Hunter, A., Speirs, D.C. and Heath, M.R., 2019. Population density and temperature correlate with long-term trends in somatic growth rates and maturation schedules of herring and sprat. PloS One, 14(3), p.e0212176.

ICES, 2021. Data for OSPAR request on the production of spatial data layers of fishing intensity/pressure. Data outputs. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.data.8294

ICES, 2023. Integrated Ecosystem Assessments Steering Group. https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/IEASG.aspx

Ikpewe, I.E., Baudron, A.R., Ponchon, A. and Fernandes, P.G., 2021. Bigger juveniles and smaller adults: Changes in fish size correlate with warming seas. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(4), p.847-856.

Jansen, T., and Gislason, H., 2011. Temperature affects the timing of spawning and migration of North Sea mackerel. Continental Shelf Research, 31(1), p.64-72.

JNCC, 2021. North-West Orkney MPA. https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/north-west-orkney-mpa

Jones, M. C., Dye, S. R., Pinnegar, J. K., Warren, R., and Cheung, W. W., 2015. Using scenarios to project the changing profitability of fisheries under climate change. Fish and Fisheries, 16(4), p.603-622.

Kamenos, N.A., Moore, P.G. and Hall-Spencer, J.M., 2004a. Nursery-area function of maerl grounds for juvenile queen scallops Aequipecten opercularis and other invertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 274, p.183-189.http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v274/p183-189/.

Kamenos, N.A., Moore, P.G. and Hall-Spencer, J.M., 2004b. Small-scale distribution of juvenile gadoids in shallow inshore waters; what role does maerl play?. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61(3), pp.422-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.02.004

Kaschner, K., J. Rius-Barile, K. Kesner-Reyes, C. Garilao, S.O. Kullander, T. Rees, T. and Froese, R., 2010. AquaMaps: Predicted range maps for aquatic species. World wide web electronic publication. https://www.aquamaps.org/

Kemp, P.S., Subbiah, G., Barnes, R., Boerder, K., O’Leary, B.C., Stewart, B.D. and Williams, C., 2023. The future of marine fisheries management and conservation in the United Kingdom: Lessons learnt from over 100 years of biased policy. Marine Policy, 147, p.105075.

Kristiansen, T., Stock, C., Drinkwater, K.F. and Curchitser, E.N., 2014. Mechanistic insights into the effects of climate change on larval cod. Global Change Biology, 20(5), p.1559-1584.

Kühn, B., Kempf, A., Brunel, T., Cole, H., Mathis, M., Sys, K., Trijoulet, V., Vermard, Y. and Taylor, M., 2023. Adding to the mix–Challenges of mixed‐fisheries management in the North Sea under climate change and technical interactions. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 30, p.360-377.

Lindegren, M., Möllmann, C., Nielsen, A., Brander, K., MacKenzie, B.R. and Stenseth, N.C., 2010. Ecological forecasting under climate change: the case of Baltic cod. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1691), pp.2121-2130.

Marine Scotland, 2023. National Marine Plan Interactive. https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/

Marshall, C. T., Baudron, A. R., Fallon, N. G. and Spencer, P., (2019). FIS workshop on Global synthesis of climate impacts on fish distribution and growth and implications for Scottish fisheries: FIS028. A Study Commissioned by Fisheries Innovation Scotland (FIS), https://fisorg.uk/

Mason, J.G., Woods, P.J., Thorlacius, M., Guðnason, K., Saba, V.S., Sullivan, P.J. and Kleisner, K.M., 2021. Projecting climate-driven shifts in demersal fish thermal habitat in Iceland’s waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78(10), p.3793-3804.

Maureaud, A., Frelat, R., Pécuchet, L., Shackell, N., Mérigot, B., Pinsky, M.L., Amador, K., Anderson, S.C., Arkhipkin, A., Auber, A. and Barri, I., 2020. Are we ready to track climate‐driven shifts in marine species across international boundaries? ‐A global survey of scientific bottom trawl data. Global Change Biology, 27(2), p.220-236.

McQueen, K. and Marshall, C. T., 2017. Shifts in spawning phenology of cod linked to rising sea temperatures, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74 (6). P.1561–1573. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx025

McGeady, R., Lordan, C. and Power, A.M., 2021. Shift in the larval phenology of a marine ectotherm due to ocean warming with consequences for larval transport. Limnology and Oceanography, 66(2), pp.543-557.

Moffat, C., Baxter, j., Berx, B., Bosley, K., Boulcott, P., Cox, M., Cruickshank, L., Gillham, K., Cox, A., Haynes, V., Roberts, A., Vaughan, D., and Webster, L., 2020. Scotland’s Marine Assessment 2020. Scottish Government.

Montero‐Serra, I., Edwards, M. and Genner, M.J., 2015 Warming shelf seas drive the subtropicalization of European pelagic fish communities. Global Change Biology, 21, p.144–153.

Núnez-Riboni, I., Taylor, M. H., Kempf, A., Püts, M., and Mathis, M., 2019. Spatially resolved past and projected changes of the suitable thermal habitat of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua) under climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76(7), p.2389-2403.

Ojea, E., Pearlman, I., Gaines, S.D. and Lester, S.E., 2016. Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change. Ambio, 46, pp.399-412.

Ojea, E., Fontán, E., Fuentes-Santos, I. and Bueno-Pardo, J., 2021. Assessing countries’ social-ecological resilience to shifting marine commercial species. Scientific Reports, 11(1), p.22926.

Olin, A.B., Banas, N.S., Johns, D.G., Heath, M.R., Wright, P.J. and Nager, R.G., 2022. Spatio-temporal variation in the zooplankton prey of lesser sandeels: species and community trait patterns from the Continuous Plankton Recorder. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 79(5), p.1649-1661.

OSPAR, 2023. Pelagic Habitats Thematic Assessment. In: OSPAR, 2023: Quality Status Report 2023. OSPAR Commission, London. Available at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/quality-status-reports/qsr-2023/thematic-assessments/pelagic-habitats/

Payne, M.R., Kudahl, M., Engelhard, G.H., Peck, M.A. and Pinnegar, J.K., 2021. Climate risk to European fisheries and coastal communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(40), p.e2018086118.

Pinnegar, J.K., Buckley, P. and Engelhard, G.H., 2017. Impacts of climate change in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Climate Change Impacts on Fisheries and Aquaculture: A Global Analysis, 1, p.381-413. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119154051.ch12

Pinnegar, J.K., Cheung, W.W., Jones, M., Merino, G., Turrell, B. and Reid, D., 2013. Impacts of climate change on fisheries. MCCIP Sci Rev, 2013, p.302-317.

Pinsky, M.L., Fenichel, E., Fogarty, M., Levin, S., McCay, B., St. Martin, K., Selden, R.L. and Young, T., 2020. Fish and fisheries in hot water: What is happening and how do we adapt?. Population Ecology, 63(1), p.17-26.

Pitois, S.G., Lynam, C.P., Jansen, T., Halliday, N. and Edwards, M., 2012. Bottom-up effects of climate on fish populations: data from the Continuous Plankton Recorder. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 456, p.169-186. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09710

Prokešová, M., Gebauer, T., Matouˇsek, J., Lundov´a, K., ˇCejka, J., Zuskov´a, E. and Stejskal, V., 2020. Effect of temperature and oxygen regime on growth and physiology of juvenile Salvelinus fontinalis × Salvelinus alpinus hybrids. Aquaculture, 522, p. e735119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735119

Régnier, T., Gibb, F.M. and Wright, P.J.,2017. Importance of trophic mismatch in a winter- hatching species: evidence from lesser sandeel. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 567, p.185-197.

Régnier, T., Gibb, F.M. and Wright, P.J., 2019. Understanding temperature effects on recruitment in the context of trophic mismatch. Scientific Reports, 9(1), p.15179.

Rindorf, A., Gislason, H., Burns, F., Ellis, J.R. and Reid, D., 2020. Are fish sensitive to trawling recovering in the Northeast Atlantic? Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(10), pp.1936-1947.

Rindorf, A., Mumford, J., Baranowski, P., Clausen, L.W., García, D., Hintzen, N.T., Kempf, A., Leach, A., Levontin, P., Mace, P. and Mackinson, S., 2017. Moving beyond the MSY concept to reflect multidimensional fisheries management objectives. Marine Policy, 85, pp.33-41.

Ryan M, R. and Bailey D, M, 2012. Trawling and dredging in the Clyde sea area: history, impacts and prospects for Recovery. University of Glasgow

Schmidt, D.N., Pieraccini, M. and Evans, L., 2022. Marine protected areas in the context of climate change: key challenges for coastal social-ecological systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, 377(1854), p.20210131.

Scottish Government, 2020. Scotland’s Fisheries Management Strategy 2020-2030. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future-fisheries-management-strategy-2020-2030/

Scottish Government, 2022. Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 2021. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-sea-fisheries-statistics-2022/

Scottish Government, 2024. Climate change – national adaptation plan 2024 to 2029: consultation. https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-consultation-scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029/pages/3/

SeaFish, 2023. UK Seafood Trade and Tariff Tool. https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/seafish/viz/SeafishTradeandTariffTool/Overview

Serpetti, N., Baudron, A.R., Burrows, N.T., Payne, B.L., Helaouet, P., Fernandes, P.G. and Heymans, J.J., 2017. Impact of ocean warming on sustainable fisheries management informs the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Scientific Reports, 7(1), p.134-138.

Simon-Nutbrown, C., Hollingsworth, P.M., Fernandes., T.F., Kamphausen, L., Baxter, J.M. and Burdett, H.L., 2020 Species distribution modelling predicts significant declines in coralline algae populations under projected climate change with implications for conservation policy. Frontiers in Marine Science 7, p.1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.575825

Simpson, S. D., Blanchard, J. L., and Genner, M. G., 2013. Impacts of climate change on fish. MCCIP. 2013: p. 113-124.

Simpson, S. D., Jennings, S., Johnson, M. P., Blanchard, J. L., Schön, P. J., Sims, D. W., and Genner, M. J., 2011. Continental shelf-wide response of a fish assemblage to rapid warming of the sea. Current Biology, 21(18), p.1565-1570.

Stewart, B.D., Howarth, L.M., Wood, H., Whiteside, K., Carney, W., Crimmins, É., O’Leary, B.C., Hawkins, J.P. and Roberts, C.M., 2020. Marine conservation begins at home: how a local community and protection of a small bay sent waves of change around the UK and beyond. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, p.76.

Stobart, B., Warwick, R., González, C., Mallol, S., Díaz, D., Reñones, O. and Goñi, R., 2009. Long-term and spillover effects of a marine protected area on an exploited fish community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, pp.47-60.

Stoker, B., Turrell, W.R., Robinson, K., Howes, E., Buckley, P.J., Maltby, K. and Matear, L., 2020. Marine Climate Change Impacts: Report Card 2020.

Townhill, B.L., Couce, E., Tinker, J., Kay, S. and Pinnegar, J.K., 2023. Climate change projections of commercial fish distribution and suitable habitat around north western Europe. Fish and Fisheries, 24(5), pp.848-862.

Townhill, B.L., Pinnegar, J.K., Righton, D.A. and Metcalfe, J.D., 2017. Fisheries, low oxygen and climate change: how much do we really know?. Journal of Fish Biology, 90(3), p.723-750.

Travers-Trolet, M., Bourdaud, P., Genu, M., Velez, L. and Vermard, Y., 2020. The risky decrease of fishing reference points under climate change. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, p.568232.

Van der Kooij, J., Engelhard, G. H., and Righton, D. A., 2016. Climate change and squid range expansion in the North Sea. Journal of Biogeography, 43, p. 2285–2298. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12847

Van Leeuwen, S.M., Le Quesne, W.F. and Parker, E.R., 2016. Potential future fisheries yields in shelf waters: a model study of the effects of climate change and ocean acidification. Biogeosciences, 13(2), p.441-454.

Wilson, K.L., Tittensor, D.P., Worm, B. and Lotze, H.K., 2020. Incorporating climate change adaptation into marine protected area planning. Global Change Biology, 26(6), p.3251-3267.

Winter, A.M., Richter, A. and Eikeset, A.M., 2020. Implications of Allee effects for fisheries management in a changing climate: evidence from Atlantic cod. Ecological Applications, 30(1), p.e01994.

Winne, S., Pritchard, A., Kennedy, S., and O’Gorman, S., 2022. Review of climate vulnerability assessment of Scotland’s marine environment and marine economy. https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/projects/review-of-climate-vulnerability-assessment-of-scotlands-marine-environment-and-marine-economy/

Wright, P.J., Orpwood, J.E. and Boulcott, P., 2017. Warming delays ovarian development in a capital breeder. Marine Biology, 164, pp.1-9.

Wright, P.J., Pinnegar, J.K. and Fox, C.J., 2020. Impacts of climate change on fish, relevant to the coastal and marine environment around the UK. MCCIP Science Review 2020, 354–381.

Appendices

Appendix A: Methodological Approach

Overall, 212 documents were identified with potential relevance to the current study. These sources were reassessed in line with the inclusion criteria by CXC and BMT and rated accordingly. A spread of this literature covering multiple regions and years is broken down in Figure 1. Following the literature ratings, a list of 150 of the identified sources were given priority for the purpose of this report following screening.

As a note, studies were assessed against the aims of this paper, not against the authors own aims. Many of the studies assessed, while partially relevant to our study, focused on specific aspects of fisheries, such as environmental impacts or future distribution predictions. As such, there are identified limitations of each source with respect to how each source aligns with this paper’s assessment parameters and research questions.

Figure 1: Number of literature sources included as part of the study by region and year

Scoring was done for each source according to their quality based on five questions: (a) what is the sample/study population, (b) research design and methodology of the source, (c) interpretation of the results, (d) limitations of the study, and (e) level of uncertainty. The significance was then calculated based on the year of publication (5%) study type (observed or predictive) (5%) relevance of the paper (75%) and the number of research questions answered (15%). Sources were given a score for significance of High (<75%) Medium (75-60%) or Low (>60). The level of confidence was then calculated using the scores from quality and significance and the formula C=f(QS,).

An online workshop was conducted by the project team on 7th September 2023 a total of nineteen delegates from the fishing industry, regulatory and advisory bodies, and research community were invited; of these, nine attended the workshop, representing the following organisations: Scottish Government, CEFAS, JNCC, SEPA, University of Aberdeen, University of the Highlands and Islands, Seafish and the Scottish Whitefish Producers Association. The workshop was run over four hours, with discussion of the five main questions posed as the focus of this study.

Appendix B: Predictive habitat suitability maps

The data presented below regarding habitat suitability for economically significant fish species in the UK are derived from modelling outputs produced by Townhill et al. (2023). While predictive models may not forecast the future with absolute precision, they offer valuable insights into potential outcomes under various emissions scenarios, aiding in the understanding of potential future developments in the marine environment. This information is instrumental in guiding decision-making and formulating strategies to mitigate risks and optimize opportunities.

The authors selected 49 species for habitat suitability analysis, consulting with scientists and policymakers. The species list includes those currently of commercial importance in the UK, as well as some warm-water species significant in France and Spain but not yet in the United Kingdom. The term ‘habitat suitability’ refers to bathymetry and environmental hydrographic conditions (temperature and salinity) that are suitable for each species, excluding bottom substrate characteristics (due to insufficient regional data) and local species interactions within communities (eg food availability). The study utilized data from the training period of 1997 to 2016 to determine the current habitat suitability of each species, and models were run to calculate 20-year averages from 2010 to 2070.

Climate projections were based on three different future carbon emissions trajectories from two sources: the A1B ‘medium’ emissions scenario from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) 3 Special Report Emissions Scenarios (SRES) dataset, and the CMIP5 Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 (medium emissions, high mitigation) and 8.5 (high emissions, low mitigation) projections. The A1B model, used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), envisions rapid economic growth, a global population peaking at 9 billion in 2050, technological advancements, and global convergence in income and lifestyle. The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) was used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. RCP 4.5 is considered an intermediate scenario, while RCP 8.5 is a basis for a worst case climate change scenario thought to be very unlikely, but still possible as feedbacks are not well understood.

Despite using the same datasets and geographic regions in the modelling, habitat suitability outputs for the training period (1997-2016) differed between the RCP and A1B scenarios. The authors employed a comprehensive approach, utilizing multiple models and climate change scenarios. While there were variations in the magnitude of change among models, and certain models performed better for specific species, overall trends in habitat suitability and abundance were consistent across models and climate scenarios. This underscores the importance of employing an ensemble approach, using multiple modelling techniques with diverse climate scenarios to address the uncertainties in climate change projections. The ensemble approach, incorporating five different models, resulted in varying averaged habitat suitability projections for this period, with only Area Under the Curve (AUC) values exceeding 0.7 included in the outputs.

Understanding the impacts of climate change on target fish stocks is of critical importance to supporting and future-proofing the fishing industry and marine economy.

This project used a literature review, alongside expert engagement, to discuss the predicted effects of climate change on fish stocks, the likely effects on the Scottish fishing industry and to provide recommendations to fill information deficits and inform policy.

Key findings

The Scottish marine ecosystem and the fisheries it sustains face a dynamic and uncertain future due to a changing climate:

• Climate change and ocean acidification is expected to have ecosystem-level impacts, which will likely result in distribution and ecological changes to key commercial species in Scottish waters.
• As the distributions of commercial species shift geographically and weather becomes less predictable, fishing grounds increase or decrease in importance.
• Climate change stresses could impact the value and utility of traditional Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) assessments, which indicate the maximum quantity of fish that can be caught sustainably.
• Area-based management tools, including single species-protection Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), may become ineffective as conservation and management tools in the long term. This is due to changing distributions, abundances and life histories.
• Limiting the pressure from disruptive fishing methods may increase resilience of inshore ecosystems, such as maerl beds and estuaries, to the impacts of climate change.
• Redistribution of commercial species around Scotland may lead to new opportunities for the industry. However, the supporting network of the industry, such as consumers and supermarkets, needs to work in step to support diversification.
• Ways of strengthening current modelling could be explored. For example, by the factoring in of scenarios such as those relating to ecosystem changes or interactions between increasing temperature and ocean acidification.

For further details, please read the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Scotland’s Programme for Government 2022 set out the aim to consult on a new flooding strategy for Scotland. This includes how the country can build community flood resilience and engage a broader range of delivery partners to deliver more diverse flood management actions faster.

The Scottish Government is committed to producing Scotland’s first Flood Resilience Strategy in 2024. The purpose of the Strategy is:

• to change our approach from fixing flooding problems to creating flood resilient places
• to lay out the principles to improve flood resilience
• to set out strategic changes that are needed.

To support the development of the Strategy, Sniffer was commissioned to engage with a diverse range of stakeholders during 2023, working collaboratively with the Scottish Flood Forum and ClimateXChange. We have conducted surveys and held a series of workshops.

Key findings

The first set of workshops, which focused on the building blocks for a flood resilient Scotland, identified key issues as:

• Land and place
• Inclusive community engagement
• Working together to make good decisions
• Roles and responsibilities
• Sharing our knowledge and stories.

It also addressed what a successful strategy could look like and how to measure success.

Building on these, in stage 2 we identified enabling conditions that participants considered would help to achieve a flood resilient Scotland by 2045. Clustering these we were able to create a Theory of Change that sets out the vison, outcomes and enablers as the key pillars of People, Place and Process, as well as an additional priority of Relocation.

For further details on the approach to stakeholder engagement activities, findings and future steps, please read the report on the Sniffer website.

Pictures from the workshops

Climate-related hazards and their impact on people and communities vary across Scotland. This project explored which, if any, population groups are disproportionately affected by flooding, high temperature and poor air quality, how they are affected now and potential impact in the future.

Identifying and, if necessary, addressing the disproportionate risk faced by the most vulnerable is therefore a central component of a just approach to climate adaptation.

Main findings

Many of the most important drivers of social vulnerability affect vulnerability to all hazards considered in this report – flooding, high temperatures and poor air quality. Recognising this presents an opportunity to enhance resilience to multiple climate hazards through targeted action and adaptation.

Climate-related disadvantage is often driven by a limited capacity to appropriately prepare for and recover from, hazard events eg flooding or heat waves. Supporting the most socially vulnerable to make property-level adaptations, including those in rented accommodation, would reduce the negative outcomes when exposed to a hazard.

These findings are relevant to developing climate change adaptation policy under the Scottish National Adaptation Plan.

Related links

Scottish National Adaptation Plan

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/3843

Executive summary

This research brings new insight into how climate-related hazards and their impact on people and communities vary across Scotland. The project explored which, if any, population groups are disproportionately affected by flooding, high temperature and poor air quality, how they are affected now and potential impact in the future.

Vulnerability to the impacts of climate change depends on two sets of factors:

1. The likelihood that people and communities are exposed to climate-related hazards, eg where they live and the dwelling type.
2. The characteristics of people and communities that make them more or less likely to experience a negative outcome if they were to be exposed to a hazard. These characteristics include eg age, health, income, property tenure and insurance cover.

To deliver a just (ie fair) approach to managing climate related risks the outcomes for the most vulnerable need to be understood and well managed. The process of identifying, and, if necessary, addressing the disproportionate risk faced by the most vulnerable is therefore a central component of a just approach to climate adaptation.

Main findings

• Low income and poor health are strong drivers of social vulnerability to all three of the climate-related hazards we investigated.
• In rural areas, access to the internet and isolation heighten vulnerability.
• In urban settings, poor health, income deprivation, high levels of social and private renting, lack of local knowledge and limited mobility are all important contributors to vulnerability.
• In general, local authorities experiencing the greatest disadvantage today continue to do so in the future.
• People in rural areas are at greater risk of being adversely impacted by climate change than those living in urban areas. This is particularly the case for flooding, though population density means that a greater number of people are affected in urban areas.
• The most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods in large urban areas are three times more likely to be exposed to high temperatures than others, and 50% more likely to be exposed to poor air quality. However, if planned reductions in emissions are realised, the latter risk is projected to decrease in the future.
• Different ethnic groups experience different levels of risk:
  • Black ethnic groups tend to experience higher risk today than any other ethnic group, particularly in relation to poor air quality.
  • However, difference between the risks faced by the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods and others within the same ethnic group is greatest amongst white ethnic groups.

Implications for policy

Many of the most important drivers of social vulnerability affect vulnerability to all hazards considered in this report – flooding, high temperatures and poor air quality. Recognising this presents an opportunity to enhance resilience to multiple climate hazards through targeted action and adaptation.

Climate-related disadvantage is often driven by a limited capacity to appropriately prepare for, and recover from, hazard events eg flooding or heat waves. Supporting the most socially vulnerable to make property-level adaptations, including those in rented accommodation, would reduce the negative outcomes when exposed to a hazard.

Note

The datasets and thresholds used are not representative of thresholds of health-related impacts per se but are chosen to provide a relative insight into social disadvantage across Scotland. For any individual, the relationship between climate related hazards (such as flooding, heat, and air quality) and physical and mental health is extremely complex. It is widely documented, for example, that air pollution can have a negative impact on health, with the very young, the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions being particularly vulnerable. However, the types of illnesses that may be exacerbated by air pollution can also be affected by multiple other factors – such as obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking and genetics. The ways in which these factors interact with air quality to influence overall health are not currently well understood, and further long-term research is needed. Similar complex interactions between multiple factors exist in relation to flooding and heat. Consequently, it is not generally possible to say with any certainty the impact air pollution may have on a specific individual. These caveats should be borne in mind when considering the information contained in this report.

Glossary

The following table provides selected definitions. Definitions of metrics are given in the appropriate location in the report.

Introduction

Motivation

Scotland’s climate is already changing, and further change is now inevitable. However, the effects of climate change will not be felt equally by everyone. Some places in Scotland – and the people living in those places – are more likely than others to be exposed to climate-related hazards, such as floods. The impact also varies, with some people and communities more vulnerable than others to being negatively affected when exposed to a climate-related hazard.

The Scottish Government is committed to embedding the principles of climate justice and just transition within its response to climate change. The plans developed to adapt to the effects of climate change should help to address inequality and support the people who are most affected by climate change and are the least equipped to adapt to its effects. Scotland’s Climate Change Adaptation Programme 2019-2024^[1] (SCCAP2) states the Scottish Government’s objective to ensure that adaptation is focused directly on empowering the people who are more vulnerable to climate change and that adaptation actions are just and put people first.

Delivering these commitments successfully will require an understanding of the impacts of climate change across different social groups in Scotland. Although some evidence already exists, a recent independent assessment of SCCAP2^[2] conducted by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) included a specific recommendation to improve the knowledge base around the distributional impacts of climate change.

The research presented here responds to this recommendation by identifying those groups in Scotland most likely to be disproportionately impacted by three selected climate hazards (flooding; high temperature; and poor air quality), now and in the future.

Research questions

Given this context, the research focuses on three primary questions:

Q1. What are the drivers of social vulnerability to climate hazards across Scotland?

Q2. Which groups are at the greatest social risk from climate related hazards, now and in the future?

Q3. To what extent are the most socially vulnerable disproportionately impacted by climate-related hazards?

It is anticipated that the evidence presented in responding to these questions will be relevant to public engagement on climate change issues, and in implementing a just transition.

Report structure

The report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 – Assessment approach, sets out the approach to the assessment.
• Chapter 3 – Climate-related hazards – Present and future, sets out why flooding, poor air quality and the high temperatures have been selected, as well as the data sources used, and the adaptation assumptions made.
• Chapter 4 –Social vulnerability, sets out the definition of social vulnerability, the individual indicators and integrated indices of social vulnerability used and shows how they vary across Scotland. This responds to the first research question: ‘What are the drivers of social vulnerability to climate hazards across Scotland?’
• Chapter 5 – Geographic disadvantage, sets out the definition of geographic disadvantage and aggregates the risk spatially to compare the risk faced across Scotland. This responds to the second research question: ‘Which groups are at the greatest social risk from climate related hazards, now and in the future?’
• Chapter 6 – Systemic disadvantage, sets out the definition of systemic disadvantage and compares the risks face by the most socially vulnerable and the less socially vulnerable across Scotland. This responds to the third research question: ‘To what extent are the most socially vulnerable disproportionately impacted by climate-related hazards?’
• Chapter 7 – Conclusions, summarises the findings of the study.

References are provided in Chapter 8. Appendix 1 provides an extended discussion of the rationale for the selection of three hazards. Appendix 2 presents the rationale for the selected indicators of social vulnerability and sets out the approach to calculating a vulnerability index.

Assessment approach

Climate-related hazards and the impact they have on the people and communities exposed to them vary across Scotland. Delivering a just (i.e., fair) approach to managing climate related risks seeks to ensure the outcomes for the most socially vulnerable are understood and well-managed, rather than basing decisions on strict utilitarian or purely egalitarian principles (e.g., Sayers., 2017). The process of identifying, and if necessary, addressing disproportionality in the risk faced by the most socially vulnerable is therefore a central component of a just approach to climate adaptation.

The framework of assessment used to support this process considers the factors that influence social vulnerability and how these combine with exposure to three selected hazards (flooding, heat, and poor air quality) to drive geographic and systemic disadvantage (Figure 1). The rationale of the approach is discussed in more detail below.

Figure 1 Overview of the assessment process

Climate-related disadvantage arises through the combination of two aspects:

• Social vulnerability – Social vulnerability refers to the combination of social characteristics of people and communities that determine their propensity for harm. Social vulnerability therefore reflects the inherent characteristics of the people and communities in which they live that would – if they were to be exposed to a hazard – make them more or less likely to experience a negative welfare outcome. There are many factors that contribute to social vulnerability, including bio-physical indicators such as older age groups and people with pre-existing ill-health as well as factors such as income, property tenure, access to insurance and access to support to enable adaptation. Multiple indicators are therefore used here to assess a relative measure of social vulnerability at the scale of a ‘neighbourhood’ (defined as one Data Zone^[3]). The range of indicators used vary subtlety between the selected hazards (i.e., flooding, poor air quality and high temperatures) but many are shared (as detailed in Chapter 4). People and communities may be classified as socially vulnerable even if they are never exposed to a hazard – it is a measure of their potential to experience harm.
• Exposure to climate-related hazards – This refers to the likelihood of people and communities being exposed to one of the selected climate-related hazards (flooding, high temperature, and poor air quality). Exposure to each hazard varies across Scotland, with some communities more likely than others to be exposed to one or more of these three hazards.

To help understand how climate disadvantage manifests in Scotland the results of the analysis are viewed through two lenses; a geographic spatial lens and a systemic social lens as described below.

Geographic disadvantage (a spatial lens). This considers the risk faced by each neighbourhood, based on the social vulnerability and exposure to climate hazards within each neighbourhood. Those neighbourhoods with the greatest risk face the greatest ‘geographic disadvantage.’ To provide insight into how these risks are distributed, the risks at a neighbourhood scale are aggregated according to four selected groupings:

• Local authority: Local authorities are central to managing climate related risks and disadvantage (Figure 2, left). Neighbourhoods within a local authority area have been aggregated to enable an assessment of the geographic disadvantage faced by each local authority, and how this compares to other local authorities. All local authorities are considered alongside a specific focus on Glasgow and Dundee, that is used to illustrate the potential disadvantage experience in two city regions (Figure 2, right).
• Settlement type: The Scottish Government (2018) identifies eight settlement types ranging from very remote rural areas to large urban areas (Figure 2, middle). Neighbourhoods within each of these eight settlement types have been aggregated and compared to understand the differences in geographic disadvantage faced across rural and urban settings.
• Flood source: Across Scotland some communities are exposed to flooding and others are not, and the different sources of flooding can lead to different types of challenges. Neighbourhoods, therefore, have been grouped according to their potential exposure to three different sources of flooding: coastal, fluvial, and surface water. This enables an analysis and comparison of the risks faced across each source of flooding.
• Between different ethnic groups: Ethnicity is an important consideration across policy. Information on the proportional representation of five different ethnic groups in each neighbourhood (white, black / African / Caribbean, Asian, other minorities, mixed minorities) is used to aggregate the neighbourhood scale risks. The data on ethnicity is drawn from readily available information within public domain and linked at a neighbourhood scale to property tenure and income (Sayers et al., 2020). Ethnicity is not considered as a driver of social vulnerability, but aggregated risks faced by different ethnic groups is used to aid the understanding of distributional aspects of climate-related risks.

The approach and insights into geographic disadvantage across Scotland are discussed further in Chapter 5.

Systemic disadvantage (a social lens) (Sayers et al, 2017). Systemic disadvantage arises when the risks faced by the most socially vulnerable are greater than those experienced by the less vulnerable within a given grouping. To assess the degree of systemic disadvantage the risks faced by the 20% most socially vulnerable within the same local authority, settlement type, flood source or ethnic group are compared with the risks faced by the less vulnerable within the same group. This comparison of the risks faced within each of the four groupings helps to understand how the outcomes for the most socially vulnerable compare to those of others and hence, where needed, how improved outcomes may be appropriately supported (a central consideration in a just (i.e., fair) approach to adaptation, Rawls, 1971).

The approach and insights into systemic disadvantage across Scotland are discussed further in Chapter 6.

Note: Further elaboration of the assessment approach to both geographic and systemic disadvantage is provided where necessary throughout the report and in the supporting appendices.

Figure 2 Geographic aggregations – Local authorities, settlement types and city regions

Climate-related hazards – Present and future

Selected hazards

The 3^rd Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) highlights increased climate-related risks across Scotland from a range of hazards (CCC, 2021). Flooding, increasing water scarcity and the degradation of the natural environment are all highlighted as important challenges. The European Environment Agency (EEA, 2017) also highlight higher temperatures and their association with poor air quality and other risks, such as wildfire, as important considerations.

Based on this evidence and review of available data, three selected priority climate-related hazards are assessed: flooding, heat stress, and air quality (with the rationale for their selection elaborated in Appendix 1). Both the associated present-day risks and how these may change in response to a 2^oC rise in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) by 2100 are assessed. In the case of flooding, a second higher, but plausible, 4^oC rise in GMST is also considered (mirroring the scenarios used in UKCCRA3 future flood projections, Sayers et al., 2020). Information to support a similar analysis for heat and air quality given a 4^oC climate future is not readily available and is excluded here.

Data sources and models

Table 1 sets out the data sources used, and processing undertaken, for each hazard. The approach necessarily varies across the selected hazards to reflect the availability of supporting datasets and previous analysis.

Adaptation assumptions

To explore future risk, it is assumed that flood-related adaptation continues as in the recent past (defined by the Current Level of Adaptation used within the CCRA3 flood projections, ibid) and that no further adaptation takes place to reduce heat or air quality risks (although it is noted that some aspects of adaptation are embedded in the UK Air Quality projections used here as input data). It is also assumed that the present-day socio-economic setting and related distributions (population, income etc) remains unchanged into the future.

*Rise in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST)

PM₁₀ – Present and future (yellow, orange, and red indicate areas above the threshold of poor air quality used here)

NO₂ – Present and future (yellow, orange, and red indicate areas above the threshold of poor air quality used here)

Figure 3 Poor air quality – Present and future hazard

Left: Orange and red areas indicate areas above the threshold of high temperature used here

Right: Yellow, orange, and red indicate areas above the threshold of high temperature used here

Figure 4 High temperature – Present and future

Social vulnerability

What is social vulnerability?

Social vulnerability refers to characteristics of people and communities that determine their propensity for harm, irrespective of whether they are exposed to a hazard. Social vulnerability therefore reflects the specific characteristics of the people and communities in which they live that would – if they were to be exposed to a hazard – make them more or less likely to experience a negative welfare outcome.

There are many conceptualisations of social vulnerability and ways to consider who is vulnerable and why (e.g., Adger and Kelly, 1999; Tapsell et al., 2010; Lindley et al., 2011; Sayers et al., 2017, 2020). There is, however, general agreement that the most important characteristics relate to five domains:

• Susceptibility to harm – personal biophysical characteristics that lead to a differential (negative) impact on welfare given exposure to a hazard (e.g., older age groups and people with pre-existing ill-health).
• Ability to prepare – factors that may influence the degree to which people are able to prepare (e.g., access to insurance, income, and local knowledge).
• Ability to respond – factors that may influence the degree to which people are able to respond to a hazard event (e.g., income, personal mobility, and community networks).
• Ability to recover – factors that may influence how well people can recover from being exposed to a hazard event (e.g., income, insurance, housing mobility, and health service availability).
• Service access and community support – factors that may influence the help people are able to access when needed (e.g., GP services, help from neighbourhoods, access to online advice and support).

These domains underpin the three social vulnerability indices used here:

• Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index (NFVI, Sayers et al., 2017)
• Neighbourhood (poor) Air Quality Vulnerability Index (NAQVI, defined here)
• Neighbourhood (high temperature) Heat Vulnerability Index (NHVI, defined here)

All three indices use multiple indicators at the scale of a ‘neighbourhood’ (defined by the census unit of a Data Zone, GI-SAT, 2011) to evaluate social vulnerability (Table 2). The selected indicators draw upon previous research (e.g., Lindley et al., 2011; Kazmierczak et al., 2015) and are combined to provide the three standardised social vulnerability indices across Scotland (Figure 5).

The rationale for the inclusion of each indicator is detailed in Appendix 2 together with the approach to calculating indices illustrated using the calculation of the NFVI.

Figure 5 Indices of social vulnerability across Scotland: Heat, air quality, and flooding

Drivers of social vulnerability

Social vulnerability varies across Scotland. These include low income, ill-health, property tenure (particularly social housing) and a lack of local knowledge (either due to issues of language or relatively poor internet access) as well as biophysical sensitivities due to household composition (physical mobility, younger children, and older adults). Consequently, many of the neighbourhoods most socially vulnerable to one hazard are also inherently vulnerable to the others. The relative importance of these common factors that influence social vulnerability to each hazard, as well as hazard specific influences, are discussed below.

Flooding – Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index

Poor health, income deprivation, and limited mobility are dominant contributors to social vulnerability to flooding across all settlement types (Figure 6). Income affects the extent to which people can prepare for, respond to, and recover from events (including their ability to purchase household insurance, make property adaptations or have autonomy over other aspects of adaptation). Restricted personal mobility and transport make it difficult to deploy household level adaptations (e.g., flood gates, move personal items or respond to post-flood challenges, such as find alternative accommodation or access services). In remote and rural areas, social and physical isolation also have a strong influence on social vulnerability. The most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods, particularly in very remote rural areas, also tend to experience low mobility (linked to indicators of physical disability, residential care, and private transport availability) and are more likely than others to have local services (e.g., GP practices and hospitals) affected by flooding and may have more limited social networks to draw upon (e.g., as suggested by higher number of single person households).

Bars show the relative contribution to the overall index of social vulnerability. Highlighted cells show the grouped indicators with greatest influence on social vulnerability for each settlement type.

Figure 6 Relative contributions to the Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index

Poor air quality – Neighbourhood Air Quality Vulnerability Index

Biophysical drivers of social vulnerability (e.g., age, including younger children and older adults, as well as underlying health conditions) are important influences across Scotland (although are particularly influential in smaller towns and remote rural areas). These combine with income deprivation, lack of local knowledge (relating to pollution), and the presence of indoor air pollution sources that exacerbate the risk (e.g., parental smoking and household fuel types) to be the dominant drivers of social vulnerability to poor air quality across Scotland (Figure 7). In combination these issues both increase the potential to experience harm when exposed to poor air quality and reduce the capacity of households to adapt to poor air quality during an event and in the longer term.

Bars show the relative contribution to the overall index of social vulnerability. Highlighted cells show the grouped indicators with greatest influence on social vulnerability for each settlement type.

Figure 7 Air quality – Relative contributions of social vulnerability

Beyond these nation-wide patterns, in rural and more remote areas poor internet availability further undermines adaptive capacity (limiting access to online information and health services as well as access warnings and support). Consequently, accessible rural areas, remote rural areas and very remote rural areas tend to higher social vulnerability than elsewhere due to lower adaptative capacity driven by relatively poor communications. Rural communities also tend to exhibit an increased prevalence of indoor sources of pollution that further increase inherent vulnerability to poor air quality. In remote towns and remote rural areas more limited English proficiency is also an influential factor in determining the overall level of social vulnerability. Within large urban areas and other urban areas social vulnerability is driven by issues of income, language, and local knowledge. The adaptive capacity of households in these communities tends to be limited due to poor access to information (e.g., reflecting limited internet connectivity) that in turn restricts awareness of potential problems as well as income.

High temperature – Neighbourhood Heat Vulnerability Index

Similar indicators increase social vulnerability as reported for air quality and flooding, particularly income and local knowledge (Figure 8). These drivers combine to undermine adaptive capacity by limiting the available resources to adapt their homes, accessing information about the dangers of excess heat in their homes, and accessing help during heatwaves.

In rural and remote areas, factors associated with biophysical drivers (relating to health and age) are also important influences on social vulnerability. As with air quality, the ability to access information through online sources tends to be more difficult. Difficulties in accessing health services is a particularly influential driver in very remote rural areas (although such areas are less likely to experience high temperatures, residents will be less well adapted to heat-wave events when very extreme events do occur).

Bars show the relative contributions to the overall index of social vulnerability. Highlighted cells show the domains with greatest influence on the vulnerability index for each settlement type.

Figure 8 Heat indicators – Relative contributions to social vulnerability

Variation in social vulnerability across Scotland

By Local authority

Social vulnerability varies between Local Authorities (Figure 9). The social character of some Local Authorities, including West Dunbartonshire, Glasgow City, and Dundee City, leads to high levels of social vulnerability to all hazards. This reflects the many challenges these Local Authorities face in addressing underlying social issues (such as income and information access that are important drivers of social vulnerability across all hazards). Subtle differences in the drivers of social vulnerability to each hazard are evident in some locations. For example, East Ayrshire exhibits a particular social vulnerability to flooding (as represented through the NFVI), whereas in Argyll and Bute, for example, social vulnerability to heat and air quality is dominant.

Positive values indicate greater social vulnerability compared to the average across Scotland. Data are averages (means) for each local authority.

Figure 9 Social vulnerability indices by Local Authority

By settlement type

Social vulnerability to all three selected hazards (flood, poor air quality and heat) is greatest in large urban areas, remote small towns, and very remote small towns (Figure 10). The underlying social vulnerability to poor air quality and heat are typically higher in more rural areas than the equivalent vulnerability to flooding. In part this reflects the important influence of internet access within the assessment of social vulnerability to poor air quality and high temperatures that is typically more limited in rural areas (an influence not explicitly included as part of the social vulnerability to flooding, see table 2.

A positive value indicates the social vulnerability is greater than the national average. A negative value indicates social vulnerability is less than the national average. All data are means.

Figure 10 Social vulnerability by settlement type: Flood, heat, and air quality

Geographic disadvantage

What is geographic disadvantage

Geographic disadvantage considers the combination of social vulnerability (from Chapter 3) and exposure to a hazard (i.e., high temperatures, poor air quality or flooding). How exposure to a hazard and social vulnerability combine determines the related social risk. Those neighbourhoods with the greatest risk are at greatest geographic disadvantage.

Geographic flood disadvantage

By flood source

Across Scotland fluvial flood risks are dominant today (~2018) and remain so in the future. Surface water flood risks and coastal flood risks are projected to increase more rapidly than fluvial risks and hence make a larger contribution to the national risk by 2080s (in terms of Expected Annual Damage, EAD)^[5]. This is particularly the case given a 2^oC climate future (Figure 11).

EAD is based on residential direct damage

Figure 11 Flood – Expected Annual Damage by flood source – all neighbourhoods

By Local Authority

Flood risk (as expressed by EAD) varies significantly across the Local Authorities, with Glasgow City, and Dumfries and Galloway experiencing the greatest risk today (~2018) and in the future (Figure 12). EAD is based on residential direct damage

As sown in Figure 12 the influence of climate change varies, with some Local Authorities experiencing more significant increases in flood risk than others. In Dundee City, Orkney Islands, North Lanarkshire, and Inverclyde, for example, the present-day flood risk is projected to double by the 2080s given a 4^oC climate future. In some locations the influence of climate change on flood risk is much less; in South Ayrshire, Perth and Kinross, and East Renfrewshire, for example, the projected increase is around 30%.

EAD is based on residential direct damage

Figure 12 Flood – Flood – Expected Annual Damage by Local Authority – All neighbourhoods

By settlement type

Flood risk (as expressed by EAD) varies across the eight settlement types. Most of the national flood risk is generated within urban areas (large urban areas and other urban areas) – Figure 13. This is as expected given the large number of people living within the major, low-lying, estuaries of Scotland. Accessible rural areas are also significant in the context of the national flood risk profile. This is less intuitive and may in part reflect the greater uncertainty in underlying understanding of flood hazards in rural settings (including less information on the location and standard of flood defences). At an aggregated scale however, this insight is considered a credible finding.

EAD is based on residential direct damage

Figure 13 Flood – Expected Annual Damage by settlement type – all neighbourhoods

A focus on EAD can be misleading in terms of understanding how the risk is distributed at an individual scale. This is because some settlement types represent a much higher number of people than others. The metric of Expected Annual Damage: Individual (EADi, as defined in Sayers et al, 2017) provides an insight into the risk experienced by individuals (Figure 14). The EADi is calculated by dividing the EAD by the exposed population and highlights that those individuals living in smaller towns (accessible small towns) and rural areas (all categories) are, on average, subject to greater levels economic risk that those living in urban areas.

EADi is based on EAD residential direct damage normalised by population

Figure 14 Flood – Expected Annual Damage: Individual by settlement type – all neighbourhoods

By ethnicity

Present-day risk experienced by each ethnic group is similar, although black ethnic groups experience slightly higher flood risk today (when expressed by EADi) than all others (on average). In the future, given climate change, this broad pattern remains, however the risks faced by black, Asian, and Other minority groups are projected to increase more rapidly than for others (Figure 15). This tends to reflect the concentration of these ethnic groups in urban settlements most exposed to increases in flood hazard as the climate changes.

EADi is based on EAD residential direct damage normalised by population across Scotland

Figure 15 Flood – Expected Annual Damage: Individual – By ethnicity

Geographic air quality disadvantage

In general, poor air quality associated with NO₂ is principally limited to larger urban areas although there is a stronger regional component for PM₁₀ (Figure 3). As efforts are made to reduce emissions, air quality is projected to improve from present-day levels by 2030 in terms of both PM₁₀ and NO₂ (although the broad spatial pattern of concentrations remains largely unchanged). Consequently, there is a corresponding projected reduction in the proportion of neighbourhoods across Scotland exposed to above threshold concentrations of PM₁₀ (falling from 57% in 2018 to 31% in the future) and of NO₂ (from 46% to 14%).

This national scale perspective masks the significant variation in disadvantage across Scotland, as illustrated by Figure 16. This figure presents the spatial pattern of disadvantage by combining the Neighbourhood Air Quality Vulnerability Index (Figure 5) with the air quality hazard (Figure 3). Areas marked as extremely high or acute are of particular interest as these locations are within the 20% most disadvantaged across Scotland. The reason for this may be because:

• High social vulnerability levels combine with high concentration levels
• Lower social vulnerability levels combine with very high concentrations
• Lower concentrations combine with very high social vulnerability levels

These issues are considered further below from the perspective of Local Authorities, different settlement types and ethnic groups below.

By Local Authority

Glasgow City experiences the highest level of disadvantage associated with below average air quality, with over half of its neighbourhoods within the 20% most disadvantaged neighbourhoods today and in the future (Figure 18). Similarly, a high proportion of their neighbourhoods within the cities of Edinburgh and Dundee are within the 20% most disadvantaged in terms of below average air quality across Scotland. The principal pollutant of concern is not the same in all Local Authorities. In Mid Lothian and East Lothian, below average air quality is driven largely by PM₁₀ and less so NO_2. In Aberdeen, the opposite occurs, with high levels of disadvantage more associated with NO₂.

Figure 16 Air quality – Future (2030s) – Social disadvantage. Left: PM10 –future; Right: NO2 –future. In both yellow indicates the Scottish average, i.e., areas where the combination of relative social vulnerability and relative air quality balance out at around average overall. Present-day distributions are similar and not shown here

A neighbourhood is defined at ‘significant risk’ if it is within the 20% most disadvantaged neighbourhoods across Scotland

Figure 17 Air quality – Local Authority

By settlement type

Much of Scotland is sparsely populated with good air quality (according to the threshold values set out earlier in Table 1). Exposure to below average air quality tends to be associated with urban areas (Figure 18). This is particularly evident for NO₂ and, of course, is unsurprising. This basic narrative, however, masks two more subtle insights that highlight the present-day regional influence of PM₁₀ pollution in accessible small towns and rural areas and that the air quality hazard is projected to significantly improve in urban settings (but this relies upon significant reduction in emissions).

By ethnicity

There is a stark variation in exposure to below average air quality (defined by the threshold values set out earlier in Table 1) across different ethnic groups (Figure 19). There is also a marked disproportionality in who benefits most from the projected improvements in future air quality. For PM₁₀, for example, non-white ethnic groups are much more likely to experience below average PM_10. This is especially true for the black ethnic group since there are five times as many black people living in neighbourhoods with above average PM₁₀ concentrations compared to below average PM₁₀ concentrations. Indeed, the black, and the ‘other’ non-white ethnic groups are the only groups who are still more likely to be exposed to above present-day average PM₁₀ concentrations than not by 2030. A similar pattern holds for NO₂ with the black, Asian, and other non-white ethnic groups all being more than three times as likely to be exposed to above average NO₂ concentrations compared to below average NO₂ in the present-day. By 2030, people in non-white ethnic groups are still more likely to be exposed to NO₂ concentrations above the present-day average than people in the white ethnic group.

A value of 1.0 indicates a 1:1 ratio, i.e., an equal number of people exposed to above and below threshold of present-day average air quality (Table 1) today and in the future in the specified settlement type. Values greater than 1 indicate that a larger proportion of people living in the given settlement type are exposed to above threshold conditions compared to below threshold conditions.

Figure 18 Exposure to below average air quality – By settlement type

A value of 1.0 indicates a 1:1 ratio, i.e., an equal number of people exposed to above and below threshold of present-day average air quality (Table 1) today and in the future in the specified ethnic group. Values greater than 1 indicate that a larger proportion of people in the given ethnic group are exposed to above threshold conditions compared to below threshold conditions.

Figure 19 Exposure to below average air quality – By ethnic group

Geographic heat disadvantage

Much of the south and east of Scotland (away from the cooler coastal fringe) is projected to experience a considerable rise in high temperatures relative to the present-day average (Figure 4). Combining this pattern of exposure with information on social vulnerability provides an assessment of disadvantage (Figure 20). The distributions of disadvantage by Local Authorities, settlement types and ethnicities are discussed below.

Figure 20 Heat – Future (2^oC 2030s) – Social disadvantage

By local authority

All but 16% of Glasgow City’s neighbourhoods fall within the top 20% most heat disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Scotland, with East Renfrewshire, Falkirk and Dundee City also already experiencing significant heat disadvantage (Table 2). In general, most Local Authorities with significant disadvantage today continue to experience similar risks in the future. There are however some variations. Across Falkirk, for example, relative social risk from heat is projected to reduce in the future, whereas elsewhere increases are projected (e.g., in Scottish Borders and Dundee City). This takes account of changes in relative patterns of warming (Figure 21).

A neighbourhood is defined at ‘significant risk’ if it is within the 20% most disadvantaged neighbourhoods across Scotland. Local authorities with less than 1% of neighbourhoods at significant risk are excluded from the chart.

Figure 21 High temperature – Local Authority

By settlement type

Heat disadvantage is currently largely confined to urban areas (Figure 22). The present-day disadvantage is projected to increase and extend to influence more rural settings. The projected increase is significant across all settlement types (including a fourfold increase in the population exposed to above average maximum temperatures in Other Urban areas by 2030s).

A value of 1.0 indicates a 1:1 ratio, i.e., an equal number of people exposed to above and below threshold of present-day average high temperatures (defined by Tmax95) today and in the future in the specified settlement type. Values greater than 1 indicate that a larger proportion of people living in the given settlement type are exposed to above threshold conditions compared to below threshold conditions.

Figure 22 Exposure to above threshold high temperature – By settlement type

By ethnicity

The projected increase in exposure to extreme heat varies considerably between ethnic groups (Figure 23). Given a 2^oC rise in GMST and assuming no change in population distribution, the analysis suggests that people in the Asian ethnic group are almost eight times as likely, and black groups more than nine times as likely, to live in neighbourhoods where temperature extremes are above the present-day Scottish average (as defined by the T_max95) compared to below the present-day Scottish average.

A value of 1.0 indicates a 1:1 ratio, i.e., an equal number of people exposed to above and below threshold of present-day average high temperatures (defined by Tmax95) today and in the future in the specified ethnic group. Values greater than 1 indicate that a larger proportion of people in the given ethnic group are exposed to above threshold conditions compared to below threshold conditions. The threshold for comparison is an average (mean) temperature for Scotland (Table 1). This national value is compared against respective local averages per neighbourhood to determine whether the neighbourhood’s population is exposed or not. Given the resolution of temperature data used and tendency for warmer areas to be more populated all values are greater than 1.

Figure 23 Heat – Exposure to above average maximum temperatures – By ethnic group

Systemic Disadvantage

What is systemic disadvantage?

Systemic disadvantage arises when the risks faced by the most socially vulnerable are greater than those experienced by others.

Systemic flood disadvantage

Systemic flood disadvantaged is explored by comparing the risks faced by all neighbourhoods with those faced by the 20% most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods (as defined by the NFVI) within a given grouping (i.e., those exposed to the same flood source, living within the same settlement type, or from the same ethnic group).

By flood source

Across Scotland the present-day Expected Annual Damage experienced by an individual (EADi) living within the 20% most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods is, on average, similar in the case of surface water flooding and slightly less in the case of fluvial and coastal flooding (Figure 24). Given climate change, surface water and coastal flood risks increase similarly for the less and most socially vulnerable (in both a 2^oC and 4^oC future). Fluvial flood risk, however, is projected to increase more rapidly for the most socially vulnerable than for others given a 4^oC climate future. The reason for this is difficult to determine (given the scope here) but highlights the importance understanding flood source-specific issues in supporting a just transition.

EADi based on EAD residential direct damage normalised by population

Figure 24 Flood – Systemic disadvantage in Expected Annual Damage: Individual by source

By settlement type and city regions

Flood risk (as defined by the EADi) experienced by those living in the 20% most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods varies markedly across the eight settlement types, with the most socially vulnerable living in remote and very remote small towns, accessible rural areas as well as other urban areas experiencing significantly higher risk than the average (Figure 25Figure 25).

The city of Glasgow and Dundee are important cites in Scotland with contrasting contributions to the national flood risk profile of Scotland; with the Expected Annual Damages from flooding greater in Glasgow than any other Local Authority whilst in Dundee flood damages are much less. This simple narrative fails to capture differences in the number of people exposed to flooding (with Glasgow having many more people exposed to flooding than Dundee) and provides no insight to how the risks are distributed between the most and less socially vulnerable. In both cities, when normalised by the exposed population, the most socially vulnerable experience greater risk than the less socially vulnerable and higher than average risk compared to the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods across Scotland (as defined by EADi, Figure 26). When income, property tenure, and the likely access to insurance is considered (using the metric of Relative Economic Pain, REP, Sayers et al., 2017)^[6] the significant disadvantage experienced by the most socially vulnerable in Dundee (and to a lesser extent Glasgow) is clear (Figure 27). This is likely to reflect the combined influences of low income, and social and private rented accommodation; both of which are considered important barriers to insurance (as reported by Flood Re, Sayers et al., 2020).

EADi based on EAD residential direct damage normalised by population across Scotland

Figure 25 Flood – Systematic disadvantage – By Settlement type

EADi based on EAD residential direct damage normalised by population

Figure 26 Flood – Systematic disadvantage (EADi) – Glasgow and Dundee city regions

Relative Economic Pain (REP) expresses the ratio between uninsured economic damages and household income

Figure 27 Flood – Systematic disadvantage (REP) – Glasgow and Dundee city regions

By ethnicity

Flood risk varies significantly across the five ethnic groups considered. As discussed earlier, black ethnic groups regardless of social vulnerability, on average, experience much higher levels of risk compared to others (Figure 15). This disproportionality is underlined when considered from the perspective of Relative Economic Pain (REP). As shown in Figure 28, the REP associated with present day flood risk is around 1.8 times higher within the black ethnic groups compared to the national average. This increases to 3.6 times by the 2080s given a 4^oC climate future (much higher than for any other ethnic group). When comparing the risks faced by the most socially vulnerable within each ethnic group, the most socially vulnerable white groups are most disadvantaged, experiencing a REP of flooding similar to, or greater than, the average for white ethnic groups (Figure 28). The broader social and economic drivers for these issues are difficult to determine but reflect similar issues within the analysis here. For example, both black and the most socially vulnerable white groups are more likely than others to be living in socially rented accommodation and (Figure 29a) and within these two groups household incomes are also more likely to be constrained (Figure 29b). These findings indicate greater inequalities amongst white ethnic groups compared to others around both household incomes and household tenure. These influences lead to both black groups and the most socially vulnerable white groups experiencing higher levels of REP (from flooding) compared to others.

Note:

As introduced earlier the social vulnerability of each neighbourhood is independent of ethnicity. The systemic disadvantage within each ethnic group has therefore been determined as follows:

• The number of people from each ethnic group within each neighbourhood is determined based on published proportions at the neighbourhood scale.
• The number of people from each ethnic group living within the 20% most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods is then summed.
• The proportion of people from each ethnic group living with the 20% most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods is then determined.
• The various metrics (EADi, REP etc) for each ethnic group, including those living in 20% most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods and for all neighbourhoods are then determined.

A value of one indicates the Relative Economic Pain (REP) is equal to the present-day national average in Scotland. A value greater than one indicates the REP is higher than the present-day average by the given factor (i.e., a value of 1.5 indicators the REP is 1.5 times the present-day value).

Figure 28 Flood – Relative Economic Pain – By ethnicity

Distribution of tenure – Percentage of households living in social rented accommodation

Distribution of income (social renters) – Percentage of national average

Figure 29 Ethnicity – Income and tenure distribution

Systemic air quality disadvantage

Systemic disadvantage associated with air quality is explored by comparing the ratio of people facing above average concentrations of PM₁₀ and NO₂ compared to below average concentrations, using 2018 as a baseline. The assessment compares ratios for all neighbourhoods to those in the 20% most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods (defined using the Neighbourhood Air Quality Vulnerability Index – NAQVI) and grouped by settlement type.

Today, people living in large urban areas are six times more likely to be exposed to above average rather than below average concentrations of PM₁₀, and eight times more likely for NO₂. However, the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods within large urban areas are much more likely to experience above average poor air quality, being nearly 10 and 13 times more likely for PM₁₀ and NO₂ respectively, i.e., compared to the population as a whole living in that settlement type (Figure 30). There is also a particular tendency for the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods to experience higher pollutant concentrations in other urban areas (for NO₂) and accessible small towns (for PM₁₀) (Figure 31).

Elsewhere, the most socially vulnerable are generally less likely to be exposed to above mean concentrations compared to the population as a whole living in that settlement type, or there is very little difference. In rural areas, air quality is generally very good (and is expected to be even better in the future – Figure 18). In all rural areas, it is therefore more likely that people are exposed to concentrations which are below the Scottish mean rather than above it.

In the future, far fewer people are estimated to be exposed to concentrations above present-day averages. Nevertheless, future air quality improvements are expected to be less marked for the most socially vulnerable in large urban areas (for PM₁₀ and NO₂) and accessible small towns (for PM₁₀) compared to the population as a whole living in these settlement types.

The y-axis shows the ratio of people expected to be exposed to above vs. below average concentrations of PM10 and NO2 using 2018 as the baseline. A value of 1 represents no difference, i.e., the same number of people for above vs. below.

Figure 30 Air Quality – Exposure to below average air pollutant concentrations – By settlement type

The y-axis shows the mean concentrations of PM10 and NO2. This is expressed as a mean of all neighbourhoods associated with each of the settlement types.

Figure 31 Mean air quality of all and top 20% most vulnerable by settlement type

Systemic heat disadvantage

Across Scotland, the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods are disproportionately exposed to high temperatures (Figure 32). This is particularly the case in large urban areas, remote small towns, and accessible rural areas (Figure 33). In very remote small towns and very remote rural areas the reverse is true. This is because social vulnerability in these settlement types is strongly influenced by isolation-related factors (such as low accessibility of health services and poor internet) and isolated, more rural areas tend to have lower temperatures and lower temperature extremes. Currently the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods in large urban areas are much more likely than not to be exposed to above average high temperatures (Figure 34). This is also true under the 2^oC scenario; however, the most marked finding is that almost all socially vulnerable neighbourhoods in accessible rural areas are expected to experience above average high temperatures in the future relative to the present-day high temperature threshold. Similar patterns are seen in remote small towns and remote rural areas. In contrast, other urban areas and accessible small towns are expected to see a general trend towards higher numbers of people in less vulnerable neighbourhoods becoming exposed to temperatures exceeding the present-day high temperature average relative to the most socially vulnerable in the same settlement type.

Figure 32 Comparison of exposure of most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods

The y-axis shows the mean temperature for days exceeding the 95th percentile maximum temperature (TMax). This is expressed as a mean of all neighbourhoods associated with each of the settlement types. Modelled temperatures are averaged over large areas (see Table 1) so are expected to under-estimate elevated temperatures due to factors like Urban Heat Island intensity.

Figure 33 High temperatures of all and top 20% most vulnerable by settlement type

The y-axis shows the ratio of people expected to be exposed to above vs. below average high temperatures, i.e., for days exceeding the 95th percentile maximum temperature (TMax), using the present-day (1990-2019) as the baseline. The 1:1 line represents no difference, i.e., the same number of people for above vs. below. This accounts for the total number of people living in all neighbourhoods associated with each of the settlement types.

Figure 34 Heat – Exposure to worse than average high temperatures – By settlement type

Conclusions

The analysis presented provides evidence to support the development of more targeted approaches to delivering a just transition and improving resilience to climate change across Scotland. The analysis selects three climate related hazards (flooding, heat, and poor air quality) and for each explores three research questions:

• What are the drivers of social vulnerability to climate hazards across Scotland?
• Which groups are at the greatest social risk from climate related hazards, now and in the future?
• To what extent are the most socially vulnerable disproportionately impacted by climate-related hazards?

The rationale for the selected climate-related hazards and the conclusions from the research are summarised below.

Drivers of social vulnerability

Across Scotland, low income and poor heath are key drivers of social vulnerability. Income is important because of the potential for reducing adaptive capacity (including how well people can prepare for, respond to, and recover from exposure to potentially harmful hazards). People in poor health are more susceptible to further heath impacts when exposed to a climate-related hazard. For example, exposure to flooding can make pre-existing conditions worse or make treatment difficult due to power cuts. Some pre-existing conditions (or the medicine used to treat them) may make people more sensitive to the effects of air pollution and high temperatures (e.g., dehydration, ability to sweat and exacerbate symptoms such as cardiovascular disease).

Social vulnerability has various drivers across Scotland. Low income, ill-health, property tenure (particularly social housing) and a lack of local knowledge (either due to issues of language or relatively poor internet access) as well as biophysical sensitivities due to household composition (physical mobility, younger children, and older adults) influence vulnerability to all three hazards. Consequently, many of the neighbourhoods most socially vulnerable to one hazard are also often vulnerable to the others.

#Finding-1 Key drivers of social vulnerability are associated with vulnerability to climate-related hazards across Scotland

Low income and poor health are strong drivers of social vulnerability to all three selected climate-related hazards (flooding, high temperature and poor air quality). Both tend to be associated with neighbourhoods with a high proportion of people living in rented accommodation, particularly social housing. A lack of local knowledge and biophysical sensitivities, such as reduced physical mobility, younger children, or older adults, also importance contributors to social vulnerability across all three hazards.

#Finding-2 In rural areas, access to the internet and isolation heighten social vulnerability to climate-related hazards

Across rural communities, limited internet access restricts access to information and support services and combine with social and physical isolation to have a strong influence on social vulnerability to all three hazards. Low mobility (linked to indicators of physical disability, residential care, and restricted access to private transport) are also important influences. Restricted mobility, for example, makes it more difficult to access local services such as GP practices and hospitals, install or deploy household level adaptations, such as flood gates, and access alternative accommodation or remote services, such as access to GPs and hospitals.

#Finding-3 In urban areas, social vulnerability to climate-related hazards is driven by multiple factors in particular income and property tenure

In urban settings, poor health, income deprivation, high levels of social and private renting, lack of local knowledge and limited mobility are all important contributors to social vulnerability. People living on lower incomes and in rented accommodation are also less likely to have access to flood insurance and have more limited capacity to appropriately prepare for, and recover from, flood events. This includes, for example, taking action to adapt their homes.

Drivers of social vulnerability to each hazard

Despite the many shared drivers of social vulnerability across the three selected hazards, there are differences. The following summarises the most important drivers of social vulnerability for each hazard in turn.

• Flooding: Social vulnerability is often driven by a combination of poor health and constraints on adaptive capacity (due to low income, property tenure and mobility). Income and tenure affect the extent to which people can prepare for, respond to, and recover from events (including their ability to purchase household insurance) make property adaptations or have autonomy over other aspects of adaptation. Restricted personal mobility (linked to indicators of disability, residents in care, and private transport availability) makes it difficult to deploy property level adaptations (e.g., flood gates), move personal items or respond to post-flood challenges, such as changes in accommodation or services. If public services are affected by flooding at the same time, access to services (e.g., GP practices, hospitals etc) can be lost or delayed (with potential loss of access to important medication).
• Air quality: Social vulnerability to poor air quality tends to be associated with neighbourhoods where lower incomes and more limited local knowledge relating to poor air quality (e.g., due to limited internet access) combine to limit the capacity of households prepare for, and recover from, events as well as adapt to future conditions. However, our knowledge of the factors influencing indoor air quality is currently limited, and more work is needed to improve our understanding of these interactions.
• Heat (high temperatures): Income and local knowledge are most influential across Scotland in determining social vulnerability to heat. These drivers combine to undermine adaptive capacity by limiting the available resources for people to adapt their homes, access information about the dangers of excess heat in their homes, and access help during heat-wave events. Biophysical sensitivity due to health and age are important across all hazards, but they are critical influences on social vulnerability to high temperatures.

Geographic and systematic disadvantage

In responding to the research questions of ‘Which groups are at the greatest social risk from climate related hazards, now and in the future?’ and ‘To what extent are the most socially vulnerable disproportionately impacted by climate-related hazards?‘ the research highlights that climate-related risks vary across Scotland (now and in the future). In some settings, and for some hazards, the most socially vulnerable face risks greater than the less vulnerable. These findings are summarised below.

#Finding-4 Challenges vary across local authorities

In Glasgow, 84% of neighbourhoods are classified as being among Scotland’s 20% most high heat disadvantaged, the greatest proportion of any Local Authority. The combination of social vulnerability and exposure to climate-related hazards mean Glasgow is similarly disadvantaged with respect to flooding and below average air quality.

In general, local authorities experiencing the greatest disadvantage will continue to do so in the future. Climate change does not, however, always increase risk in a uniform way but reflects the changing pattern of each hazard. For example, the relative proportion of neighbourhoods experiencing the most significant social risk from heat is projected to reduce in the future in Falkirk but increase in Dundee City.

#Finding-5 People living in rural settings tend to be more flood disadvantaged than those living in urban areas

People living in rural areas, on average, are subject to greater flood risk than those living in larger urban areas; particularly those living in remote and very remote small towns, and accessible rural areas. This reflects social factors (such as isolation, limited access to remote services, and limited social networks) as well as exposure to more frequent flooding than those living in urban areas (on average).

Social vulnerability to other hazards is also often high in rural areas. In the context of heat and air quality disadvantages this reflects the more limited internet coverage in rural areas compared to urban areas and consequently a greater difficultly accessing information. The exposure to high temperatures and below average air quality is often lower in rural areas than in urban areas and hence the associated risks are less. As the climate changes, however, many rural neighbourhoods are projected to experience above average high temperatures. This is particularly the case in accessible rural areas settlements.

#Finding-6 Urban settings present a concentration of disadvantage

Within urban settings the most socially vulnerable tend to experience higher disadvantage to heat and air quality. This is partly due to higher exposure in these settings. For example, the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods in large urban areas are three times more likely to be exposed to high temperatures than others, and 50% more likely to be exposed to below average air quality. The differential in air quality between rural and urban settings tends to reflect higher levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). If planned reductions in NO₂ emissions are realised this particular risk is projected to decrease.

The standard of protection against flooding tends to be higher in urban areas than in rural, however the exposed population is much larger, particularly in large urban areas and other urban areas settings. This leads to a greater number of people experiencing flood disadvantage in urban settings compared to rural areas (when considered in aggregate).

#Finding-7 black ethnic groups face the greatest geographic disadvantage

Black ethnic groups tend to experience higher risk than any other ethnic group, particularly in relation to poor air quality. For example, people in black ethnic groups are more than three times as likely to be exposed to above average concentrations of air pollution than people in white ethnic groups. Flood and high temperature related risks faced by people in black ethnic groups are also projected to increase more rapidly with climate change than for any other ethnic groups (although the rise is significant for all).

Projected improvements in air quality, if realised, would lead to a significant reduction in the number of people exposed to above average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) air pollution across all ethnic groups (using present-day average concentrations as a threshold). This is not the case for those exposed to above average PM₁₀ concentrations. By 2030 people in black and other minority ethnic groups will remain disproportionately exposed to above average levels of air pollution. Flood disadvantage is projected to increase for all ethnicities as the climate changes, but black ethnic groups are projected to experience the most rapid rise (as expressed through changes in expected annual damages).

#Finding-8 – The most socially vulnerable within white ethnic groups experience the greatest systemic disadvantage from flooding

The difference between the risks faced by the most socially vulnerable neighbourhoods and others within the same ethnic group is greatest amongst white ethnic groups. This reflects the greater inequalities within the white ethnic groups compared to others around household incomes and household tenure. Lower household incomes and living in socially rented accommodation tend to limit access to insurance and increase the Relative Economic Pain (REP)^[7] associated with flooding and constrain the degree of autonomy over other aspects of adaptation, including household modifications.

Implications for enabling a just transition to climate change

The findings of the research have three central implications for enabling a just transition:

Recognising intersectionality in the underlying drivers of social vulnerability

Many of the most important drivers of social vulnerability affect vulnerability to all hazards considered here – flooding, high temperatures, and poor air quality. Recognising this intersectionality in social vulnerability presents an opportunity to enhance resilience to multiple climate hazards through targeted adaptation. This includes improving access to support and information services (including, for example, internet coverage, income, and tenure).

Enabling adaptive capacity

Climate-related disadvantage is often driven by a limited capacity to appropriately prepare for, and recover from, hazard events. Strengthening these capacities is central to reducing disadvantage. This includes, for example, supporting better access to flood insurance for those living in socially and privately rented accommodation with lower incomes, and addressing the disparities in internet access between rural and urban areas. Supporting the most socially vulnerable to make property-level adaptations, including those in rented accommodation, would also reduce negative welfare outcomes when exposed to a hazard.

Facilitating investments that reduce risk for the most socially vulnerable

Sound evidence on disadvantage is a prerequisite to shaping policy levers, guidance and funding arrangements that facilitate a just transition. The response will necessarily be multi-faceted involving actors operating at different levels. To achieve this, consideration will need to be given to how to address geographic and system disadvantage through multiple policy levers, including funding mechanisms and planning approaches.

Research needs

The presented analysis necessarily includes several assumptions. These include uncertainty in climate hazards (now and how they may change in the future) and adaptation choices that may be made. There is also uncertainty in our understanding of social vulnerability. Opportunities to improve both the methods and the data to refine the results and insights should be considered. Where possible this should include validation at a local level to support the national scale analysis and associated findings presented here. Developing a nuanced understanding of local characteristics and contexts developed through such an exercise would help interpret findings presented here.

Consideration should be given to updating the analysis presented here in the coming years. Updated Census data and advances in hazard mapping, for example, are all planned in the coming few years (e.g., relating to flooding this includes updates to surface water and fluvial assessment and at the coast through initiatives such as the Dynamic Coast). Such advances should be incorporated in any future update.

References

Adger, W.N. and Kelly, P.M., 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 4(3), pp.253-266.

CCC – Committee on Climate Change (2021) Independent assessment for Scotland: The third Climate Change Risk Assessment https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCRA-Evidence-Report-Scotland-Summary-Final-1.pdf

Dale M., Gill E. J. Kendon, E. J, Fowler, H. J. (2017). Are you prepared for future rainfall? Results from the UKWIR rainfall intensity project. Conference paper to the CIWEM Urban Drainage Group

EEA – European Environment Agency (2017) Climate Change impacts and vulnerability in Europe: An indicator-based report. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency

GI-SAT (2011) Scottish Government Geographic Information Science and Analysis Team. Evaluation of the Data Zone Geography. Report available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/933/0120159.pdf. Last accessed March 2013.

Gouldby, B. P., Wyncoll, D., Panzeri, M., Franklin, M., Hunt, T., Hames, D., Tozer, N. P., Hawkes, P. J., Dornbusch, U. and Pullen, T. A. (2017) Multivariate extreme value modelling of sea conditions around the coast of England. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Maritime Engineering, 170 (1). pp. 3-20.

Kay, A. L., Rudd, A. C., Fry, M. and Nash, G. (2020). Climate change and fluvial flood peaks. Report to Environment Agency/Scottish Environment Protection Agency, SC150009 WP2 Final Report, UKCEH, 65pp. + Appendix (27pp.) In review.

Kennedy-Asser, A.T., Andrews, O., Mitchell, D.M. and Warren, R.F., 2021. Evaluating heat extremes in the UK Climate Projections (UKCP18). Environmental Research Letters, 16(1), p.014039.

Kazmierczak, A., Cavan, G., Connelly, A. and Lindley, S. (2015) Mapping Flood Disadvantage in Scotland 2015. The Scottish Government.

Lindley, S. J., O‟Neill, J., Kandeh, J., Lawson, N., Christian, R., and O’Neill., M (2011) Climate change, justice, and vulnerability. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, www.jrf.org.uk

Palmer, M. D., Howard, T., Tinker, J., Lowe, J. A., Bricheno, L., Calvert, D., Edwards, T., Gregory, J., Harris, G., Krijnen, J. & Roberts, C. (2018) UKCP18 Marine Report.

Sayers, PB., Horritt, M, Carr, S, Kay, A, and Mauz, J (2020) Third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3): Future flood risk. Research undertaken by Sayers and Partners for the Committee on Climate Change (using the Future Flood Explorer). Published by Sayers and Partners and the Committee on Climate Change, London

Sayers PB., Carr S., Moss C., and Didcock A. (2020) Flood disadvantage – Socially vulnerable and ethnic minorities. Research undertaken by Sayers and Partners for Flood Re. Published by Sayers and Partners (SPL), London.

Sayers PB, Horritt M, Penning Rowsell E, and Fieth J (2017). Present and future flood vulnerability, risk, and disadvantage: a UK assessment. A report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published by Sayers and Partners LLP. Accessible here http://www.sayersandpartners.co.uk/flood-disadvantage.html

Scottish Government (2020). Fourth National Planning Framework: Position statement. www.gov.scot

Scottish Government (2019b). Second Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme-2019-2024 (www.gov.scot)

Scottish Government (2019a). Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/15/enacted

Scottish Government (2018). Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2016. Scottish Government Urban Rural Classification 2016 – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

Tapsell, S., McCarthy, S., Faulkner, H. and Alexander, M., 2010. Social vulnerability to natural hazards. State of the art report from CapHaz-Net’s WP4. London.

Appendix 1 – Rationale of the selection of priority risks

Introduction

The Independent Assessment^[8] of evidence for Scotland undertaken for the third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3), highlights a range of climate risks and identifies the urgency scores for twenty-five risks from climate change in Scotland which have increased since the previous CCRA five years ago. Flood-related risks remain the number one priority for action, with water scarcity and impacts on the natural environment also highlighted. Under Health, Communities, and the Built Environment there are thirteen identified climate risks and opportunities. Both high temperatures and interactions of high temperatures with other impacts (for example air quality) are highlighted as important issues. Other climate risks are expected, including from coastal erosion as being considered through other research activity, e.g., Dynamic Coast Scotland^[9]. High temperature events are frequently associated with episodic air pollution and there are complex interactions with other risks such as wildfire.¹ These impacts are known to cascade into risks associated with health and care delivery, due to additional stresses such as hospital admissions.

Addressing these issues is a significant adaptation challenge but remains central to achieving aims set out in the Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme 2019-2024 (SCCAP2), i.e., to ensure that the people in Scotland who are most socially vulnerable can adapt and have their risks appropriately managed and in a just manner.

Selection process

The research report here uses the evidence presented in documents introduced above and knowledge of data and tools readily available to the research team to selected three priority hazards. Based on this process the research focuses on risks related to heat, air quality and flooding. The evidence to support this focus is elaborated below.

Prioritising heat-related risks for assessment

Historically, policy in Scotland has centred on the mitigation of health impacts from cold temperatures and excess winter deaths. The potential impacts of high temperatures therefore represent something of a hidden risk and one which is not at the forefront of action. Previous studies have used existing thresholds for NE England to characterise heatwaves in the context of southern Scotland. This analysis (Figure A1) shows the rising trends in extreme daytime and night-time temperatures projected through both UKCP09 and subsequent UKCP18 climate projection data. The impacts of heatwaves and high temperatures are felt through several sectors. They include impacts on infrastructure such as transport and energy in addition to direct consequences for human health and wellbeing. Changes in temperature regimes also affect energy demand with different seasonal patterns predicted.

Met Office records shows that extremely high temperatures are already occurring, for instance maximum recorded temperatures of 31.9°C (recorded in Bishopton, 28^th June 2018)^[10]. The number of heat-wave events is expected to increase, but it is not only temperatures which should be considered. Patterns of exposure relate to aspects of the built environment, with levels of harm being influenced by individual health and demographic characteristics together with wider community contexts. It is these latter characteristics that assessments of vulnerability help to reveal. Estimates suggest that heat-related deaths in Scotland are likely to range from 70-285 per year by 2050 and grow to 140-390 per year by the 2080s. Based on analyses of past events^[11],^[12], impacts are likely to primarily affect older demographic groups, especially those with multiple health issues and disadvantages.^[13] Excess heat-wave deaths are more prevalent in urban locations compared to rural locations due to the Urban Heat Island effect^[14].

Figure A1: Trends in heatwave frequency projected for Scotland^[15].

Heatwave related excess deaths should also be considered alongside the benefits of less severe winters and the potential for increased physical activity and higher Vitamin D exposure, each of which are reported to bring health and wellbeing benefits from temperature increases.² For instance, evidence suggests that between 1989 and 2001 there were 51,600 Scottish excess winter deaths primarily affecting people over 65 years of age^[16]. Measures to reduce cold-weather related deaths and tackle issues of fuel-poverty have been important adaptations stretching over many decades. However, there are increasing concerns about the potential detrimental effects of ‘super-insulated’ buildings in the context of summer heat-wave events. High levels of over-heating have been recorded in new-build homes across Scotland, with exceedance of 25 degrees C (as a recognised threshold in the UK government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS))^[17]. Although inevitably related to ambient temperatures, over-heating is as much – if not more – related to building design and use of properties by occupants. While some occupants express a preference for over-heated conditions, this does not mitigate the potential for health-related impacts and there is also the potential for impacts on carbon mitigation agendas, through increased demand for air conditioning. In this context, it is also notable that between 1999 and 2009 Glasgow city Council have recorded a higher proportion of severe weather events associated with unreasonably high temperatures (11%) than unreasonably low temperatures (10%).^3,[18]

Conclusion – to include heat as one of the three priority hazards

Prioritising flood-related risks for assessment

The risk of flooding to people, communities and buildings is one of the most severe risks from climate hazards for the population, both now and in the future. This risk encompasses flooding from all sources, particularly rivers (fluvial), the sea (coastal) and surface water (pluvial) flooding; the 2018 National Flood Risk Assessment for Scotland, for example, estimates that 284,000 properties are at risk of flooding (1:200-year return period) today. Recent analysis for the UKCCRA3 confirms that the most socially vulnerable experience disproportionate flood risks today and in some settings their disadvantage increases in the future (Sayers et al, 2020). Analysis for Flood Re highlights the low uptake of insurance by the most socially vulnerable across the UK (including in Scotland) and the disproportionate risks faced by some ethnic minorities^[19]. This analysis reinforces our work for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) in 2015-17^[20].

These studies highlight that flooding to people, communities and buildings remains among the most severe climate-related risks for Scotland with flood disadvantage experienced by socially vulnerable communities particularly in some coastal areas, declining urban cities, and dispersed rural communities. The previous work has highlighted that flood disadvantaged communities exist across Scotland. Glasgow and the wider City-region experience significant disadvantage.

The Position Statement on the Scotland’s fourth National Planning Framework^[21] highlights flooding as a particular adaptation focus. The statement commits to more action to: reduce a communities’ exposure to flooding by future-proofing the design of the built environment and investing in green infrastructure; promoting natural flood risk management and strengthening policies on the water environment and drainage infrastructure; restricting development in flood risk areas; adapting existing infrastructure where climate change may increase vulnerability to flooding; and placing greater importance on flood risk management and coastal protection and the interface between planning on land and at sea. The statement also re-iterates commitments to socially just transitions which tailor responses according to the specific needs of climate vulnerable communities within a framework of place-based actions which enhance the quality of places, improve health and wellbeing, and reduce geographic disadvantage.

Conclusion – to include flood as one of the three priority hazards.

Note: As part of the CCRA3 analysis decreases are shown in the numbers of people at significant risk of river flooding in the 2050s and 2080s for Scotland in the low population scenario. This is due to estimated decreases in population in some areas rather than the influence of climate change. To avoid confusion, population change (in demographics or growth) is excluded here.

Air quality as a priority risk

There are clear social justice dimensions to the distribution of air quality impacts across Scotland, even without considering future climate change. For instance, a ranking exercise carried out with stakeholders from government, activist groups, community organisations and academia identified air pollution as the top concern for distributive environmental justice in Scotland^[22]. In the context of high variability in pollution concentrations, there have been calls to consider both concentrations and patterns of population vulnerability when prioritising interventions like Low Emissions Zones.^[23]

Air quality is a function of emissions characteristics and meteorological conditions, and so estimating future changes is particularly challenging^[24]. In a similar way to heat waves, health burdens from air pollution are not solely due to concentrations but also the type and nature of human exposure (e.g., exposure to extreme events, exposure at rest or during exercise, or due to aspects of the built environment which enhance or offset pollution levels) and underlying susceptibility to negative effects, such as pre-existing respiratory disease. There is thus a vulnerability component to negative health outcomes. Greater harms can be expected where there is underlying biophysical sensitivity, enhanced exposure and factors which inhibit adaptive capacity.

Emissions scenarios underpinning climate projections are not only indicative of carbon emissions but also a range of other pollutants with the potential to cause future health burdens. However, health-related air pollutants are also subject to regulatory control. It is estimated that all Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are associated with large emissions reductions in particulate matter (PM) and in the precursors of ozone (O₃), including nitrogen oxides (NO_x)^[25]. Projections of ozone concentrations – as the dominant hazard linked to climate change² – are open to considerable debate and trajectories depend on scenarios and trends in other pollutants, such as methane. This uncertainty means that ozone cannot be considered in the current study. Furthermore, health burdens depend on demographic and social characteristics and how they change into the future, both of which are also out of scope in the current study. One study estimated that the UK’s ozone-related health impacts could rise by 16–28% between 2003 and 2030 if factoring in socio-economic change^[26] though analyses suggest substantial falls in mortality related to nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates (PM_2.5) with around 6.5 million life-years and 17.8 million life-years gained by 2050 compared to a 2011 baseline^[27].

Air quality episodes with elevated concentrations of air pollutants can lead to a range of chronic and acute diseases, evidenced by health outcomes which include increased hospital admissions and excess morbidity and mortality rates. The stagnation weather events associated with air quality episodes can also be associated with summer heatwaves and therefore have cumulative outcomes for human health.^[28] Nevertheless, evidence suggests that recent heatwaves in Scotland have not been associated with very high O₃ concentrations.² Indoor concentrations are strongly linked to building type and use (e.g., fuel types) and other behavioural influences (e.g., smoking). As with heatwave impacts, trends towards more insulated buildings could increase risks from these sources since this reduces ventilation (ibid.). The Scotland CCRA3 summary has identified air quality as requiring further investigation which may suggest it is not an immediate priority for the current project. However, despite uncertainties, understanding risks associated with poor air quality could make a useful contribution given synergies with vulnerability factors held in common with heat-related risk. It is currently only practicable to analyse PM₁₀ and NO₂ for this study, and using available projections, i.e., which focus on expected changes in air pollutant emissions only.

Conclusion – to include air quality as one of the three priority hazards.

Other climate related risk that could be considered in future assessments

The CCRA3 summary for Scotland identifies several other risks that should be given further attention. They include several that relate to social issues:

Changes the natural environment, including terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine species, forests, and agriculture – this has a clear social justice connection, linking those that rely on natural environments (fishing and agricultural, forestry etc) and the groups that may be more or less able to adapt the potential changes. Disruption to the natural environment influences the prevalence and distributions of pests and influences patterns of food- and water-borne disease and contamination. The degree of exposure is in turn influenced by occupational and recreational behaviour making future population risks very challenging to estimate. On balance exposure to the natural environment is widely recognised to be of net benefit for human populations^[29]. Indeed, the lack of greenspaces in many urban areas is a core issue of distributive justice in the present-day.^[30] Population health is affected by changes to the natural environment, including terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine species, forests, and agriculture. However, analysis of residential risks from changes in these sectors are highly complex and their assessment would require further primary research to develop appropriate metrics and models. These risks are therefore not considered priority risks within the scope of this investigation but are discussed below for context.

Changes in coastal erosion – To some extent this is already covered by the recent Dynamic coast Studies but could be usefully extended to consider those communities that may come under increasing pressure for realignment/relocation (as a similar study is underway in England, Sayers et al in press) to address the associated challenge of ‘the viability of coastal communities and the impact on coastal businesses due to sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion’. Relocation has clear social justice considerations but is not considered a priority over those risks identified for this investigation.

Changes in high winds, moisture and driving rain: highlighted by the CCRA3 these changes are primarily concerned with homes and costs to households, resulting from damage to dwellings. Damp buildings cause harm to health and wellbeing, and damage to dwellings from high winds can also risk injury, but the CCRA3 suggests there is some evidence contained in the assessment that indicates that the vulnerability of the Scottish housing stock to extreme wind and rain is declining. However, this is not considered a priority risk in scope for the investigation here.

Changes in vector borne disease: Some diseases transmitted by insects and ticks (vectors) are likely to change in prevalence in the future due to warmer temperatures changing the distribution of the vector in the UK as well as diseases acquired by people overseas and being brought back into the UK; although in Scotland, the future magnitude of risk from vector-borne diseases due to climate change is medium. This is not considered a priority risk here and this area is a subject of ongoing research.^[31]

Changes in household water quality and supply: Reduced summer precipitation resulting from climate change is likely to increase periods of water scarcity and droughts. This may lead to interruptions of household water supplies and associated health, social and economic impacts, particularly for vulnerable households. Private water supplies are most vulnerable to current and future climate hazards that affect water quality (outbreaks) and quantity (interruption of supply) and are particularly important for more isolated communities. Climate change may also increase the risk of contamination of drinking water through increased runoff and flooding events that overwhelm current water treatment approaches. Sea level rise, heavy rainfall, and coastal erosion can increase pollution from historical landfills. There are specific concerns around this issue in Scotland, mainly in relation to Private Water Supplies (PWS), which are those not regulated or supplied by Scottish Water, which are more commonly located in remote and rural communities in Scotland. There is ongoing research by Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Waters to make PWS more resilient to drought in the future and overall, the CCRA3 assessed the associated risks as low today rising to medium in future. This is not considered a priority risk here.

Appendix 2 – Social vulnerability indicators and indices

Social vulnerability indicators

The indicators used to assess social vulnerability across the three prioritised hazards are summarised in the Table below together with a brief rationale for their inclusion. More detailed discussion can be found in the various supporting references cited. Unless otherwise indicated, all data were sourced from https://www.statistics.gov.scot/, or the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2020 (https://www.gov.scot/publications/simd-2020-technical-notes/)

Table A2-1 Social vulnerability indicators

Social vulnerability indices

A unique social vulnerability index has been derived for each hazard:

• Flooding: Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index (NFVI)
• Air quality: Neighbourhood air Quality Vulnerability Index (NAQVI)
• Heat: Neighbourhood Heat Vulnerability Index (NHVI)

To calculate each index the associated indicators of social vulnerability are combined using a statistical process. This process is illustrated for the NFVI below (taken from Sayers et al., 2017). Each other index follows a similar process of calculation. In all cases data are standardised and allocated no weights, i.e., where there are multiple factors contributing to a particular vulnerability theme they are all given equal importance in the calculations.

Approach to calculating the Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index (NFVI)

The Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index (NFVI) is determined through a three-stage process as outlined in Figure A2-1 and described below.

Figure A2‑1 The process used to calculate the NFVI (Sayers et al, 2017)

Stage 1: Determine the z-score for Individual Indicators

Each indicator (‘age’ etc. as described in the previous section) is normalised to a z score. The z score is derived by subtracting the mean value and dividing by the standard deviation. If an indicator is already in the form of a rank (e.g., as is the Index of Multiple Deprivation, IMD), the equivalent z score is determined by assuming the rank is drawn from a normal distribution and calculating the number of standard deviations from the mean associated with that rank. This is done so that each indicator has the same numerical parameters, rather than its original numbers (which might be a %, a number, a rank, a fraction, etc.), and to enable them to be compared and combined on the “same playing field.”

Stage 2: Determine the z-score for each domain

Z scores for the individual indicators that contribute to each domain (Susceptibility, Ability to Prepare, Respond and Recover, and Community Support) are combined based upon the assumption of equal weighting (Table A2‑1). The only exception is the individual indicator associated with ‘direct flood experience’ (e1). In this case the weighting is negative as it acts to reduce the relative vulnerability of one neighbourhood compared to another.

The resulting values for each domain are then themselves transformed into a z score.

Stage 3: Determine the NFVI

For each neighbourhood, the z scores derived for each Indicator are summed with equal weighting. The final z score is calculated based on these results and used as the NFVI.

Top: Belfast, Bottom: Boston

Figure A2‑2 Example Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index Maps (Sayers et al, 2017)

Table A2‑1 Indicator weighting (Sayers et al, 2017)

© Published by Sayers and Partners 2022 on behalf of ClimateXChange. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions, or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent
those of the host institutions or funders.

Suggested citation: Sayers, PB., Lindley. S, Carr, S and Figueroa-Alfaro, R. W(2021) The impacts of climate change on population groups in Scotland. Research undertaken by Sayers and Partners in association with the University of Manchester for ClimateXChange.

1. https://www.gov.scot/publications/climate-ready-scotland-second-scottish-climate-change-adaptation-programme-2019-2024/ ↑

2. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/is-scotland-climate-ready-2022-report-to-scottish-parliament/ ↑

3. 750 people on average in 2011 ↑

4. For air quality standards used in Scotland see Standards (scottishairquality.scot) ↑

5. Expected Annual Damage (EAD): defines annual ‘average’ residential damage considering a hazard event, from frequent to rare, their annual probability of exceedance and the associated damage (detailed in Sayers et al, 2020). ↑

6. The ‘relative pain’ of the economic risks faced by those exposed to flooding (expressed as the ratio between uninsured economic damages and household income). ↑

7. Relative Economic Pain (REP, Sayers et al., 2017): The ‘relative pain’ of the economic risks faced by those exposed to flooding (expressed as the ratio between uninsured economic damages and household income). ↑

8. https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCRA-Evidence-Report-Scotland-Summary-Final-1.pdf ↑

9. https://www.dynamiccoast.com/files/dc2/_DC2_WS6_CE_Disadvantage_FINAL.pdf ↑

10. Majekodunmi, M., Emmanuel, R., & Jafry, T. (2020). A spatial exploration of deprivation and green infrastructure ecosystem services within Glasgow city. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 52, article 126698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126698 ↑

11. Johnson H et al. (2004) The Impact of the 2003 Heat Wave on Mortality and Hospital Admissions in England. Epidemiology, 15(4)6-11 ↑

12. Poumadere M, Mays C, Le Mer S, Blong R (2005) The 2003 Heatwave in France: Dangerous Climate Change Here and Now. Risk Analysis, 25(6):1483-1494 ↑

13. Climate Change and Marginalised Communities Workshop Contributors (2020) Climate change, marginalised communities and considered debate within Scotland’s climate emergency, Scottish Geographical Journal, 136:1-4, 41-48, DOI: 10.1080/14702541.2020.1834335 ↑

14. Marselle MR, Hartig T, Cox D, Siân de Bell SK, Lindley S, Triguero-Mas M, et al. Linking biodiversity to human health: a conceptual framework. Environ Int. 2021; 150:106420 ↑

15. a sequence of five days or more during which minimum temperatures do not fall below 15°C and maximum temperatures exceeds 28°C averaged across the region, from Large increase in projected heatwave frequency for Scotland under new UK climate projections (climatexchange.org.uk) ↑

16. McCartney, G, Collins, C, Walsh, D, Batty, GD (2012) Why the Scots die younger: Synthesizing the evidence Public Health 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.03.007 ↑

17. C. Morgan, J. A. Foster, A. Poston & T. R. Sharpe (2017) Overheating in Scotland: contributing factors in occupied homes, Building Research & Information, 45:1-2, 143-156, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2017.1241472 ↑

18. Glasgow City Council (2017) ‘A Local Climate Impacts Profile for Glasgow City Council’. ↑

19. Sayers PB., Carr S., Moss C., and Didcock A. (2020) Flood disadvantage – Socially vulnerable and ethnic minorities. sayers_-_flood_disadvantage_-_socially_vulnerable_and_ethnic_minorities_10feb2021.pdf (sayersandpartners.co.uk) ↑

20. Sayers, P.B., Horritt, M., Penning Rowsell, E., and Fieth, J (2017). Present and future flood vulnerability, risk, and disadvantage: A UK assessment. A report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.​ ↑

21. Fourth National Planning Framework: position statement – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) ↑

22. Todd, H; Zografos, C; Todd, Helen; Zografos, Christos (2005) Justice for the Environment: Developing a Set of Indicators of Environmental Justice for Scotland Environmental values., 2005, Vol.14(4), p.483-501 ↑

23. Lee, D., Robertson, C., Ramsay, C., Gillespie, C. and Napier, G (2019) Estimating the health impact of air pollution in Scotland, and the resulting benefits of reducing concentrations in city centres Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology 29 (2019) 85–96 ↑

24. https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCRA-Evidence-Report-Scotland-Summary-Final-1.pdf ↑

25. Fenech et al (2021) Future air pollution related health burdens associated with RCP emission changes in the UK Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145635 ↑

26. Heal, M.R., Heaviside, C., Doherty, R.M., Vieno, M., Stevenson, D.S., Vardoulakis, S., 2013.

    Health burdens of surface ozone in the UK for a range of future scenarios. Environ.Int. 61, 36–44. ↑

27. Williams, M.L., Lott, M.C., Kitwiroon, N., Dajnak, D., Walton, H., Holland, M., Pye, S., Fecht, D., Toledano, M.B., Beevers, S.D., 2018. The Lancet Countdown on health benefits from the UK Climate Change Act: a modelling study for Great Britain. Lancet Planet. Heal. 2, e202–e213 ↑

28. Doherty R M, Heal M R, O’Connor F M (2017) Climate change impacts on hu-man health over Europe through its effect on air quality. Environmental Health, 16 (Suppl 1):1-18 ↑

29. Lindley, S.J., Cook, P.A., Dennis, M., Gilchrist, A., (2018), Biodiversity, Physical Health, and Climate Change: A Synthesis of Recent Evidence In: Marselle, M., Bonn, A., Graner, T., et al. (Eds.) Biodiversity, Health & Climate Change. Springer. ↑

30. Labib, SM, Lindley, SJ, Huck JJ (2021) Estimating multiple greenspace exposure types and their associations with neighbourhood premature mortality: A socioecological study Science of The Total Environment Vol 789 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147919 ↑

31. Maximising ecosystem services in urban environments (MEaSURE) (nercmeasureproject.co.uk) ↑

32. Page, L, Hajat, S, Kovats S, and Howard, LM (2012). Temperature-related deaths in people with psychosis, dementia, and substance misuse. Br J Psychiatry 200(6): 485-490. ↑

33. Dadvand, P; Ostro, B; Figueras, F; Foraster, M; Basagaña, X; Valentín, A; Martinez, D; Beelen, R; Cirach, M; Hoek, G; Jerrett, M; Brunekreef, B; Nieuwenhuijsen, M (2014) Residential Proximity to Major Roads and Term Low Birth Weight, Epidemiology: Vol 25 – Iss 4 – p 518-525 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000107 ↑

34. Office for National Statistics (2019) Exploring the Digital Divide. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/articles/exploringtheuksdigitaldivide/2019-03-04#why-does-digital-exclusion-matter ↑

35. UK Parliament Note no, 621 (not dated) Infrastructure and Climate Change https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0621/POST-PN-0621.pdf ↑

36. CDRC Residential Mobility Index | CDRC Data https://data.cdrc.ac.uk/dataset/cdrc-residential-mobility-index ↑

37. Preston, I., Banks, N., Hargreaves, K. Kazmierczak, A., Lucas, K., Mayne, R., Downing, C and Street, R (2014) Climate Change and Social Justice: an evidence review Report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation ↑

38. Poumadère, M., Mays, C., Le Mer, S. and Blong, R. (2005), The 2003 Heat Wave in France: Dangerous Climate Change Here and Now. Risk Analysis, 25: 1483–149 ↑

39. Kazmierczak, A., Cavan, G., Connelly, A and Lindley, S (2015) Mapping Flood Disadvantage in Scotland 2015: Methodology Report. Scottish Government. ↑

40. Rutherford, A., Brook, O. (2018). Civil society organisations in Scotland, 2017. [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 852915, DOI: 10.5255/UKDA-SN-852915 ↑

41. Palmer, G (2006) Single Person Households Report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation https://www.npi.org.uk/files/4213/7544/5585/single_people.pdf ↑

42. Ensor, T. (2004) Overcoming barriers to health service access: influencing the demand side. Health Policy and Planning 19, 69–79. ↑

43. Daras K., Green M. A., Davies A., Barr B., Singleton A. (2019) Open data on health-related neighbourhood features in Great Britain. Scientific data 6 (1), 107. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-019-0114-6 ↑

44. Public Health Scotland (2021). Healthy housing for Scotland: a briefing paper setting out the fundamental link between housing and public health. Edinburgh: Public Health Scotland; Healthy housing for Scotland (publichealthscotland.scot) ↑

45. Taylor, J, Wilkinson, P., Davies, M, Armstrong, B., Chalabi, Z., Mavrogianni, A., Symonds, P., Oikonomou, E., Bohnenstengel,EI (2015) Mapping the effects of urban heat island, housing, and age on excess heat-related mortality in London, Urban Climate, 14:4, Pages 517-528 ↑

46. DCLG (2012) Investigation into overheating in homes. Literature review. ↑

47. Tsagatakis, I., Richardson, J., Evangelides, C., Pizzolato, M., Pearson, B., Passant, N., Pommier, M. & Otto, A. (2021) UK Spatial Emissions Methodology: A report of the National Atmospheric Emission Inventory 2019. Retrieved from: https://naei.beis.gov.uk/reports/reports?report_id=1024 ↑

48. Levermore, G, J Parkinson, K Lee, P Laycock, S Lindley (2018) The increasing trend of the urban heat island intensity Urban Climate, 24: 360-368 ↑

49. Smith, C., Lindley, S. & Levermore, G. Estimating spatial and temporal patterns of urban anthropogenic heat fluxes for UK cities: the case of Manchester. Theor Appl Climatol 98, 19–35 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-008-0086-5 ↑

50. Emmanuel, R and Krüger, E (2012) Urban heat island and its impact on climate change resilience in a shrinking city: The case of Glasgow, UK, Building and Environment, Volume 53, 2012, Pages 137-149 ↑

51. Baker, F, Smith, CL and Cavan, G (2018) A Combined Approach to Classifying Land Surface Cover of Urban Domestic Gardens Using Citizen Science Data and High-Resolution Image Analysis Remote Sensing 10(4):537 DOI:10.3390/rs10040537 ↑

52. Skelhorn, C., Lindley, S., Levermore, G (2014) The impact of vegetation types on air and surface temperatures in a temperate city: A fine scale assessment in Manchester, UK, Landscape and Urban Planning, 121: Pages 129-140, ↑

53. Bowler, D. E. Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M and Pullin, A. S (2010) Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systemic review of the empirical evidence Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 147–155 ↑

A key recommendation from research and public engagement on climate action in Scotland is for the Scottish Government to develop a clear and concise vision and map, to help the public understand the goals and the required actions.

This research aimed to understand if a climate change score card and/or route map could be used as a communication method and how it could be developed.

Summary of findings

The report finds that a climate change route map and/or score card is most likely not the appropriate means for the Scottish Government to communicate climate change progress and actions to the public and stakeholders.

The researchers provide recommendations on key principles for designing any future climate change communication method, which are outlined below:

1. Keep it visual
2. Focus on positive messaging
3. Relate outcomes to personal actions
4. Emphasise the co-benefits
5. Provide contextual detail for those who want to see it
6. Emphasise roles and responsibilities
7. Consider indicators carefully

For further details, please download the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Buildings account for around a fifth of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing these emissions is essential for Scotland to get to net zero. The Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy (HiBS) sets out how to achieve warmer, greener and more efficient heating across all domestic and non-domestic buildings in Scotland by 2045. Achieving this transformation requires making changes to a large number of properties.

This report investigates the experiences of early adopters of zero direct emissions heating (ZDEH) systems amongst private homeowners in Scotland in order to:

• better understand, for example, their motivations, consumer journeys, barriers and enablers

• develop a series of detailed case studies / pen portraits that depict a range of experiences of successful installation.

The report is based on a review of research on early adopters of ZDEH systems, qualitative interviews with households who had recently installed ZDEH systems and testing of a series of pen portraits resulting from the research.

The findings have been used to inform the Scottish Government’s public engagement strategic framework for the heat transition.

Summary of findings

• The main motivations for installing a heat pump and other energy efficiency measures were linked to environmental interests to decarbonise and to home renovations or broken heating systems.
• Systematic changes to reduce current barriers are necessary to engage the general public in the next phase of heat pump adoption.

For further details on the findings and recommendations, please download the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Video summary of the findings

The Scottish Government’s Heat in Buildings Strategy aims to transform Scotland’s buildings and systems that supply their heat, ensuring a transition to net zero emissions and addressing fuel poverty commitments. There is a commitment to decarbonise the heating of at least 1 million homes by 2030, to help achieve Scotland’s target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.

This research aimed to identify appropriate trusted messengers, communication channels, engagement formats and points of intervention for engaging with different groups across the Scottish public on delivering heat decarbonisation.

The findings have been used to inform the development of the Scottish Government’s public engagement strategic framework for the heat transition and associated communications activity.

Methods included a literature review, a survey and focus groups conducted between February and March 2023.

Summary of conclusions

Developing communications and public engagement to facilitate the heat transition and move to zero direct emissions heating systems is a complex and challenging task. It includes raising public awareness across:

• understanding and buy-in of the changes required
• improvement options and potential benefits
• the support and advisory services available to households to facilitate uptake.

For further information, including detailed findings, please download the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

The concept of interlinked practices views lifestyles as a network of interrelated practices consisting of competencies (knowledge, skills), materials (objects, infrastructure) and meaning (expectations, shared meaning). It has been suggested that these practices could provide the targets of interventions aiming to change unsustainable behaviours or parts of them.

The ultimate aim of interlinked practices is to identify some critical shared elements that can be changed to catalyse greater societal change across a range of behaviours.

The aim of this research was to explore how the Scottish Government can apply the concept of interlinked practices to improve net zero policy development and enact societal change. It focused on research with Scottish Government staff and external stakeholders, including a literature and evidence review, interviews, exploratory and testing workshops, and a mapping exercise.

Findings

• The interlinked practices concept is untested and theoretical in terms of policy development and implementation.
• The research found policy interdependencies and interlinked practices in the following sectors: Transport, Agriculture and Land Use Change and Forestry, Waste and Circular Economy, and Buildings. These are key pillars of the Climate Change Plan and have significant powers devolved to the Scottish Government. These sectors have practice-based elements and are crucial in making progress towards net zero targets in key areas.
• Interlinked practices can help to reframe a behaviour problem and help policymakers and practitioners work towards positive societal shift. However, the end point of using social practice related tools is to identify the factors influencing behaviours or practices rather than to prescribe a policy or intervention.
• Of the three social practice elements, material and competencies were often considered in policy development, but meaning was not.
• An interlinked practices approach could be beneficial, but policymakers would need support with developing and implementing it.

For further information, please download the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

On 2 November we hosted a lunchtime webinar on crafting successful research proposals tailored to meet the specific needs of the Scottish Government.

ClimateXChange is funded by the Scottish Government and commissions and manages research in response to calls for evidence from policy teams. 

This pilot event was designed to equip participants from academia and consultancies with the knowledge and best practice for writing proposals for ClimateXChange projects.  

Dr Sarah Govan, Project Manager for climate and land use at ClimateXChange, guided attendees through the elements of a research call and offered insights on how to produce a winning bid. This blog explains what was discussed at the event. For a summary, please see the slides under Related links.

Understanding the research specification and the policy environment 

We expect research proposals to clearly demonstrate that bidders understand the aim of the project and how their work will address it.  

This goes beyond copying the text from the project specification and should be written in your own words.  

Good proposals include relevant Scottish policy context and policy development timelines, with an understanding of research and evidence needs stemming from those. Furthermore, proposals should include information on the cross-sectoral nature of the project. 

Research methodology 

Tell us what you are going to do to answer the policy questions and how you are going to do it. 

Explain your robust methodology in plain English, stating what the outputs will be for each stage. Describe the steps of data collection and analysis, and the rationale for choosing particular types of evidence.  

It is very important to honestly address both strengths and weaknesses as well as gaps of the approach you will take to conduct the work.  

This section is an opportunity to demonstrate an understanding of the policy audience for this work by not using technical terminology or acronyms, given that people who are not experts in this area may not be familiar with them. 

If you list academic references, clearly state how they relate to the specification. The panel who will assess the bids want to know exactly what you know about relevant work in the area. References to research papers are not usually helpful in a proposal of this type.  

Project management and staff resource 

This section is where you tell us who will be doing what, when and how everyone will work together to deliver the whole project.  

Introduce the team that will deliver this project. This is more than just their CVs – we want to know how their expertise meets the project requirements. You will want to put forward a strong project team and demonstrate why this team will deliver this project, rather than relying on reputation.  

Bidders are also expected to allocate staff to each task and analytical step, and to ensure that the named team members will be available to conduct the work. 

We need to know who will be the contact person should we work with you, so please name them in the proposal and describe how they will be involved throughout the project.  

In this section you should also reference compliance issues such as GDPR and, if there aren’t any issues, explain why that is the case. 

Communication and report writing 

ClimateXChange reports will be read by very knowledgeable people in the Scottish Government, but they might not be experts in your area of work. Therefore, the language you use in the reports will need to consider that. In this section you should show how you will communicate clearly with policy teams. 

Describe the approach you will use in writing this particular report. It is important to respond to the specification, but not repeat it; copying the specification does not tell us how you will approach the reporting process and will lose marks. 

Explain the process for delivering outputs, including quality assessment processes.  

You are encouraged to link to your previous work, in particular to reports written for a policy audience. However, links are not enough; you should explain the role of specific team members in producing those outputs or publications and how they are relevant for this work. 

Detail the process for developing and added value of planned visualisations and presentations – this is often missing from proposals. And detail specific data management tasks and their related costs.   

Quality assurance and risk mitigation 

We all know things can go wrong, despite careful planning. This section is here to demonstrate that you have anticipated the key risks, thought about how to minimise their likelihood and that you have a plan to reduce the potential impact on project delivery. 

Detail your approach to quality assurance, demonstrating checks and balances, and addressing issues. QA should be done throughout the project and we would like to know who will be responsible for checking quality at different stages as well as the final report.  

Do not rely on a single person for this, as we can all become text blind after a while looking at the same report. 

List risks at each stage of the project, tailored to this specific project. Demonstrate an understanding of risk of staffing and data accessibility, for instance whether you will need a data sharing agreement.  

Show that the project plan takes account of all of those risks. It is very useful to show us a risk mitigation matrix, including a description of each risk, how likely it is, the impact it will have, how you will mitigate it and respond to it. 

Sign up  

We commission more than 30 projects each year responding to Scottish Government requests. Keep an eye on our website and subscribe to our emails to make sure you receive our latest invitations to quote, calling researchers to work with us. 

We will guide successful bidders in planning their work to meet policy timelines. Outputs from projects will support the Scottish Government as it develops policies on adapting to the changing climate and transitioning to net zero.  

Unfortunately we are unable to share an example of a successful bid, as this would risk the commercial confidentiality of the successful bidder. We do recommend that you look at our most recent completed projects, which will give you an idea of the outputs we are working towards. For examples, you may want to look at the structure and content of the reports under Related links below. 

Related links 

Event slides 

Establishing an agricultural knowledge and innovation system 

The potential for an agroecological approach in Scotland: policy brief 

Working with us 

Subscription to newsletter and/or invitations to quote 

ClimateXChange newsletter