To measure overall vulnerability we took a semi-quantitative approach, scoring for each feature the current condition, sensitivity-exposure (i.e. potential impact), adaptive capacity and certainty. These sub-categories were scored individually using the scoring levels below, ensuring that all features assessed are treated in a consistent and comparable way. This approach is based on the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Tool for Coastal Habitats system developed by Plunket et al in 2015.

Summary Explanations of Categories

EXPOSURE GROUPS	Current	The current condition group is intended to capture the relative condition of a feature prior to the influence of additional stress from a changing climate at some future date.
EXPOSURE GROUPS	Atmospheric pollution	This group captures possible changes in exposure to any atmospheric pollutants including but not limited to: particulates, CO2, ozone, nitrogen compounds, VOCs, sulphur compounds etc.
EXPOSURE GROUPS	Temperature	This group captures any possible changes relates to the predicted increase in summer and winter temperatures.
EXPOSURE GROUPS	Precipitation	This group captures any possible changes related to the predicted increase in winter precipitation and decrease in summer precipitation, and changing patterns more generally.
EXPOSURE GROUPS	Extreme Events	This group captures any possible changes related to the predicted increase in extreme event frequency and intensity e.g. summer droughts, winter storms.
EXPOSURE GROUPS	Sea Level	This group captures any possible changes related to the predicted increase in sea level.
SENSITIVITY GROUPS	Direct	Direct climate effects are the physical or physiological responses of features to changes of CO2, temperature, precipitation, sea level and extreme climate events in the absence of pre-existing stressors. For the ‘current condition’ group this can include changes which have already been observed as well as general condition.
SENSITIVITY GROUPS	Invasive / nuisance species	Is the feature being assessed sensitive to changes in the abundance and/or distribution of invasive or nuisance species?
SENSITIVITY GROUPS	Nutrients / environmental contamination	Is the feature being assessed sensitive to changes in nutrient levels (e.g. flushing or nutrient concentration increases) and/or environmental contamination by pollutants?
SENSITIVITY GROUPS	Sedimentation / erosion	Is the feature being assessed sensitive to changes in sediment quantity, transport and location and processes such as soil decay rate? Is the feature sensitive to increased or decreased erosion?
SENSITIVITY GROUPS	Anthropogenic	Is the feature being assessed sensitive to changes in human behaviour which result from climate change?
SENSITIVITY GROUPS	Other indirect	Is the feature being assessed sensitive to changes in any other processes which are an indirect result of climate change. E.g. an increase in wildfires?
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY GROUPS	Fragmentation/barriers	E.g. habitat fragmentation, isolation of individuals, barriers to movement and dispersal, reduced genetic variation. Usually applies to living features.
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY GROUPS	Recovery/regeneration	Innate ability to recover from change – plasticity of behaviour, dispersal ability and evolutionary potential. This category can also apply to non-living features and their ability to recover from or resist changes.
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY GROUPS	Diversity groups/infrastructure	Greater variety of infrastructure/functional groups can enhance adaptive capacity, since it provides more options. The characteristics and location of infrastructure or groups also affect adaptive capacity.
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY GROUPS	Economic/technological	Greater economic resources increase adaptive capacity, while a lack of financial resources limits adaptation options. A lack of technology limits the range of potential adaptation options.
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY GROUPS	Management, info, skills	Implementation of various management strategies could affect the ability of a feature to adapt to climate change, in both positive and negative ways. A ‘lack of informed, skilled and trained personnel reduces adaptive capacity,’ while ‘greater access to information increases likelihood of timely and appropriate adaptation’.
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY GROUPS	Institutional and human	The ability of an organization/agency to respond. Well-developed institutions help to reduce impacts, and therefore increase adaptive capacity. Policies and regulations can constrain or enhance adaptive capacity. Human response refers to the mechanisms by which private landowners would take advantage of current policy/regulations to respond.

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Levels

CURRENT CONDITION	0	Feature is not impacted by non-climate stressor
CURRENT CONDITION	2	Feature is currently impacted by non-climate stressor but to a limited degree (i.e. over a modest portion of its extent or no significant influence on feature structure / function)
CURRENT CONDITION	5	Feature is currently moderately impacted by non-climate stressor (i.e. evidence of stressor impact over a majority portion of its extent or clear degradation of feature structure / function)
CURRENT CONDITION	10	Feature is severely impacted by non-climate stressor
SENSITIVITY-EXPOSURE	-2	Feature may benefit; non-climate stressor impact is alleviated by a change in climate condition
SENSITIVITY-EXPOSURE	0	No anticipated change in feature structure, function or extent
SENSITIVITY-EXPOSURE	2	Feature will likely be impaired to a limited degree (i.e. over a modest portion of its extent or clear degradation of feature structure/function)
SENSITIVITY-EXPOSURE	5	Feature persistence will be limited (i.e. degradation of feature structure/function sufficient to modify survival/reproductive potential, reduced feature extent)
SENSITIVITY-EXPOSURE	10	Feature will be lost
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY	0	Severe impediments to feature persistence or for ecological features dispersal (e.g. barriers, fragmentation) exist or innate characteristics of the feature are not sufficient to compensate for CC stressors or policy or management actions to offset CC stressors are not possible or are not likely to be implemented
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY	2	Modest impediments to feature persistence or for ecological features dispersal (e.g. barriers, fragmentation) exist or innate characteristics of the feature are sufficient to partially overcome CC stressors or appropriate policy or management actions may be taken to partially offset CC stressors
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY	5	No impediment to feature persistence or for ecological features dispersal (e.g. barriers, fragmentation) exists or innate characteristics of the feature are sufficient to overcome CC stressors or appropriate policy or management actions may be taken to fully offset CC stressors
CERTAINTY	0	No direct or anecdotal evidence is available to support the score, topic needs further investigation
CERTAINTY	1	Low: Inconclusive evidence (limited sources, extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not tested, etc.), disagreement or lack of opinions among experts, score based on anecdotal observations
CERTAINTY	2	Medium: Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited consistency, models incomplete, methods emerging, etc.) competing schools of thought, score based mostly on expert opinion
CERTAINTY	3	High: Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited, etc.), medium consensus, general information can be applied to local features
CERTAINTY	4	Very High: Strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented and acceptable methods, etc.), high consensus, information for local features available