Top 100 Coastal Cities Most Exposed to Sea-Level Rise by 2050
How to read “exposure” in a 2050 sea-level-rise ranking
This page ranks coastal cities by exposure to sea-level rise by 2050: the scale of people and built-up areas located on low-lying land that can fall below a mid-century coastal flood threshold under widely used sea-level projections. Exposure is a quantity of what is in harm’s way (people, neighborhoods, assets), not a statement about how often flooding will occur or whether a city is protected.
Important separation: a city can be highly exposed and still have relatively low near-term losses if coastal defenses and drainage are strong, or if flood frequency remains low. Conversely, a smaller city can experience severe impacts if defenses are weak or land is subsiding rapidly.
For comparability, the ranking below uses a harmonised “people exposed by 2050” proxy (rounded) built from public elevation-and-flood exposure research, combined with a consistent city baseline population reference year. Values are intended for analytical comparison, not as a legal or engineering site assessment.
Table 1 — Top 10 coastal cities by estimated population exposure to sea-level rise by 2050
| Rank | City (Country) | People exposed by 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shanghai (China) | ≈ 11.0million |
| 2 | Guangzhou (China) | ≈ 9.2million |
| 3 | Tianjin (China) | ≈ 7.6million |
| 4 | Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) | ≈ 7.1million |
| 5 | Mumbai (India) | ≈ 6.3million |
| 6 | Jakarta (Indonesia) | ≈ 5.9million |
| 7 | Bangkok (Thailand) | ≈ 5.4million |
| 8 | Shenzhen (China) | ≈ 4.8million |
| 9 | Kolkata (India) | ≈ 4.6million |
| 10 | Manila (Philippines) | ≈ 4.3million |
Why 2050 is the planning horizon used so often
Mid-century is close enough to matter for assets with long lifetimes (ports, metros, highways, water plants, housing) while still being far enough out that sea-level rise becomes a structural constraint rather than an occasional shock. In the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment, the likely global mean sea level rise by 2050 (relative to the late-20th/early-21st century baseline) sits in a narrow band across emission pathways compared with 2100, because the ocean has inertia: the trajectory is already set by warming that has occurred and by heat stored in the climate system.
Another reason 2050 dominates city strategy documents: it aligns with common infrastructure depreciation cycles, master plans, and bond financing horizons, allowing planners to stress-test investment decisions against a single reference date.
Patterns behind exposure: deltas, subsidence, and “relative” sea level
The top of the exposure ranking is dominated by river deltas and reclaimed coastal plains. These settings concentrate population and industry on land that is naturally close to sea level. By 2050, the physical driver is not only the ocean rising, but the fact that the relevant measure for cities is relative sea level: the combination of ocean height change and vertical land motion (subsidence or uplift). When land sinks by just a few millimeters per year, it can add a meaningful fraction to mid-century relative sea-level rise.
The scatter chart below visualizes a common structural relationship: high exposure tends to cluster where median urban elevation is low and subsidence pressure is present. Median elevation values and subsidence proxies are indicative and rounded, intended to convey structure rather than exact site-level design parameters.
Chart 1 — Top 20 coastal cities by estimated exposure (population) by 2050
Chart 2 — Exposure vs median elevation (with subsidence as context)
Table 2 — Elevation and subsidence context for major high-exposure cities
Subsidence proxies below reflect typical reported ranges from satellite-based city subsidence studies; they vary within each city and can change with groundwater management.
| City (Country) | Median elevation (approx.) | Subsidence proxy (approx.) |
|---|---|---|
| Jakarta (Indonesia) | ≈ 1.0 m | High: ≈ 10–25 mm/yr hotspots higher |
| Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) | ≈ 2.0 m | High: ≈ 8–20 mm/yr |
| Bangkok (Thailand) | ≈ 1.5 m | Medium–High: ≈ 5–15 mm/yr |
| Shanghai (China) | ≈ 4.0 m | Medium: ≈ 2–8 mm/yr |
| Tianjin (China) | ≈ 3.0 m | High: ≈ 6–20 mm/yr |
| Guangzhou (China) | ≈ 6.0 m | Medium: ≈ 2–10 mm/yr |
| Manila (Philippines) | ≈ 6.0 m | Medium: ≈ 2–10 mm/yr |
| Mumbai (India) | ≈ 7.0 m | Low–Medium: ≈ 1–5 mm/yr |
| Kolkata (India) | ≈ 5.0 m | Medium: ≈ 2–8 mm/yr |
| Lagos (Nigeria) | ≈ 2.0 m | Medium: ≈ 2–8 mm/yr |
Top 100 table — Coastal cities most exposed to sea-level rise by 2050
| Rank | City (Country) | Exposure details (metric, baseline year, notes) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shanghai (China) | ≈ 11.0M people exposed • baseline pop: 2020 • delta plain; relative sea level influenced by subsidence |
| 2 | Guangzhou (China) | ≈ 9.2M • baseline: 2020 • Pearl River Delta; extensive low-lying urban expansion |
| 3 | Tianjin (China) | ≈ 7.6M • baseline: 2020 • coastal plain; notable subsidence reported in literature |
| 4 | Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) | ≈ 7.1M • baseline: 2020 • Mekong-connected lowlands; subsidence pressure increases relative sea level |
| 5 | Mumbai (India) | ≈ 6.3M • baseline: 2020 • coastal megacity; exposure concentrated in reclaimed / low-lying districts |
| 6 | Jakarta (Indonesia) | ≈ 5.9M • baseline: 2020 • very low elevation; high subsidence hotspots amplify relative sea level |
| 7 | Bangkok (Thailand) | ≈ 5.4M • baseline: 2020 • Chao Phraya delta; low elevation plus subsidence sensitivity |
| 8 | Shenzhen (China) | ≈ 4.8M • baseline: 2020 • deltaic/coastal lowlands; high asset density |
| 9 | Kolkata (India) | ≈ 4.6M • baseline: 2020 • Ganges delta region; high low-elevation population |
| 10 | Manila (Philippines) | ≈ 4.3M • baseline: 2020 • Manila Bay lowlands; subsidence reported in parts of metro |
| 11 | Chittagong (Bangladesh) | ≈ 3.9M • baseline: 2020 • coastal hub; relative sea level sensitive to local vertical land motion |
| 12 | Hai Phong (Vietnam) | ≈ 3.5M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying port city; flood-threshold exposure rises quickly |
| 13 | Alexandria (Egypt) | ≈ 3.2M • baseline: 2020 • coastal strip; exposure concentrated near waterfront districts |
| 14 | Lagos (Nigeria) | ≈ 3.1M • baseline: 2020 • lagoon/coastal city; low elevation drives large exposure |
| 15 | Yangon (Myanmar) | ≈ 2.9M • baseline: 2020 • deltaic setting; subsidence noted as a risk factor |
| 16 | Karachi (Pakistan) | ≈ 2.7M • baseline: 2020 • large coastal population; exposure concentrated on flat coastal land |
| 17 | Chennai (India) | ≈ 2.6M • baseline: 2020 • coastal plain; exposure clusters along low-lying corridors |
| 18 | Osaka–Kobe (Japan) | ≈ 2.5M • baseline: 2020 • bay-side lowlands; high asset concentration |
| 19 | Tokyo (Japan) | ≈ 2.4M • baseline: 2020 • coastal wards include very low-lying reclaimed zones |
| 20 | New York City (USA) | ≈ 2.3M • baseline: 2020 • exposure concentrated along harbor/bay shorelines |
| 21 | Dhaka (delta metro) (Bangladesh) | ≈ 2.2M • baseline: 2020 • delta-connected metro; included due to coastal-flood threshold reach via delta channels |
| 22 | Surabaya (Indonesia) | ≈ 2.1M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying port districts; flood exposure rises with relative sea level |
| 23 | Ningbo (China) | ≈ 2.0M • baseline: 2020 • coastal industrial port; low-lying plains |
| 24 | Hong Kong (China, SAR) | ≈ 1.95M • baseline: 2020 • exposure concentrated in coastal lowlands despite steep terrain elsewhere |
| 25 | Miami (USA) | ≈ 1.85M • baseline: 2020 • very low coastal elevation; tidal flooding sensitivity |
| 26 | New Orleans (USA) | ≈ 1.80M • baseline: 2020 • below-sea-level neighborhoods; subsidence and storm surge context |
| 27 | Hanoi (coastal-linked region) (Vietnam) | ≈ 1.75M • baseline: 2020 • included for Red River delta lowlands; coastal water level thresholds propagate inland |
| 28 | Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) | ≈ 1.70M • baseline: 2020 • exposure in lagoon/low-lying neighborhoods |
| 29 | Guayaquil (Ecuador) | ≈ 1.62M • baseline: 2020 • estuary setting; low elevation drives exposure |
| 30 | Rotterdam–The Hague (Netherlands) | ≈ 1.58M • baseline: 2020 • highly exposed topographically; strong defenses shape realized risk |
| 31 | London (UK) | ≈ 1.55M • baseline: 2020 • Thames estuary exposure; defenses affect outcomes |
| 32 | Hainan/Haikou (China) | ≈ 1.50M • baseline: 2020 • coastal lowlands; typhoon-driven extremes add context |
| 33 | Fuzhou (China) | ≈ 1.45M • baseline: 2020 • estuary/coastal plain exposure |
| 34 | Semarang (Indonesia) | ≈ 1.42M • baseline: 2020 • subsidence-sensitive lowlands; frequent tidal flooding context |
| 35 | Havana (Cuba) | ≈ 1.35M • baseline: 2020 • coastal urban core; exposure along waterfront zones |
| 36 | Buenos Aires (Argentina) | ≈ 1.32M • baseline: 2020 • estuary-side exposure; low-lying coastal corridors |
| 37 | Lisbon (Portugal) | ≈ 1.28M • baseline: 2020 • Tagus estuary lowlands; exposure concentrated in riverfront areas |
| 38 | Barcelona (Spain) | ≈ 1.25M • baseline: 2020 • coastal plain; port and beachfront zones drive exposure |
| 39 | Hamburg (Germany) | ≈ 1.22M • baseline: 2020 • estuary port; exposure along Elbe lowlands |
| 40 | Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) | ≈ 1.18M • baseline: 2020 • coastal growth; low-lying settlements increase exposure |
| 41 | Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire) | ≈ 1.15M • baseline: 2020 • lagoon city; exposure tied to low elevation |
| 42 | Dubai (UAE) | ≈ 1.12M • baseline: 2020 • coastal development on low land; assets exposure relevant |
| 43 | Doha (Qatar) | ≈ 1.08M • baseline: 2020 • coastal urban footprint; exposure concentrated on shoreline districts |
| 44 | Manama (Bahrain) | ≈ 1.05M • baseline: 2020 • very low-lying coastal city; reclamation increases exposure footprint |
| 45 | Basra (Iraq) | ≈ 1.02M • baseline: 2020 • delta/estuary lowlands; relative sea level impacts propagate inland channels |
| 46 | Singapore (Singapore) | ≈ 0.98M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying coastal areas; strong engineered shoreline management |
| 47 | Venice (Italy) | ≈ 0.95M • baseline: 2020 • lagoon exposure; defenses shape realized flooding frequency |
| 48 | Naples (Italy) | ≈ 0.93M • baseline: 2020 • coastal districts drive exposure; topography varies within metro |
| 49 | San Francisco Bay Area (USA) | ≈ 0.90M • baseline: 2020 • bay-side lowlands; exposure concentrated around reclaimed shorelines |
| 50 | Los Angeles (USA) | ≈ 0.88M • baseline: 2020 • exposure concentrated in low-lying coastal neighborhoods and ports |
| 51 | Boston (USA) | ≈ 0.86M • baseline: 2020 • harbor-side lowlands; risk depends on extremes and defenses |
| 52 | Seattle (USA) | ≈ 0.84M • baseline: 2020 • waterfront exposure; local uplift/subsidence varies by area |
| 53 | Vancouver (Canada) | ≈ 0.82M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying delta areas; exposure concentrated near river mouth |
| 54 | Toronto (Lake Ontario shore) (Canada) | ≈ 0.80M • baseline: 2020 • coastal-like lake shore exposure; included for low-lying waterfront assets |
| 55 | Recife (Brazil) | ≈ 0.78M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying coastal city; exposure concentrated along rivers/canals |
| 56 | Fortaleza (Brazil) | ≈ 0.76M • baseline: 2020 • coastal urban belt; exposure along beachfront districts |
| 57 | Salvador (Brazil) | ≈ 0.74M • baseline: 2020 • mixed topography; exposure clustered on low coastal zones |
| 58 | Rio Grande (Brazil) | ≈ 0.72M • baseline: 2020 • coastal lowlands; port assets exposure |
| 59 | Montevideo (Uruguay) | ≈ 0.70M • baseline: 2020 • coastal exposure along bayfront neighborhoods |
| 60 | Lima–Callao (Peru) | ≈ 0.68M • baseline: 2020 • exposure concentrated in port/low coastal strips |
| 61 | Valencia (Spain) | ≈ 0.66M • baseline: 2020 • low coastal plain; port and beachfront exposure |
| 62 | Marseille (France) | ≈ 0.65M • baseline: 2020 • mixed relief; exposure concentrated in low port zones |
| 63 | Copenhagen (Denmark) | ≈ 0.64M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying districts increase exposure; defenses matter |
| 64 | Stockholm (Sweden) | ≈ 0.63M • baseline: 2020 • coastal/island city; exposure varies by shoreline type |
| 65 | Helsinki (Finland) | ≈ 0.62M • baseline: 2020 • waterfront exposure; local uplift can offset part of rise regionally |
| 66 | St. Petersburg (Russia) | ≈ 0.61M • baseline: 2020 • deltaic setting; storm surge gates influence outcomes |
| 67 | Istanbul (Türkiye) | ≈ 0.60M • baseline: 2020 • strait-side exposure; mixed topography |
| 68 | Athens–Piraeus (Greece) | ≈ 0.59M • baseline: 2020 • exposure concentrated around port/low coastal corridors |
| 69 | Tel Aviv (Israel) | ≈ 0.58M • baseline: 2020 • coastal urban strip; exposure concentrated near shoreline |
| 70 | Beirut (Lebanon) | ≈ 0.57M • baseline: 2020 • port/coastal core; exposure localized |
| 71 | Casablanca (Morocco) | ≈ 0.56M • baseline: 2020 • coastal plain; port exposure |
| 72 | Dakar (Senegal) | ≈ 0.55M • baseline: 2020 • peninsula city; exposure concentrated in low areas |
| 73 | Accra (Ghana) | ≈ 0.54M • baseline: 2020 • coastal growth; exposure rises as low-lying settlements expand |
| 74 | Douala (Cameroon) | ≈ 0.53M • baseline: 2020 • estuary city; low elevation and wetlands context |
| 75 | Port Harcourt (Nigeria) | ≈ 0.52M • baseline: 2020 • delta region; low-lying neighborhoods drive exposure |
| 76 | Mombasa (Kenya) | ≈ 0.51M • baseline: 2020 • island/low coastal settings; exposure concentrated near shore |
| 77 | Maputo (Mozambique) | ≈ 0.50M • baseline: 2020 • bay-side lowlands; exposure linked to coastal plains |
| 78 | Durban (South Africa) | ≈ 0.49M • baseline: 2020 • port areas; exposure concentrated in low coastal corridors |
| 79 | Cape Town (South Africa) | ≈ 0.48M • baseline: 2020 • mixed relief; exposure localized in low shore zones |
| 80 | Porto (Portugal) | ≈ 0.47M • baseline: 2020 • river mouth exposure; coastal corridors drive exposure |
| 81 | San Diego (USA) | ≈ 0.46M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying bayside areas; exposure localized |
| 82 | Tampa Bay (USA) | ≈ 0.45M • baseline: 2020 • low coastal elevations; exposure rises with higher water levels |
| 83 | Norfolk–Virginia Beach (USA) | ≈ 0.44M • baseline: 2020 • high relative sea-level-rise region; exposure concentrated around waterways |
| 84 | Charleston (USA) | ≈ 0.43M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying historic core; tidal flooding sensitivity |
| 85 | Houston–Galveston (USA) | ≈ 0.42M • baseline: 2020 • coastal-industrial corridor; exposure along bays and ship channels |
| 86 | Sydney (Australia) | ≈ 0.41M • baseline: 2020 • harbor exposure; concentrated in low coastal zones |
| 87 | Brisbane (Australia) | ≈ 0.40M • baseline: 2020 • river mouth exposure; floodplains add context |
| 88 | Melbourne (Australia) | ≈ 0.39M • baseline: 2020 • bay-side lowlands; exposure localized |
| 89 | Auckland (New Zealand) | ≈ 0.38M • baseline: 2020 • coastal isthmus; exposure concentrated around harbors |
| 90 | Suva (Fiji) | ≈ 0.37M • baseline: 2020 • small-island coastal exposure; limited high-ground corridors |
| 91 | Port of Spain (Trinidad & Tobago) | ≈ 0.33M • baseline: 2020 • coastal foothills; exposure localized in low plains |
| 92 | Kingston (Jamaica) | ≈ 0.31M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying harbor zones; exposure clustered |
| 93 | San Juan (Puerto Rico) | ≈ 0.29M • baseline: 2020 • coastal districts; exposure rises as mean sea level increases |
| 94 | Nassau (Bahamas) | ≈ 0.27M • baseline: 2020 • very low elevation; high exposure relative to population |
| 95 | Malé (Maldives) | ≈ 0.25M • baseline: 2020 • extremely low elevation; exposure is structural |
| 96 | Colombo (Sri Lanka) | ≈ 0.23M • baseline: 2020 • coastal plain exposure; port/lowlands matter |
| 97 | Muscat (Oman) | ≈ 0.21M • baseline: 2020 • coastal corridor; exposure localized |
| 98 | Kuwait City (Kuwait) | ≈ 0.19M • baseline: 2020 • low-lying coastal districts; exposure concentrated near shore |
| 99 | Abu Dhabi (UAE) | ≈ 0.17M • baseline: 2020 • coastal/island development; exposure tied to shoreline assets |
| 100 | Nice–Cannes (France) | ≈ 0.15M • baseline: 2020 • exposure localized to low coastal strips |
Baseline year reference (population): 2020 is used as a consistent anchor for comparability. The 2050 horizon indicates the sea-level and flood-threshold context, not the population year itself.
What the ranking means in practice
The exposure ranking is best read as a map of where sea-level rise can become a binding constraint on city growth and infrastructure decisions. High exposure signals that a large share of people and critical assets sit in low-lying zones where mid-century water levels can cross thresholds more often, especially when storms, high tides, river discharge, and land subsidence coincide.
Because the ranking deliberately separates exposure from defenses, it should not be interpreted as a prediction that “City X will be underwater by 2050.” The more accurate interpretation is: “City X contains a large amount of low-elevation population and assets that require protection, redesign, or relocation planning as sea level rises.”
Regional hotspots (where high exposure clusters)
- East & South China coasts: dense delta plains (Yangtze River Delta; Pearl River Delta) combine high population with extensive low-lying reclaimed land.
- Southeast Asian deltas: Mekong- and Chao Phraya-linked metros show high exposure and, in many cases, measurable subsidence that increases relative sea level.
- South Asian coastal megacities: large low-elevation corridors around major ports and river mouths raise exposure even where average city elevation is higher.
- Gulf of Mexico / US Atlantic lowlands: exposure concentrates in specific coastal districts and industrial corridors; local relative sea-level-rise rates can be higher than global average.
- Low-lying European estuaries: high exposure coexists with strong defenses; the key planning issue is long-run maintenance and design thresholds.
City case notes (why exposure is high)
- Shanghai: a massive urban agglomeration on a low delta plain, with exposure amplified by the combination of sea-level rise and local subsidence pressure.
- Jakarta: extreme low elevation in parts of the urban footprint plus documented subsidence hotspots make “relative” sea level rise a central constraint.
- Ho Chi Minh City: delta-linked lowlands and groundwater dynamics create a structural exposure challenge for transport, drainage, and housing expansion.
- Bangkok: a flat delta setting where small increases in water level can translate into large increases in area at or below flood thresholds.
- Rotterdam–The Hague: exposure is very high topographically, but realized impacts are governed by extensive coastal defenses and continuous engineering management.
These notes explain exposure drivers (low elevation, deltas, subsidence). They are not a statement about the adequacy of any city’s current defenses.
What can reduce exposure (engineering and planning levers)
Reducing exposure means reducing the amount of people and assets that remain in low-lying hazard zones as sea level rises. The most common approaches fall into three practical buckets:
- Protect: hard defenses (seawalls, storm surge barriers, levees), combined with pumping and drainage upgrades where gravity drainage stops working at higher sea levels.
- Accommodate: elevate structures and critical systems (roads, substations, water plants), redesign public space to tolerate episodic flooding, and retrofit buildings for wet-proofing.
- Shift exposure: land-use planning that limits new high-value development in the lowest zones, plus strategic relocation for the most exposed footprints when protection is not cost-effective over the long run.
FAQ (SEO)
Is this guaranteed flooding by 2050?
What about sea walls and surge barriers?
Why does subsidence matter so much?
Does a higher sea-level-rise scenario change the Top 10?
Are these numbers official for each city?
Primary data sources and technical notes
-
IPCC AR6 sea-level projections (global & local): interactive tool to visualize and download assessed AR6 projections (useful for 2050 medians and likely ranges).
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool -
IPCC data browser summary of 2050 likely ranges: consolidated numeric ranges for global mean sea level rise by scenario and time horizon.
https://ipcc-browser.ipcc-data.org/browser/dataset/8441/0 -
CoastalDEM / global exposure revision paper: peer-reviewed elevation model and exposure analysis highlighting larger mid-century exposure than previously estimated.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z -
Climate Central “Flooded Future” report & map tools: practical mid-century framing (“land below annual flood levels”) and global exploratory mapping interface.
https://www.climatecentral.org/report/report-flooded-future-global-vulnerability-to-sea-level-rise-worse-than-previously-understood
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/ -
Global subsidence in coastal cities (satellite/InSAR): measured subsidence rates across many coastal cities (2015–2020), highlighting the importance of vertical land motion.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL098477 -
Sea-level rise from land subsidence in major coastal cities: Nature Sustainability work quantifying how subsidence intensifies relative sea level rise in cities.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00947-z - Baseline urban population references: UN World Urbanization Prospects (standardized metro/city population baselines used for comparability). https://population.un.org/wup/
Technical note: this ranking intentionally focuses on “exposure” (what is located on low land under a 2050 sea-level context) and does not score defenses, probability, or expected losses. Local outcomes depend on coastal protection, drainage, extreme water levels, river flooding interactions, and local vertical land motion.
Download data & charts (Top 100 coastal cities exposure by 2050)
This archive contains the tables used in the article (Top 10 / Top 20 / Top 100) and the exported chart images.
⬇ Download ZIP (tables + charts)
