LIMITATIONS

The study was based on artificial boundaries because of the limited budget. And because the cost of damage was only assessed within these boundaries, this significantly skews the findings of a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost-benefit analysis had have been conducted on the entire affected area (and not just confined to the narrow study area), it would have yielded different results. If the affected area is of regional, state or even national significance, then the wider economic benefits should also be considered in the modelling.

The study only looked at the economics of flooding events. It did not consider other important considerations when making decisions such as safety, quality of life, heritage issues and other social values.

The study was based on broad indicative funding estimates of general "adaptation" options. Individual engineering solutions were grouped together and then an estimate of cost was applied.

The study did not consider the effects of erosion and shifting sands on rivers, creek mouths and drainage outlets. If outlets open or close over time, this would change tidal storm surge levels.

Potential changes in wind intensity over time were not considered in the study. Stronger winds and a shift in predominant wind direction in the future could also result in more severe storm tidal surges and changes to sand movements.

The study did not factor in potential deterioration of physical coastal protection assets caused by rising sea temperatures and seawater acidity.

Similarly, the study made no reference to potential seawater intrusion into groundwater and estuaries.