685
1 INTRODUCTION
Socioeconomic factors can refer to any activity or
structure that economically benefits a country, a
municipality,andacommunityoragreatsocialvalue
to the people in an area where these factors are
located. Many of these factors are found in coastal
areas, as the sea
provides many opportunities for
pleasure, tourism, recreation, fishing, and other
similar activities. In the northern Adriatic,thereis a
high probability that an oil spill will reach the
surroundingcoastlinebecausetheareaislocatedina
closedbay.Thecoast,sharedbythethreecountriesof
Italy,Slovenia,andCroatia,
hasahighsocio‐economic
value.Therefore,anefficient emergencyplanshould
beestablishedtopreventtheoilspillfromspreading
further and protect the most vulnerable parts of the
coast. If emergency responders have hazard maps
available, they can prioritise certain sections of the
coastoverothersbecausethey
provetobeparticularly
vulnerabletooil.Theywouldbeunabletoprotectthe
entirecoastbecause,intheinitial periodafter anoil
spill,noonehadsufficientresourcesand equipment
tocleanitup.Thisshowshowimportantitistomap
coastalvulnerabilitytooil.
Whendiscussingthe
vulnerabilityofcoastalareas
to oil, it is essential to consider more than
Socio-Economic Factors in the E
v
ent of an Oil Spill in
the North Adriatic
V.Suban
1
,U.Pegan
1
,J.Demšar
1
,D.Tuljak‐Suban
1
,M.Perkovič
1
&V.Bandelj
2
1
UniversityofLjubljana,Portorož,Slovenia
2
NationalInstituteofOceanographyandAppliedGeophysics,Triest,Italy
ABSTRACT:ShouldanoilspilloftierIIImagnitudeoccurin theNorthernAdriatic,thereisahighprobability
thattheoilwillreachandpollutethesurroundingcoastline.Therefore,itisvitaltoconductcoastalvulnerability
studiestodeveloppriorityplans
andcoastalvulnerabilitymapstohelpfirstrespondersprotectthecoastline.
AsthereisnocommoncontingencyplanforoilspillsintheNorthernAdriatic,threecountries,Italy,Slovenia,
and Croatia, which share the area, decided to participate in the North Adriatic Incident Response System
(NAMIRS)project.Partofthe
projectwastoconductacoastalvulnerabilitystudyinthearea.Oneofthethree
pillarsfordeterminingvulnerability,inadditiontotheecologicalandgeomorphologicalfactors,isthesocio‐
economic aspect, which was studied as part of the research. As there are no clear scientific methods to
determinethevulnerability
ofthesocio‐economicfactors,asurveywasconductedwheretheparticipantsgave
theirsubjectiveopiniononitsvalue.Thiswasdonethroughthreeworkshopsorganisedineachparticipating
country, where professional stakeholders familiar with the state of socio‐economic activities assessed their
vulnerability. The values obtained were combined with
the assessments of the geomorphological and
environmentalfactorsandgatheredin a coastal vulnerabilitylayer, whichwas incorporatedintoa GIS as a
standard coastal vulnerability map that will help first responders prioritise coastal protection. The research
resultswillalsobeusefulgloballyandnotjustintheareastudiedby
NAMIRS,sincethemethodusedisreadily
applicabletoanypartoftheworld.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 3
September 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.03.20
686
environmental sensitivity. For example, an oil spill
contaminates mariculture fields could affect food
suppliesandleadtofoodshortages.Anotherexample
wouldbethesignificantpollutionofaresortandits
beaches.Inthiscase,revenuefromthetouristseason
wouldbejeopardisedforyearstocome,affectingthe
local
community and possibly the economy of an
entire country if the country in question is highly
dependent on tourismasa source of revenue for its
GDP. Therefore, any coastal activity with social and
economicvaluemustbeconsidered.
Following this train of thought, two groups of
hazard factors are
formed: environmental and
socioeconomicfactors.However,sinceeachbeach or
shorelineiscomposedofdifferentmaterialsthatreact
differently to oil, geomorphology must also be
considered.To dothis,allshorelinesin agivenarea
must be identifiedand ranked according to their oil
sensitivity, using Environmental Sensitivity Index
(ESI)values
determinedbyNOAAorotherscientific
means, since many different shorelines around the
world donʹt occur in the U.S. and therefore arenʹt
includedintheESIranking[9].Onceallthreegroups
of vulnerability factors are identified, they can be
dividedintosubsectionsthatprovideinformationon
what
types of factors belonging to each group are
presentinthatareaor,asinthecaseofNAMIRS,in
thenorthernAdriatic.Butwhyiscoastalvulnerability
mapping necessary for oil spill emergency planning
orotherhazardmitigation,andhowcanvulnerability
be qualified or quantified? This problem can be
addressedinseveralways.
2 COASTALVULNERABILITYASSESSMENT
Today,the termʺcoastalhazardʺ isubiquitousin oil
spillemergencyplanning.However,thetermrefersto
different types of hazards. Over the years, scientists
aroundtheworldhavedescribedcoastalvulnerability
aseitherafactorhighlightingthesusceptibilityofthe
coast
to natural or man‐made processes, such as
erosionfromfloodingandtheconstructionofcoastal
infrastructure, or as a factor highlighting the
susceptibility of the coast to pollution from oil or
otherhazardous chemicals[6]. Therefore,thisaspect
must be considered in developing an oil spill
contingencyplanforseveral
reasons.
Gundlach,Hayes,andMicheletal.werethefirst
to classify coastal vulnerability to oil spills. Twenty
yearslater,theirworkwasimprovedbyJensenetal.
andthen furtherdeveloped by theNational Oceanic
andAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA)intooneof
the most efficient coastal vulnerability assessment
tools,
theEnvironmentalSensitivityIndex(ESI)[7,14,
15,16].TherearenotoolsliketheESIinEuropesince
theycanbeappliedworldwide,andmostdonotneed
to be redeveloped. Nevertheless, some studies have
been conducted to create a similar coastal
vulnerabilityindex[8].FortheAdriaticSea,only
one
tool,anatlas, is proposed inthe SHAPEproject:the
oil spill vulnerability assessment. Since the lack of
clearcoastalvulnerabilitymapsisasignificantgapin
international oil spill emergency planning, the three
countriessharingthenorthern Adriaticarea decided
to try to create their coastal vulnerability index
to
developatoolthatcanbeappliedinotherareasofthe
Adriaticandworldwide,takingintoaccountnotonly
the geomorphological aspect defined by the ESI but
alsoenvironmentalandsocio‐economicfactors.
Coastal regions suchasthe northern Adriatic are
remote and landlocked. Therefore, there is a high
probability that oil spills will reach the surrounding
coastal areas. In the event of a major oil spill, first
responders are unlikely to have sufficient resources
and equipment to protect the entire coast from
pollution. Therefore, they would need to decide
whichsectionsofthecoasttheyshouldprotectrather
than others. For responders to decide which coastal
sections to prioritise for protection, coastal
vulnerabilitymapsmustbedeveloped.
Globally, coastal vulnerability has been assessed
separatelyforeachhazardfactorandcombinedintoa
standard vulnerability index. Geomorphological
factors are now scientifically assessed using
Environmental Sensitivity Indices (ESI) produced by
the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration[7].Environmentalfactorsarescored
differentlyor,insomecases,neednotbescoredatall.
These factors, represented by various legally
protectedareas,wouldtakeprecedenceoveranything
else in the event of an oil spill, at least in those
countries that enforce such
laws. However, in
assessing the socioeconomic factors of vulnerability,
thereareseveralapproachestothisproblem.
2.1 Socio‐economicfactorsassessment
Inadditiontothecoststhatariseinoilspillclean‐up
operations,financiallossesaresometimesexperienced
bysectorsthatrelyoncleanseawaterandcoasts.The
mostsignificant
economicimpactsaretypicallyfeltin
fisheries, mariculture, and tourism,althougha great
number of other sectors can be affected, such as
coolingwaterstations,culturalheritagesitesetc.[5]
Tourism,whichisoneofthemainsocio‐economic
factorsthatbringgreatincometocountrieswithrich
coastlines,can
bedisruptedbythepresenceofoilin
wateroronshore.Consequenceslikelytoariseinclude
disrupting traditional coastal activities like bathing,
boating,divingetc.However,thisaffectsnotonlythe
coastline but also hotels, restaurants, bar owners,
sailing schools, campsites, caravan parks, tourist
marinas and the many other businesses and
individuals who gain their livelihood from tourism.
Some holidaymakers may cancel bookings in the
affectedareaandtransfertheirholidaystoalternative
locations. The problem, however, lies in visitors’
conscience, as they are unlikely to return to the
affected site for years because they would deem it
tainted from oil,
even if the area was sanitised and
cleaned. The same could be said for various
recreationalsites,oftentouristsites[5].
Ports can suffer similar consequences as tourist
marinas, but on a grander economic scale for the
countryrather thana specifictouristarea.However,
these consequences may only last for
a short time
since ports have environmental protection services
thatcanquicklylimitthem.Lossesinthecaseofports
arerelatedtothelossofbusinesstheportcouldmake
687
when it is closed because of oil spill clean‐up
operations[5].
In many countries, mariculture and fisheries
representabigpartoftheirpopulation’sfoodchain,
whichcanbeseriouslydepletedifaffectedbyoil.The
importance of mariculture varies from country to
country, but it’s nevertheless always
worth
considering[5].
Another factor worth considering from a socio‐
economic point of view is cultural heritage, which
represents excellent value to history and even
tourism. Damage caused to cultural artefacts may
either resultfromtheoil itself or negligent clean‐up
operations.Thesurfacesofheritagesiteswhichhave
weathered
can become porous or crumbling.
Therefore, oil can penetrate deeply into them and
cause major difficulties. Specialist restoration
techniques may be called for, which can be very
costly,dependingonthescopeofpollution[5].
Worth considering are also various industrial
water intakes used for cooling water or other
purposes.
Thesanitationcostswoulddepend onthe
scaleofpollution[5].
Knowingthe presenceofthe abovefactorsinthe
area in question, the vulnerability to determine the
vulnerability to oil by various methods, sometimes
moreandsometimeslessappropriate.
Qualitativedescriptionsorquantitativevaluescan
determine the coast’s vulnerability from
a
socioeconomicpointofview.Theeconomicpartofthe
socioeconomicfactorscanbedeterminedintwoways:
bycalculatingtheimpactontheGDPoftheaffected
countriesorbyobtainingestimatesofthevaluefrom
stakeholders working on the ground. The v). The
POLMAR plan was established in
1978 after the
Amoco Cadiz disaster. In 2004, the POLMAR plan
was renamed the ORSEC‐SEA plan. The plan was
developed to assess vulnerability from an
environmental and socioeconomic perspective in
counties in the Northeast Atlantic. It includes the
followingsocioeconomicfactors[2,3]:
recreationandtourism,
fisheriesand
aquaculture,
shipping,
ports,
oilandgasindustry,and
offshorerenewableenergy.
Apartfromrecreationandtourismfactors,theplan
determines the vulnerability of other factors from
their impact on each participating country’s GDP,
highlighted in added gross value in a million euros
per year.However,the
assessmentofformerfactors
also considers the number of people visiting each
country for recreational or touristic purposes. The
areaswhichaddthemosttotheOSPARregion’sGDP
aregiventhehighestvulnerabilitygrade.Incontrast,
thosewiththelowestaddedgrossvaluearegiventhe
lowestvulnerabilityvalue[2,
3].
Another way to assess the vulnerability of socio‐
economic factors is the analytical hierarchy process
method(AHP),usedbyVafaietalinthecoastalareas
oftheCaspianSeainthenorthofIran.TheAHPisa
popular method, first proposed by Saaty, which is
used for
solving multi‐criteria analysis problems
described by qualitative factors. The method
incorporatesadecisionmatrixtotransformqualitative
data into numeric ratios, enabling us to easily
comparedifferentfactors,suchasgeomorphological,
environmental, and socio‐economic factors. By
gatheringdataonthetypeandnumberofsubfactors
from each vulnerability factor
group, Vafai et al
executed a workshop where experts from each field
comparedthevulnerabilityofonefactorwithanother
(for example, the importance of socio‐economic
factors related to environmental factors). After
obtaining these results, comparative ratios of the
three‐factor groups are calculated. A model
connectingthethree‐
factorgroupsmustbechosento
determine the coastlineʹs vulnerability. The Iranian
scientistsalsocalculatedvulnerabilitywith FAHP or
fuzzy analytical hierarchical process, which proved
more accurate because it eliminates probable
uncertaintiesinthecomparisonprocess[4,17].
The final known efficient method to assess the
vulnerabilityofsocio‐economic
factorsisanexecution
ofacoastalvulnerabilityassessmentworkshop,where
invitedstakeholders givetheir subjective opinionon
the importance of each factor. Stakeholders in such
workshopsshouldberepresentativesfromeachsocio‐
economicarea. Thefinalresults canbemerged with
environmental and geomorphological vulnerability
factorgradesbyapplying
AHPorFAHPratios.
2.2 Socio‐economicfactorsassessmentinNAMIRS
Intensive human activity in the Northern Adriatic
contributestoahighdensityofvarioustouristresorts,
recreational areas, and other activities with socio‐
economic value. The area also includes extensive
protectedareasofnaturalandhistoricsites.Protected
naturalareas
includelagoons,underwaterhabitatsof
protectedspecies,cliffs,saltmarshesandpans,nature
reservesofMediterraneanterrestrialfloraandfauna,
and freshwater lakes. Considering all these factors,
the area will remain highly vulnerable as it grows.
Individualcountriescannotrelyontheirresourcesto
dealwithaprobablemajormarine
pollutionincident.
Regional cooperation and mutual assistance are,
therefore, essential. The first attempt to form a sub‐
regionalcontingencyplanbetweenItaly,Croatiaand
Slovenia for oil spill preparedness and the response
was made in 2004. At the time, the first coastal
vulnerability mapping studies, which represent the
first step needed
to be undertaken when forming a
pollutioncontingencyplan,wereconducted.Figure1
depictscumulativesensitivityscoresoftheSlovenian
Coastlineaccordingtothedataavailableinearly2000
[1].
012345
Kilometers
¯
Piran
Izola
Koper
Legend
sensitivity
Val u e
0
1 - 3
4 - 6
7 - 9
10 - 12
Marine Border
IMO TSS
Coastline
Figure1. Cumulative sensitivity values of the Slovenian
coastalarea.Higherscoresrepresenthighervulnerability.
688
Twenty years later, the NAMIRS project is
continuing its research into the vulnerability of the
NorthernAdriatictopotentialmarinepollution.This
time, the approach to mapping vulnerability was
differentandconsistentforallprojectteammembers
[1].
The coastal vulnerability assessment studies
undertakenbyresearchteamsfromSlovenia,Croatia,
and Italy in the scope of the NAMIRS project were
conductedinthreeworkshopswhichproducedvalues
of coastal vulnerability to oil spills with the help of
workshop participants’ quantitative estimations of
eachhighlightedarea.Theworkshopsreferredtothe
guidelines of the Delphi method, which defines the
IALAPAWSA
riskassessmentmethod.Still,because
ofthedifferentneedsoftheNAMIRSproject,itwas
rearrangedaccordinglytothem.Thismainlypertains
tothetimeinwhichtheworkshopswereexecuted.A
traditionalPAWSAworkshopisdivided intotwoor
moredays.Fromthosetwo,thefirstdayisdedicated
to
thoroughly informing participants on each
vulnerabilityanddividingthemintogroupsthattell
ushowknowledgeableparticipantsareinthestudied
area. The second day is dedicated to filling in the
coastal vulnerability assessment questionnaires to
obtain participants’ opinions on the value of
vulnerability and rearranging it according to their
level of knowledge. The process undertaken in
NAMIRSwentpreciselyasdescribed.Still,insteadof
expandingtotwodays, itwas concludedina single
day, meaning that vulnerability factor presentations
had to be executed more quickly. However,
considering the costs of organising each of the
workshopsand thetime,which
wasavailabletothe
research teams, and, more importantly, to
participants, the workshops were deemed to have
been executed well because everyone who
participatedbelongedtoagroupofexpertsandwas
thereforeconsideredtohave sufficientknowledgein
anycase.
Such a method of determining coastal
vulnerability may be
unnecessary since this can be
doneobjectivelybyconductingscientificresearchon
which types of coasts are the most sensitive to oil
spills with the help of ESIs. However, while this is
correctfromanypointofview,thesubjectiveopinion
of those who either exploit the sea or coast for
any
beneficial socio‐economic activity and of those who
engageinenvironmentalprotectionorenvironmental
preservation must also be considered since these
valuescannotbeobjectivelydeterminedinanyother
way, apart from the ones described in the previous
chapter.Theformatofworkshopswaschosenbecause
ofthetight
schedulessetbyNAMIRS.
Thefirststeptowardsrealisingtheworkshopswas
relevantstakeholdermapping. A list of servicesand
people who engage in either detection or alerting
activities, prevention, preparedness and monitoring
activities,cleaningandcleaning‐relatedactivities,and
post‐cleaning operations were formed for each
participating country. The research
groups also
invited every non‐governmental or governmental
organisationthat doesnotnecessarily engagein any
oftheaforementionedtasksbutisknowntoknowthe
matter in question. This was done to obtain a
professionalassessmentofvulnerability.
The next step included the identification of all
factorswhichhave
asocialandeconomicvalueforthe
community and economy. The socio‐economic areas
that may be affected by an oil spill include tourist
resortsandseasidehotelsorcamps,culturalheritage
sites,cooling waterstations,ports, recreationalareas
(man‐madestructuresbuiltalongthecoastforsports
and other recreational
activities), and maricultural
areas. Ports were then further divided into
commercial ports such as thePort of Trieste, tourist
ports represented by marinas dedicated to tourists,
and local ports used by local communities and
fishermen. Maricultural areas were divided into
shellfish,fish,andotherhavensorfarms.
After identifying all
socioeconomic factors, the
researchers consulted various databases run by
projectpartnersorotherservicestolocatethemona
map. Locations of mariculture fields were
downloadedfromtheAdriplandataportal.Locations
ofculturalheritagesitesweredeterminedbymerging
information from maps of archaeological and
paleontologicalsitesavailableonEMODnet
Geology,
EMODnet Human Activities, and the Bioportal of
Croatia. However, gathering data on locations of
tourist and recreational areas was more problematic
sincenomapsreportingtherecreationalandtouristic
siteswereavailable.Ajoinedmapoftherecreational‐
touristic traits of the coast was generated by
highlighting intersections between
the Northern
Adriatic coastline and a 100 m radius buffer drawn
aroundsuitablebathingwatersitesdownloadedfrom
EMODnet‐HumanActivities.Althoughthenumber
of traits of coast with recreational‐touristic activities
maybeunderestimatedusingbathingwatersites,this
wastheonlyavailableinformationthatcouldbeused
asa
proxy forderivingsuch vulnerabilityfactor[10,
11,12,13].
After all the data was successfully gathered, the
researchers formed a questionnaire for the
stakeholderstofillout.Theinvitedstakeholdersand
other organisations met at each of the organised
workshops either live in situ or online via the
provided
link to the digital version of the
questionnaire. The workshops proceeded in a
completely anonymous manner but with known
stakeholders. Participants were asked to assess the
vulnerability of each socio‐economic factor with a
grade on a scale ranging from 1, representing the
lowest level of vulnerability, to 9, representing the
highest level of vulnerability. When all three
workshops were completed, their results were
subjected to statistical processing, the outcome of
which was later analysed and highlighted in graphs
andtables.
3 NAMIRSSOCIO‐ECONOMICFACTORS
ASSESSMENTRESULTS
A total of 104 stakeholders participated in the
Northern Adriatic Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
workshops,eitheronlineoron‐site.
Results from all three workshops were merged
into a single database and subjected to statical
processing. Measures of central tendency, including
mean, mode and median values, and standard
689
deviation, were calculated for each socio‐economic
factor. Calculated results are highlighted in a table
below, where each socio‐economic factor is listed
under its question number from the workshops
questionnaire:
Q1–mariculture,
Q2–tourism,
Q3–recreation,
Q4–culturalheritage,
Q5–coolingwaterstations,
Q6–commercialports,
Q7–touristports,and
Q8–localports.
Table1.Jointworkshopresults
The stakeholder’s input was also exported into
grade frequency distribution charts below, which
indicatehighdatadispersionhighlightedbystandard
deviationvaluesfromtheuppertable.
Figure2.Mariculturegradedistributionchart.
Figure3.Tourismgradedistributionchart.
Figure4.Recreationalareasgradedistributionchart.
Figure5.Culturalheritagesitesgradedistributionchart.
Figure6.Coolingwaterstationsgradedistributionchart.
Figure7.Commercialportsgradedistributionchart.
Figure8.Touristportsgradedistributionchart.
Figure9.Localportsgradedistributionchart.
In this study, it was necessary to use the mean
scoresasthemodeandmedianscoreswere,insome
cases, too high after calculating all three means of
central tendency. Participants generally rated all
socioeconomic factors almost equally, except for
tourism and mariculture, which were rated more
vulnerable. This is
mainly because both factors are
strongly present in the Northern Adriatic and
significantly impact the three countriesʹ economies,
690
especially in Croatia, where tourism plays an
important role. Conversely, Mariculture is ranked
highduetoitsdirectimpactonthefoodsupplyofthe
coastalregionsknownfortheirseafood.
After collecting the vulnerability levels from the
socioeconomic factors group, the research team
mergedthemwiththevulnerabilitylevels
ofvarious
coastal geomorphological types in the northern
AdriaticSeaidentifiedthroughreassessedESI,aswell
as with the estimated vulnerability levels of various
legally protected areas that fall under the
environmental factors category. The summarised
vulnerability levels were exported to a GIS as the
CoastalVulnerabilityLayerofthe
NorthernAdriatic,
which formed the final vulnerability map. The map
accuratelyshowsthelocationofthefactorsandtheir
coastal vulnerability values under all three
viewpoints. The only major difficulty the research
team faced in creating the map was finding micro‐
locations for some factors. While there were no
problems locating
mariculture fields, harbours,
cooling water stations, heritage sites, and recreation
areas because there are accurate national and
international databases and projects that monitor
them,thesameisnotvalidfortourismareassuchas
hotels, campgrounds, and resorts. In the future, the
mapwillbeupdateddowntothemicro‐
sitelevelin
cooperationwiththemunicipalitiesofeachcountry.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Socioeconomic vulnerabilityworkshops were chosen
because they can be conducted quickly and only
requireafewresources.Workshopsarealsopractical
because they provide an up‐to‐date overview of the
viewsofsocioeconomicstakeholdersandthegeneral
public.
Peopleʹs priorities and policies can change
over the years, as can the importance of each
socioeconomic area. Therefore, the workshop format
seemsmostappropriateforvulnerabilityassessment.
Another reason why workshops are best suited to
address this problem is because of their global
applicabilityandabilitytohighlightwhat
peoplesee
as critical rather than leaving this to the economic
sector.Whilerankingthevulnerabilityofthesefactors
bytheircontributiontotheeconomygivesusanidea
ofwhichsectorneedstobeprotectedfirst,itdoesnot
highlight what is essential to people from a social
perspective. For
example, a countryʹs commercial
ports may significantly contribute to its economy,
whichwouldsufferifitsworkwereinterrupteddue
toanoilspill.Atthesametime,thepopulationmay
alsodependonlocalfishingports,asseafoodplaysa
vital role in the countryʹs food chain.
Local ports
would not have as significant an impact on the
countryʹs GDP as commercial ports and would
thereforebe less vulnerableif thevulnerabilitywere
calculated based on income. In such a case, if the
vulnerability were determined using socioeconomic
factorsinworkshops,moreemphasiscouldbeplaced
on
peopleʹs needs. Linking workshop results with
AHPorFAHPanalysesleadstoagloballyapplicable
methodforassessingsocioeconomicfactors.
REFERENCES
[1]Perkovič,M.,Hribar,U., Harsch,R.,2016.OilPollution
in Slovenian Waters: The Threat to the Slovene Coast,
Possible Negative Influences of Shipping on an
Environment and Its Cultural Heritage. In: Carpenter,
A., Kostianoy, A. (eds) Oil Pollution in the
Mediterranean Sea: Part II. The Handbook of
Environmental Chemistry,
vol 84. Springer, Cham. Pp.
133‐157. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2016_112
[2]OSPAR commission, 2023. Economic chapter in the
Intermediate Assessment. Available at:
https://www.ospar.org/work‐areas/cross‐cutting‐
issues/economic‐social‐anaylsis,accessedon:15.2.2023
[3]OAP, 2023. Socioeconomics of the OSPAR Maritime
Area. Available at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar‐
assessments/intermediate‐assessment‐2017/socio‐
economics/,accessedon:
15.2.2023
[4]VafaiF.,HadipourV.,HadipourA.,2013Determination
of shoreline sensitivity to oil spills by use of GIS and
fuzzymodel.Casestudy–ThecoastalareasofCaspian
SeainnorthofIran.Ocean&CoastalManagement,vol
71. Cham. Pp. 123‐130. Available at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.05.033
[5]UKP&I, 2023. ITOPF Effects of Oil Pollution on social
and Economic Activities. Available at:
https://www.ukpandi.com/media/files/imports/13108/art
icles/8442‐tip‐12‐effects‐of‐oil‐pollution‐on‐social‐and‐
economic‐activities.pdf,accessedon:15.2.2023
[6]MukhopadhyayA.,DasguptaR.,HazraS.,MitraD.,2012
Coastal Hazards and Vulnerability: A Review.
InternationalJournal
ofGeology,Earth&Environmental
Sciences, 2(1). Available at:
http://www.cibtech.org/jgee.htm
[7]Grottoli E., Ciavola P., 2019 The Role of Detailed
GeomorphicVariabilityintheVulnerabilityAssessment
ofPotentialOilSpillEventsonMixedSandandGravel
Beaches: The Cases of Two Adriatic Sites. Frontiers in
Earth Science, 7. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00242
[8]Fernández‐Macho J., 2016 Risk assessment for marine
spills along European coastlines. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 113. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.015
[9]National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
2023. Shoreline Sensitivity Rankings List. Available at:
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil‐and‐chemical‐
spills/oil‐spills/resources/shoreline‐sensitivity‐rankings‐
list,accessedon:15.2.2023
[10]European Commission, 2023.
EMODnet Map Viewer.
Available at: https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/geoviewer/,
accessedon:15.2.2023
[11]Tools4MSPGeoportal,2023.Fisheriesandaquaculture.
Available at: http://data.tools4msp.eu/, accessed on: 15.
2.2023
[12]European Marine Observation and Data Network
(EMODnet), 2023. Human activities. Available at:
www.emodnet‐humanactivities.eu/, accessed on: 15.2.
2023
[13]Bioportal, 2023. Preglednik. Available at:
https://bioportal.hr/,accessedon:15.2.2023
[14]GundlachE.,HayesM.O.,1978.Vulnerabilityofcoastal
environments to oil spills. Marine Technology Society
Journal, Vol 12. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255538772_Vu
lnerability_of_coastal_environments_to_oil_spill_impact
s
[15]MichelJ., Hayes M.O., Brown J.,1978.Applicationof
anoilspillvulnerabilityindextotheshorelineoflower
Cook
Inlet, Alaska. Environmental Geology, Vol 2.
Availableat:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02380473
[16]JensenJ.,HallsJ.,MichelJ.,1998.Asystemsapproachto
Environmental Senitivity Index (ESI) mapping for oil
spill contingency planning and response.
691
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 64
(1998): 1003‐1014. Available at:
https://www.asprs.org/wp‐
content/uploads/pers/1998journal/oct/1998_oct_1003‐
1014.pdf
[17]SaatyR.W.,1987.Theanalytichierarchyprocess‐what
itisandhowitisused.PergamonJournals,Vol9,No3‐
5, pp 161‐176. Available at:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82000104.pdf
