Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
56 AppEndix C Literature Review Sources Projections of climate change and its impacts National Research Council, Warming World: Impacts by Degree, Washington, D.C., 2011. This booklet was published in 2011 by the NRC of the National Academies and written by Robert Henson. It describes climate change impacts with some efforts at a regional geographic focus. All of its content is a summary of the findings from the larger NRC report, Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concen- trations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia (2011), which examined the range of future climates projected to emerge if the human population stabilized its emissions of greenhouse gases at a corresponding set of target levels. This booklet confirms for the layperson that, very broadly, climate change impacts can be projected in a linear fashion, with certain changes and associ- ated risks expected for each degree Celsius increase in tempera- ture. Increases in intense precipitation, âvery hotâ summers, and risk of fire in the western United States are sample impacts. Regional Climate Change Effects: Useful Information for Transportation Agencies, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot. gov/hep/climate/climate_effects/ [accessed Oct. 7, 2011]. FHWA issued this report in 2010. It provides a summary of projected climate changes by geographic region of the United States. The report emphasizes that these are projected trends and may not reflect the climate changes that might actually occur in a locality. It describes general climate change effects expected in terms of temperature, precipitation and storm events, and sea level. It walks through the ways each climate effect translates into impacts on infrastructure and operations. It also provides a detailed and instructive discussion of the methodology used in developing projections of climate change effects in the report. A series of sections discusses each climate change effect for the following regions of the United States: Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Foundational resources on climate change impacts and adaptation Carter, T. R., et al., New Assessment Methods and the Charac- terisation of Future Conditions, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change, M. L. Parry, O. F. Can- ziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2007, pp. 133â171. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was published in 2007, five years after the last. As with other chapters, this chapter provides updates on developments in key areas, in this case it describes the methods and approaches for assessing climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. It defines what an integrated assessment is, such as one using more than one model or linking different disciplines and groups of people. It also devotes significant discussion to risk management approaches but at a highly conceptual level that introduces the topic to the climate change discipline rather than providing guidance on it. This chapter draws the distinctions among the various kinds of assessments, acknowledges that there can be confusing over- lap among them, and describes developments in all areas. This chapter also describes the various types of scenarios used in planning, the types of modeling that may make up scenarios, and the need to apply them consistently across studies and regions. As with the IPCC report in general, it is written at a high and abstract level, in order to be relevant to the broadest audi- ence. For this reason, it provides a helpful introduction to key concepts and developments; and typically, like the entire IPCC report, it can serve as the primary resource and last word where there is a misunderstanding of terms. Willows, R. and R. Connell, âClimate Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty, and Decision-making,â UKCIP Technical Report, United Kingdom Climate Impacts Program, Oxford, 2003. This report, published in 2003, is a seminal document in the adaptation literature, with its climate change-specific risk assessment framework influencing many later efforts: (1) Iden- tify problem and objectives; (2) establish decision-making cri- teria; (3) assess by an initial screening, then through qualitative and/or quantitative means detailed in the document; (4) identify options; (5) appraise options; (6) make decision; (7) implement the decision; (8) monitor, evaluate, and review. It describes types of decision making, data, uncertainty, and scenario plan- ning in a technical, comprehensive, but accessible way. Americaâs Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Cli- mate Change, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010. This report is part of a four part series entitled Americaâs Cli- mate Choices, all of which were published in 2010 by the NRC. It was developed by a panel of experts that was charged with describing, analyzing, and assessing actions and strategies to reduce vulnerability, increase adaptive capacity, improve resil- iency, and promote successful adaptation to climate change in different regions, sectors, systems, and populations. The focus is the United States, but several sections necessarily address the national security driver within the larger climate change impacts challenge. The report analyzes the current state of the informa- tion and tools that can provide decision support in this area and identifies case examples of pioneering adaptation leadership in the United States. Its report states that âAdaptation is fun- damentally a risk management strategyâ and walks the reader through stages in the risk analysis process, with illustrations from the New York City adaptation effort, describes various methods for ranking adaptation options, and details the impedi- ments to implementing adaptation plans and policies. It also devotes a chapter to linking adaptation efforts institutionally and geographically. The report also summarizes potential short- term adaptations to climate change by sector. The discussion on the transportation sector relies on the Transportation Research Board Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on US Transportation (2008).
57 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on US Transportation, Special Report 290, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008. This report was published in 2008 and represents the work prod- uct of a 13 member committee of experts formed by the Divi- sion of Earth and Life Sciences to conduct research requested by the Executive Committee of the TRB. The purpose of the report is to describe the nature of potential impacts of climate change of greatest relevance to U.S. transportation and suggest appropriate adaptation strategies and organizational responses. The 13 member committee reviewed the literature in the field, requested briefings, held a one-day conference, and com- missioned five papers. It structured its effort into three tasks involving discussion of: (1) potential climate change effects, (2) impacts on U.S. transportation, and (3) possible adaptation strategies. The report makes findings and recommendations in sev- eral areas: Climate changes of Greatest Relevance for U.S. Transportation; Potential Impacts on Transportation; the Deci- sion Framework for Transportation Professionals to Use in Addressing Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transporta- tion Infrastructure; Data and Decision Support Tools; Adapta- tion Options, including Operational Responses, Monitoring and Use of Technology, Sharing of Best Practices, Design Changes, Transportation Planning and Land Use Controls, Insurance, and New Organizational Arrangements. The report reviews all major transportation modes. The areas of the report addressing airports include a general list of climate changes and certain illustrative impacts on trans- portation, including air transportation. It emphasizes that the impacts of climate change on infrastructure will differ depend- ing on the mode of transportation, its geographic location, and its condition, and that the committee selected climate changes and weather parameters that climate scientists agree are most likely to occur in this century and which are most relevant to transportation. A later table links the impacts to possible adap- tation actions in three broad areas: land, marine, and air trans- portation. Other sections address the impact of each projected climate change on air transportation; for example, temperature increases and extremes will cause permafrost melt that dam- ages Alaskan airport infrastructure, heat buckling of runways, affect aircraft lift and therefore load capacity; increased heavy precipitation will cause airport flooding and erosion especially on the coasts; more intense tropical storms will close airports and cause physical damage to them. The report reviews previ- ously published climate impact assessments for regions or areas that describe threats to airports, noting that those reviewed are the âhandfulâ of studies addressing climate change impacts on transportation. The report notes the planning horizon for airport facilities and the multiple entities with responsibility over them, including airport authorities (hangars, maintenance facilities, and other infrastructure), airlines (fleet, hangars, and maintenance facilities); as well as the design lives of such infrastructure. It observes that there are significant costs to designing for adapta- tion to long-term climate impacts, there is a tendency for trans- portation planners and engineers to extrapolate from the past and adopt incremental solutions, and there is a lack of relevant infor- mation and guidance on which to base appropriate actions. The report calls for more strategic, risk-based approaches to decision making and infrastructure design, and it cites the state of Cali- forniaâs seismic assessment of hundreds of states bridges as a potential model. The report concludes with several high-level but highly relevant recommendations that can help frame the response of the transportation sector to climate change. The five papers commissioned by the committee are in an appendix to Special Report 290. They are not considered the work product of TRB; however, they provide detailed informa- tion and analysis of great use to decision makers in the trans- portation sector. Reports that would provide an airport manager with background information directly applicable to airport adaptation and resilience planning include, âCase Study of the Transportation Sectorâs Response to and Recovery from Hur- ricanes Katrina and Ritaâ (noting the role of transportation net- work disaster planning and modal redundancy in moderating the impacts of the hurricanes); âDesign Standards for US Trans- portation Infrastructure, The Implications of Climate Changeâ (providing a useful primer on transportation engineering design standards, review of risk-oriented, probabilistic design proce- dures, discussion of water-related impacts as a priority area in the short-term, and an overview of promising technologies for decision support); âClimate Variability and Change with Impli- cations for Transportations,â listing climate impacts and the consequences for various transportation modes, with a focus on their geographical relevance. General adaptation guidance and planning Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments, University of Washington, King County, Washington, and ICLEIâLocal Governments for Sustainability, 2007. This guidebook was written by several Washington State enti- ties in association with ICLEIâLocal Governments for Sus- tainability and published in 2007. The Washington State entities are King County and the University of Washingtonâs Center for Science in the Earth System (The Climate Impacts Group) and Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean. The guidebook and its recommendations are written for a general audience that may be located anywhere; for example, outside King County and Washington State, using examples from King Countyâs experience in creating a climate adaptation plan. The Guidebook provides milestones and key steps toward developing, implementing, and updating a climate preparedness plan. The guidance begins with a scientific overview of climate change and its impacts, including a useful primer on climate mod- els, as well as the arguments for proceeding with climate change planning without scientific certainty. In this context it intro- duces the National Assessment that provides broad projections of climate changes. The Guidebook then outlines a process for developing an adaptation plan that will be implementable. It recommends (A) scoping the climate change impacts to sectors, noting sources of impacts information and largely using sec- tor examples from government that are statutorily and program driven, given that the guidebook is for governments; (B) build- ing and maintaining support among stakeholders, including iden tification of âchampionsâ; (C) building a climate prepared- ness team within the organization, including designation of a point person; (D) identifying planning areas relevant to climate change impacts; (E) conducting a vulnerability assessment that describes sensitivity and adaptive capacity; (F) conducting a risk assessment, largely qualitative that incorporates risk tolerance and community values and thereby supports work in priority planning areas; (G) establishing a vision and guiding principles for how you expect to achieve and sustain a climate resilient community; (H) using the guiding principles to set preparedness goals; (I) developing, selecting and prioritizing preparedness actions that constitute a plan; (J) identifying plan implementa- tion tools, including risk management and methods for âmain- streamingâ climate preparedness; (K) developing measures of
58 resilience to track results; (L) reviewing and updating the plan and its assumptions. Throughout, the guidebook is very detailed and lists impor- tant questions to ask that help government officials arrive at the information they need. It provides a long list of sources of information on climate change science, impacts, and adaptation; these are general without a strong focus on transportation or air- ports. The guidebook also provides a glossary as well as several friendly aphorisms (âThe future ainât what it used to beâ) that serve as guideposts among the many terms that may be new and unfamiliar to government leaders and staff. The guidebook is instructive to people inside and outside government. It provides a lucid, plainly written, and intelligent outline of critical considerations and milestones in developing processes in an area that can be abstract and that previously has not had any programmatic drivers or directives to guide action. It provides real-life examples of the vulnerability and risk analy- ses or the King County list of preparedness goals by sector, for example, which makes the topic more accessible. A Framework for Climate Change Adaptation in Hawaii, Office of Planning, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, 2009. This document was prepared by the state of Hawaiiâs Ocean Resources Management Plan Working Group (within the stateâs Coastal Zone Management Program), with assistance from the University of Hawaiiâs Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy. It was published in 2009. As noted in its Introduc- tion, the document draws much of its structure and approach from the Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments, and at times it refers the reader to that guidebook. It emphasizes the need to identify the scale at which adaptation plans and actions would occur, state, island, county, agency, or planning sector; as a result it identifies in a detailed way the agencies that would be responsible for actions in key sectors. Center for Climate Strategies Adaptation Handbook: Com- prehensive Climate Action, Center for Climate Strategies, Washington, D.C., Sep. 2011. This guidebook was published in 2011. It outlines a process for climate change adaptation action planning and policy devel- opment to be completed in a year: (1) initiate action through a high-level directive; (2) organize the process and its gover- nance; (3) organize vulnerabilities and adaptation actions by major topic areas; (4) set initial priority actions; (5) execute a systematic process to measure cost-effectiveness; (6) complete deeper evaluation of adaptation options; (7) consider related consequences and impacts of adaptation options; (8) analyze aggregate economic, environmental, and social impact of all options in plan before finalization; (9) finalize recommenda- tions, analysis, and documentation in a report with detailed appendices; and (10) launch comprehensive adaptation plan. Many of these steps are familiar and are seen in the plan- ning efforts cited in the report. Up-to-date experience from implementation of these steps is reflected in several areas of the guidance. The guidebook has an immediate focus on adapta- tion options, rather than walking through the process for iden- tifying the vulnerabilities that they may address. It compares and contrasts its risk assessment process to that in two guides summarized elsewhere in this appendix, Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Govern- ments and Climate Adaptation in New York: Building a Risk Management Response, stating that its numerical ratings better allow for ranking. The guidebook makes a key observation that many adap- tation plans and guidance do not include economic analyses. Another discussion addresses the use of indices and metrics, which includes a caveat to the effect that important charac- teristics of an adaptation option may not be included in the metric. Other considerations include the point that values of metrics may differ across geographies, with water having a relatively higher value in a water-poor area; that a metricâs functionality can be strong in some situations and weak in oth- ers; for example, water use as a metric can depend on the arid- ness of the region; and that time and spatial scales also can qualify the continued use of a metric. It is in the discussion of metrics that the guidebooks discuss vulnerability criteria and adaptation criteria. The guidebook summarizes several methods relating to various stages in adaptation in decision support. It discusses an alternative approach to traditional risk assessment, called Robust Decision Making, which uses many different climate scenarios rather than a few. Alternatives are tested under each for robustness, to gain understanding as to whether an option will perform reasonably well in many instances. To assist practitioners, the guidebookâs appendix includes baseline datasets for identification of risks, including existing climate projections, several âoverallâ assessments of risks and impacts, and assessments by sectors and categories. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2010. This draft guidance memorandum was issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in February 2010 to address the ways in which federal agencies can improve their consid- eration of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in their evaluation of proposals for federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ proposes that federal agencies consider, in scoping their NEPA analyses, whether analysis of the direct and indirect emissions from the proposed action may provide meaningful information to both decision makers and the public. Given that the federal government is committed to the goals of energy conservation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction, wherever a proposed federal agency action impli- cates these goals, useful and relevant information on GHG emissions may be used when deciding among alternatives. In addition, where a federal action that is analyzed in an EA or EIS would be anticipated to emit GHGs in quantities that an agency finds may be meaningful, CEQ advises that it is appro- priate for the agency to quantify and disclose these estimates in the environmental documentation for the proposed action. With respect to current or projected effects of climate change, CEQ proposes that agencies ought to address the observed and projected effects of climate change as part of the proposed actions âaffected environment.â For climate change effects that warrant consideration, the agency may assess the extent that the effects of the proposed action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate these effects. These effects may include, but are not limited to, effects on the environment, public health and
59 safety, and on populations vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Implementing Climate Change Adaptation Planning in Accordance with Executive Order 13514: Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation Planning, Mar. 4, 2011. These guidance documents to Executive Order (EO) 13514 pro- vide information to agencies on how to implement the EO, spe- cifically as it applies to climate change adaptation related to both federal buildings and programs. The guidance specifies that by June 3, 2011, agencies were to have adopted an adaptation pol- icy, that includes adaptation planning, consideration of potential climate change impacts on long-term planning, and an analysis of how climate change may impact the agencyâs overall mis- sion and policies. By September 30, 2011, agencies were to have prepared a set of 3 to 5 priority adaptation actions, as well as a draft, high-level analysis of their vulnerability to climate change. Transportation sector adaptation âBuilding a Risk Management Response: New York City Panel on Climate Change 2010 Report,â Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1196, May 2010, pp. 1â354. This report was published in the Annals of the New York Acad- emy of Sciences in 2010 and represents the full findings of the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC). The NPCC was convened by Mayor Bloomberg in 2007 to develop a risk- based response to climate change impacts and a report, issued in 2009. This report describes the regional climate change projec- tions commissioned by the NPCC, the planning tools developed for the area, the regulatory environment relevant to adaptation and resilience options, and the major themes and best practices recommended for a comprehensive adaptation program for the area. Specific sectors were examined in detail: Land Use, Energy, Water, Communications, and Transportation. The Transportation sector review did not cover airport issues in depth, mainly citing their vulnerability to sea level rise and coastal storms, and a data collection role relevant to climate change indicators and metrics. The report also refers to recommendations in TRB Special Report 290. The report is useful for its framing of short- and long-term program needs and decision support tools, as well as its coupling of high-level discussion with (1) tactical recommendations for concrete next steps; (2) in-depth review of ancillary issues such as the role of the insurance sector; and (3) a set of NPCC work- books, included as appendices, to guide on-the-ground planning. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008, California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, 2009 [Online]. Available: www.climatechange. ca.gov/adaptation [accessed Oct. 7, 2011]. This strategy was developed by a Climate Action Team formed within the state government and led by the California Natu- ral Resources Agency. It was released for public comment and then published in 2009. The first part of the strategy explains climate science and modeling. It offers an interesting distinc- tion to readers, describing hazards based climate modeling, which focuses on the variance of climate changes from the historic norm to demonstrate the degree to which adaptation may be required. Non-climatic factors are not addressed in this form of modeling. A vulnerability-based approach focuses on socio-economic and ecological factors that determine a sys- tems vulnerability and ability to cope with and adapt to climate change. A baseline of the systemâs ability to handle past cli- mate variability can be established; for example, how existing drought cycles may be exacerbated by climate change. It also describes the climate scenarios already developed for the state and summarizes projections relating to temperature, precipita- tion, sea level rise, and extreme events, as well as abrupt cli- mate changes. The strategy took a cross-sector look at climate change, iden- tifying four overall strategies (comprehensive planning, land use, emergency preparedness and response, and research) and several sector-specific strategies: public health, biodiversity and habitat, oceans and coastal resources, water supply, agriculture, forestry, and transportation and energy infrastructure. The discussion of the transportation infrastructure briefly notes the possible inunda- tion of coastal airports under sea level rise. The recommendations for transportation call for activity at several levels: State-wide Strategy; System Planning; Regional Transportation Planning; Project Planning; and Programming. It also calls for develop- ing transportation design and engineering standards to minimize climate change risks, developing guidelines for buffers and set- backs to avoid impacts from sea level rise, and assessing needed changes to stormwater design requirements. It also calls for assessment of the climate impact information needed to respond to emergencies and for other decision support. Stepped down actions include vulnerability and adaptation planning, develop- ment of an economic impact assessment for climate impacts on the state transportation infrastructure, creation of a transportation âhot spotâ map to show which communities will be more vulner- able given their transportation needs, and identification of hot spots based on economic analysis, integration of greenhouse gas mitigation, and adaptation strategies. âClimate Change Adaptation and Transportation System,â California Department of Transportation, Sacramento [Online]. Available: http://www.pdfio.com/k-976196.html and formally available at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/ adaptation/infrastructure/2008-12-05_meeting/CAS_INF_ PDF.pdf. This PowerPoint presentation provides a summary overview of the climate effects of concern to the California Department of Transportation as well as its climate change adaptation approach, which has two objectives: (1) proactive steps to assess vul- nerabilities to climate variations, and (2) mainstreaming of climate change adaptation considerations into transportation investment decision making. High-impact slides depict the climate change effects of primary concern and their potential damage: sea level rise and storm surge (e.g., implicating heavy coastal development); increased hot days and heat waves (e.g., causing pavement degradation or warped train tracks); and changes in precipitation that cannot be forecasted (e.g., leading to roadway washouts and landslides). The presentation makes the point that integration of adaptation into complex transporta- tion planning cycles is not a simple task, introducing the pro- cesses involved in a sophisticated, âsimplifiedâ chart. The presentation shows that as a highly generalized depic- tion of a seven-stage, state-level transportation planning process proceeds, there will be two other activities occurring in tandem: a Climate Action Program and economic and financial assess- ments. These will intersect with transportation planning at key points in its process, bridging âcross-functional requirementsâ and providing technical assistance. The slides show how the state may cross-walk each of the seven planning steps through an âadaptive responseâ or adaptation strategy for each stage. Under the âAdvance Planning and Programmingâ stage, which
60 lists, for example, the need to develop a âProject Initiative Doc- ument (PID),â there is a set of âadaptive responsesâ that sug- gest a corresponding action with respect to adaptation. In the case of a PID, the direction is to âinclude preliminary analysis of the adaptation.â As with the broader California adaptation strategy, these suggestions for the transportation planning sys- tem are transferable to other states or areas that may experience similar climate variations. The presentation concludes with an acknowledgement that more research is needed on the scale of climate change effects, rate of change, anticipated impacts, and potential responses. Other considerations are regional equity, environmental justice, and coordination. Lindquist, E., Climate Change/Variability Science and Adap- tive Strategies for State and Regional Transportation Decision- making, Report SWUTC/10/167165-1, Southwest Region University Transportation Center, College Station, Tex., Apr. 2010. This report summarizes research conducted in 2007 and repeated in 2009 with respect to the adoption of climate adaptation poli- cies in the 50 states. In 2007, four states transportation policies mentioned climate change, and this number grew to seven in 2009. Almost no attention was being paid to adaptation and the investigators found this to be significant. Survey results of state transportation officials and MPOs sug- gest that more research into the research capacity and training needs for these entities is necessary with respect to climate change. Neatly 70% of respondents had never contacted a scientist for information related to global warming and climate change. Where agencies were engaged in climate change it was related to impacts, air quality, and long-range planning. A primary reason for not con- sidering climate change in decision making was the lack of a fed- eral mandate. Only 13% of respondent thought impacts would be significant in 10 years or less; nearly 25% believed 10 to 25 years; 22%, 25 to 50 years; and nearly 15%, 50 to 100 years. MPOs were more likely to consider climate change to be a significant issue. The research suggested to the investigators that without reports and best practices from reliable sources; for example, federal or state departments of transportation, agencies were reluctant to move forward on climate change. Interviews revealed that people were reviewing a wide range of sources of information and there was a sense that the climate change issue suffered from a lack of detailed or downscaled state- and regional-level information. Such information was seen as critical to decision making and pub- lic participation in the adaptation issue. âInternational Scan on Climate Change Adaptation,â Trans portation Research Circular E-C152, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., June 2011 This call out box in a TRB circular devoted to adaptation pro- vides a useful list of the pertinent questions transportation experts are asking about methods and data needs for addressing climate change impacts in the transportation sector. Its ques- tions reflect the professional judgment of transportation organi- zations such as FHWA, AASHTO, and NCHRP. â¢ Understanding how best to include climate change infor- mation in existing or new analysis techniques for planning new infrastructure and maintaining transportation systems. â¢ Assessing how climate change impacts will affect asset management investment cycles and the life cycles of major investments. â¢ Developing pavement, bridge, and other infrastructure design and materials specifications that account for expected cli- mate change impacts, including climate change consider- ations in hydraulic modeling and design. â¢ Considering climate change adaptation in the transporta- tion planning process. â¢ Developing policies and procedures for inventorying criti- cal infrastructure and assessing vulnerabilities and risks as a result of climate change impacts. â¢ Developing options for risk analysis frameworks. â¢ Developing data collection standards to inform risk analy- sis, asset management, and decision making. â¢ Finding opportunities to improve the resiliency of trans- portation infrastructure naturally, through the benefits of ecosystem services. â¢ Documenting effective management strategies that are able to accommodate the climate change impacts on highway safety and operations. McGuirk, M., S. Shuford, T.C. Peterson, and P. Pisano, âWeather and Climate Change Implications for Surface Transportation in the USA,â WMO Bulletin, Vol. 58, 2009, p. 84. This report summarized the implications of weather changes that affect the operation of transportation systems, and climate change that affects transportation infrastructure. It notes that when weather patterns become more extreme as a result of climate change, transportation infrastructure may become less reliable and less safe. The report summarizes different weather parameters and the potential impacts of these to ground trans- portation, including airport ground operations. Extreme temper- atures can also have a negative impact on surface transportation infrastructure, including thermal cracking of roadways and a reduced lifespan for road surfaces. Extreme precipitation events can result in flooding that damages transportation infra- structure and causes disruptions in the transportation system. The bulletin suggests that as a result of climate change, extreme weather events are expected to occur more frequently in the future, increasing the transportâs sectors vulnerability to weather-related disruptions and infrastructure damage. Airports, especially those located in low-lying coastal areas, are at risk from rising sea levels, severe weather, subsidence, changes in shoreline shape, and inland precipitation flooding. In addition, the report found that many coastal structures, including airports, are designed for a working economic life of 50 years or less. For these airport locations, the relatively frequent repair, replacement, and re-design could be modified to take into account local sea level rise. White Paper: Transportation Adaptation to Global Climate Change, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, D.C., 2009. This white paper examines the impact of climate change on the transportation sector, and studies various adaptations to trans- portation infrastructure to mitigate the effects of climate change. The study makes recommendations on short-term federal leg- islative action needed to increase the transportation systemâs resilience to long-term costs of climate change. The white paper recognizes the need for the federal government to compile the interdisciplinary climate research, modeling, mapping, and com- prehensive planning needed. The white paper recommends that the government increase support for climate research and interagency initiatives, as well as requiring that climate adaptation be addressed in transporta- tion planning and project development.
61 Recommendations were also made for the passage of com- bined energy and climate legislation, as well as executive policy action to address climate adaptation in the NEPA process and to incorporate climate risk analysis into Federal infrastructure investment policies. A Transportation Research Program for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change and Conserving Energy: Special Report 299, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009. This report analyzes policies and practices that could be consid- ered for adapting the transportation system to climate change and for mitigating GHG emissions and energy consumption related to transportation. Federal, state and local policy makers need informed guidance about the effectiveness, costs, feasibil- ity, and acceptability of transportation mitigation and adapta- tion strategies, and to this end, the report recommends an annual investment of $40 to $45 million to quickly develop guidance based on existing research, and to foster new research to improve this guidance over time. The report also suggests possible preliminary topics for research, with the expectation that these will be further refined over time. This research ideally would be guided by several principles detailed in the report, including that research topics investigated be relevant to the needs of federal, state, and local policy makers. Research program managers also need to have the flexibility to shift areas of investment as knowledge is devel- oped, and the research to be evaluated on an ongoing basis by an independent group that would report directly to Congress. Hodges, T., âFlooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation,â prepared for the Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Aug. 2011. This report summarizes the impacts of climate change on pub- lic transit, and ways that agencies can adapt to these changes. Impacts range from sudden, disruptive events such as intense rainfall and flooding, to longer-term effects that may impair an agencyâs ability to maintain a state of good repair and reliability. While it may not be possible to link specific weather events to climate change, extreme weather is already having an impact on transit systems across the country, causing delays and disrup- tions during blizzards, floods, and other events. Risk assessment tools developed by governments offer guid- ance on how to prioritize climate risks by assessing the likeli- hood of occurrence and the magnitude of the consequences of climate change impacts. And, although climate change adap- tation may be a new topic for the transit industry as a whole, several transit agencies, such as Portlandâs TriMet, have already begun work in this area. There are four broad categories of adap- tation strategy for transit: maintain and manage, strengthen and protect, enhance redundancy, and abandon infrastructure in very vulnerable areas. Implementing these adaptation strategies effectively requires linking them to transit agency organizational structures and activities, such as asset management systems. Asset management systems offer a streamlined framework for identifying climate risks, tracking climate impacts on asset condition, and incorporat- ing adaptation strategies into capital plans and budgets. Climate change adaptation involves long-term planning for system preser- vation and safe operation under current and projected conditions and interdisciplinary efforts among experts and stakeholders. Sources focused on the general airport context under climate change Stewart, B., I. Klin, and M. Vigilante, âClimate Change Adaptation and Preparedness Planning for Airports,â Adapting Transportation to the Impacts of Climate Change, Transportation Research Circular E-C152, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., June 2011. This articleâs authors are aviation consultants and they describe the context in which airport decision makers operate when con- sidering climate change impacts and risks. It notes that most airport infrastructure is built for a 50-year life. Also, it notes two important aspects about airports: protec- tion of aircraft is as important as protecting the airport struc- tures, and airport function depends on connectivity to other modes of transportation that may or may not be owned by the airport, such as roads and rail connectors. Also an airportâs role as a command center during times of crisis is an opportunity to play a role in regional adaptation. The authors identify three broad areas of work implicated by adaptation needs: â¢ Hardening and redeveloping the physical plant â¢ Assessing and adapting to a variety of operational risks and opportunities â¢ Building communications, collaboration, and strategic align- ment with the full range of airport stakeholders. They also identify research needs based on their professional judgment. Burbidge, R., A. Melrose, and A. Watt, âPotential Adaptation to Impacts of Climate Change on Air Traffic Management,â prepared for the Ninth USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2011), Berlin, Germany, June 14â17, 2011. This article summarizes research and analysis conducted by the European agency in charge of the safety of air navigation, EUROCONTROL. As such it is related to airport adaptation but only as air traffic management relates to an airport. This research identified three areas where climate change impacts may create adaptation issues for air traffic management, describing case studies for each of the following: (1) shifts in passenger demand resulting from changes in local temperature; (2) loss of airport capacity through sea level rise; and (3) impacts to en-route operations resulting from increases in extreme weather events. Case Study 1 also is summarized elsewhere in this appendix (see p. 65, Challenges of Growth . . .). The article also identifies two primary reasons why aviation in particular is vulnerable to climate change: it is weather-dependent and its interconnectedness allows a single node to create knock- on effects through the system. It then analyzes each case study from a larger policy perspective, something not done in each of the separate case studies. With respect to the case study on shifts in passenger demand, the article notes that aviation infra- structure is driven by forecast demand and the long lead times for infrastructure development require planning significantly in advance of operations. As a result, current demand forecasts may not be the appropriate driver for planning and new infra- structure projects forecasts need to begin to integrate the poten- tial of climate change-induced change demands into their risk
62 assessments. The article also notes that aircraft operators can adapt quickly, given the mobility of their assets, whereas air navigation infrastructure is too fixed to adapt quickly. The summary of the second case study, on sea level rise, outlines familiar impacts seen in other literature sources. It also notes that airports are not alone in being under threat; even where the airport is protected from sea level rise, compromised access roads may render the airport inaccessible. In addition, secondary and reliever airports may be threatened as well. The third case study reviews the impact on flight operations of a single day of severe weather in an area of airspace over Europe, finding that bad weather in the skies affects the functioning of the airspace in a negative way. The article concludes that more detailed research is needed, with a special emphasis on the possible timescales over which impacts may be felt, in order to construct the scenarios on which to base adaptation planning. Other research needed would regard the quantification of the potential financial implications of expected impacts and adaptation measures. They suggest that business plan- ning would be aided by simulations of costs of unforeseen air- port closures or market analyses of potential changes in passenger demand. Evaluating the Risk Assessment of Adaptation Report under the Adaptation Reporting Power: Aviation Sector Summary, prepared for the U.K. Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs by Cranfield University, Oct. 2011. This report summarizes and highlights key findings from the results of a review of risk assessments in several aviation sector adaptation reports submitted to the U.K. government in 2011 (and embargoed and unavailable for review for part of that year). The report focuses particularly on key risks for the sector, areas of strength for the industry, areas of good practice, areas for further research, and emerging trends and themes. Climate change risk assessment currently forms a component of corpo- rate risk appraisal for the aviation sector. The review found a number of key risks for the sector, includ- ing risks to air traffic control and air traffic movements from changes in weather patterns. There may also be risks to airfield operations and airport terminal and cargo operations as a result of changes in weather patterns, temperature changes, or changes in the distribution of wildlife or vegetation. Infrastructure and engi- neering at airports may also be at risk owing to climate change, as well as access and transport. Finally, there are global risks to the aviation sector from climate change, including the changes in sea level or global distribution of disease. In addition to these risks, the review found a number of areas of strength, including engagement with relevant staff, depart- ments, and stakeholders. The risk assessments reviewed were completed using existing corporate risk assessment methodolo- gies, and the review found that climate change risk is already being embedded in risk management processes. The review also found clear timescales and responsibilities for adaptation, and plans for continued assessment and monitoring. The review also identified many possible areas for further research, including changes in travel behavior and risks to cargo flows stemming from the effects of climate change. Further research is also needed into the potential reputational and finan- cial risks and adaptation investment issues related to climate change. Other risks found included disruption of water supply, impact on employees, and changes in wildlife and vegetation. Finally, the review found several emerging trends in the area of climate change adaptation in the aviation sector. Among these were consistencies in the risk assessment approach, including the use of semi-qualitative risk assessment methodologies and the assessment of short-, medium-, and long-term risks. Trends also appeared in the actions proposed to address risks. Environmental Management System Strategy and Framework for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, Joint Planning and Development Office, Environment Working Group, Nov. 2010. This report explores the use of a strategic Environmental Man- agement System (EMS) approach to help integrate environmen- tal protection and energy goals into the business and operational strategies of the Next Generation Air Transportation System. The most common framework for an EMS is the Plan-Do-Check-Act process, with the goal of continuous improvement in environ- mental performance. EMS frameworks, of which ISO-14001 is the most common and internationally accepted standard, is intended to facilitate an effective environmental management approach, while still ensuring sustained industry growth. In the initial Plan phase of an EMS the goal is to identify significant environmental aspects of Next Generation aviation systems. These might include air quality, global climate effects, energy, and water quality. Ongoing planning efforts establish baselines and environmental goals, as well as plans to address and achieve these goals. In the Do section of the EMS process, organizations systematically manage environmental perfor- mance in order to achieve the goals set in the Plan phase. During the Check phase of the EMS, environmental perfor- mance is regularly monitored to ensure that the strategies and initiatives are working and will achieve the desired outcomes. In addition to monitoring and measuring environmental per- formance, organizations ought to also communicate with key stakeholders during this phase. Finally, in the Act phase the ongoing EMS cycle of planning, implementing, and checking leads to ongoing adaptations and re-adjustments based on feed- back and measurements. Sources detailing climate risk assessment and other decision support tools and methodologies McLaughlin, B., S. Murrell, and S. DesRoches, âAnticipating Climate Change,â Civil Engineering, Apr. 2011, pp. 50â55. This article was published in Civil Engineering, the magazine of ASCE. It authors are Brian McLaughlin, P.E., LEED AP, M. ASCE; Scott Murrell, P.E., M. ASCE; and Susanne DesRoches, LEED AP, of the Port Authority of New York and New Jer- sey (PANYNJ). They describe the PANYNJâs activities in sup- port of the New York City Panel on Climate Changeâs effort to develop a risk-based response to climate change impacts (sum- marized elsewhere in this appendix). The PANYNJ owns and maintains some of the largest and most valuable transportation infrastructure in the United States, including the Port Authority Trans-Hudson rail system (PATH), six tunnels and bridges link- ing New York and New Jersey, the Port Authority Bus Termi- nal, the World Trade Center, JFK International Airport (JFK), LaGuardia Airport, Stewart International Airport, Teterboro Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport. The PANYNJ evaluated the vulnerability of its infrastructure to a range of climate effects to determine those that might be
63 affected by projections in three time horizons: 2020, 2050s, and 2080s. This article describes the challenges in undertaking this evaluation of vulnerability and the way climate change projec- tions can inform design guidelines, maintenance programs, and long-term planning. The PANYNJ, along with other agencies, were asked to create an inventory of infrastructure that might be at risk and develop adaptation strategies with a view to inter- agency coordination. There were six tasks performed: defining the climate change variables and projections, developing asset inventories, assessing vulnerabilities, analyzing risks, prioritiz- ing the assets, and developing adaptation strategies. This was the sequence of activities followed, with some iteration. Initial challenges encountered included access to data, includ- ing its collection from multiple sources, and the assessment of its accuracy, which also entailed analysis of alternative sources. With respect to risk analysis, the traditional approach was fol- lowed: risk being a function of the likelihood of occurrence and the gravity of the consequence. Through professional judgment, the PANYNJ defined these factors in greater detail. For example, several factors were used to evaluate the magnitude of the conse- quence, including internal operations, capital and operating costs, effects on society, patron health, economics, and the environment. With respect to the likelihood of occurrence, one critical factor was whether there was a likelihood of occurrence in the lifetime of the asset, which is a subjective judgment where there are no normalized criteria across and within asset classes. The PANYNJ created a quantitative scale for its purposes. Another useful prac- tice articulated in the article is that the PANYNJ divided adapta- tion strategies into three categories: maintenance and operations (e.g., use of portable pumps and conducting detailed studies), capital investments (e.g., permanent improvements), and regula- tory (e.g., design standards). The authors noted two sample inventories at risk at airports. The airfields at JFK and LaGuardia, runways and taxiways in particular, are at risk of increased flooding from norâeasters and hurricanes, owing to the likelihood of extreme weather events and storm surge with sea level rise. Operations at the terminal buildings at JFK and LaGuardia are at risk from rising tempera- tures and heat waves resulting from the increased risk of power failure that may shut down baggage handling systems. The authors describe ways that the assessment process matured PANYNJ practices. First, they have developed interim design criteria for use in new construction or major rehabili- tation projects, and these criteria will be reviewed every two years. It also is evaluating facility emergency plans. System redundancies engineered for other purposes also help increase adaptive capacity and system resilience. Another finding by the PANYNJ was that earlier capital improvement investments that involved engineering design redundancy also may help amelio- rate infrastructure vulnerabilities. Security projects; for exam- ple, barriers, help reduce the impact of high water. The PANYNJ experience provides a long list of lessons learned that can inform and refine best practices in transportation sector responses to climate change risks. Assessing Vulnerability and Risk of Climate Change Effects on Transportation Infrastructure: Pilot of the Conceptual Model, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/ conceptual_model62410.htm [accessed Oct. 7, 2011]. FHWA developed its draft conceptual Risk Assessment Model in 2010, and based on the experience in piloting it with a handful of state DOTs and MPOs in 2010â2011, FHWA will develop a final version. The conceptual model helps a planner or other user to develop an inventory of important assets, gather climate information, and assess the risk to the assets from projected cli- mate change. The conceptual modelâs approach is to first compile a list of assets by categories that correspond to planning priorities. It recommends gathering information that can later inform evalu- ation of the assets resiliency to climate change and how costly damage to the asset would be. The model then suggests screen- ing out assets based on their âcriticalityâ or importance, which may be gauged by existing evaluation tools and criteria used by a state or MPO. Next the conceptual model asks the user to collect local or regional level climate data, both historical and projected. Uncer- tainties are to be reviewed. Effects that are small in magnitude and relatively uncertain would be screened out but reviewed at a later time. FHWA notes that it will provide guidance to the pilot agencies on how to take these two factors into account. Next, the conceptual model describes a risk assessment pro- cess to be applied for each asset, using the common formula of likelihood of impact multiplied by that consequence of the impact. The conceptual model reviews the vulnerability of the asset. Vulnerability is determined by examining the assetsâ perfor- mance under historical weather conditions. Sample evidence may be repair costs caused by past weather events, budgets for snowplowing, and the role of the asset in emergency response. If a climate stressor does not have a significant impact on an asset, that climate stressor and asset combination can be screened from review and revisited. The conceptual model encourages the iden- tification of climate stressors already taken into account in the design, operation, and maintenance of the asset. Next the conceptual model calls for an assessment of whether future climate stressors will affect the asset and con- sideration of the cumulative impacts of more frequent climate stressors. To assess the likelihood of impacts, the conceptual model would have the user split impacts into high and low cli- mate stressors, based on their severity. The determination of high or low severity of impact is a qualitative judgment reliant on the expertise of the intended user of this draft model. Next the model would have the user consider the consequences to society of the impact, in part through use of the earlier criti- cality assessments. To integrate the two factors, with their low and high likelihood of impact and low and high consequence, the conceptual model suggests arranging them in a matrix based on the combined effects of their likelihood; low, medium, and high. This approach provides a visual depiction of the assets most at risk from climate change. The conceptual model then suggests identification of adaptation options based the criticality and at risk status of the assets. It notes that adaptation measures can take advantage of existing or scheduled planning cycles (âopportunisticâ adaptation) or be pro-active in that the measure would be implemented before scheduled or necessary planning or maintenance. FHWA: Climate Change and Transportation, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/ climate/index.htm. The FHWA website is a useful resource because it has several sources of information on climate change adaptation, climate risk and resilience, and transportation. Given the mission of
64 FHWA, it does not include reports or other documents focused on airports, although their information and guidance can be uti- lized by airports. Literature Review: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, Risk Assessment, and Adaptation Approaches, Federal High- way Administration, Washington, D.C., 2009, 32 pp. FHWA released this document online in 2009. It provides the result of a literature review of certain approaches that transpor- tation agencies have taken in addressing climate change impacts to transportation. It focuses on vulnerability assessments, which review the existing stressors to transportation and identifies new stressors under climate change; risk assessments, which evalu- ate the likelihood and consequences of climate change impacts to support decisions under climate uncertainty; and adaptation assessments, which identify, prioritize, and measure options for adapting to climate changes. For each approach, key terms are introduced and summaries of published reports are provided to illustrate the application of that approach. CCSP, Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Trans- portation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I, A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Pro- gram and Subcommittee on Global Change Research, M. J. Savonis, V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter, Eds., U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008, 445 pp. This report was commissioned and published as Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.7 under the auspices of the U.S. Cli- mate Change Science Program, which now forms part of the U.S. Global Change Research Program within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. It is the first of a three-phase research effort that aims to provide knowledge and tools that would enable transportation planners to better under- stand the risks, adaptation strategies, and tradeoffs involved in planning, investment, design, and operational decisions given projected climate change impacts. Phase I is a preliminary assessment of risks and vulnerabilities given data collected on the region, while later work will focus on a select location as well as report on implications for long-range plans and impacts on safety, operations, and maintenance; analyze adaptation and response strategies; develop tools to assess these strategies; and identify future research needs. The Phase I report describes the Gulf Coast region, projected climate impacts, and the likely effects of these impacts on the transportation system in the region. The report notes that while transportation planning already factors in significant uncertainty and planners take an iterative approach in many instances, in order to manage climate change, planning horizons may need to be expanded and deterministic decision support methods may need to be joined with iterative risk assessment. The report describes the results of its literature review, including a large table of climate impacts identified in the literature, with citations to sources. Conclusions from the authorsâ literature review were that (1) more data collection is needed to assess transportation vulnerability to climate change; (2) there are gaps in impacts research, including a dearth of quantitative assessments, opera- tions impacts, network and performance impacts, and secondary impacts (e.g., air quality changes that affect airport investment decisions); (3) assessments of risks has been largely qualitative, and there is a need for quantitative assessments of costs or per- formance impacts, especially in the area of economic implica- tions; (4) there has not been an effort to develop a generalized approach for risk analysis; (5) there is a need for work in devel- oping strategies for adaptation and planning, as opposed to a facility engineering approach; and (6) there is a need for deci- sion support tools, including probabilistic approaches to address uncertainty. The authors described the physical setting and natural envi- ronment of the region in depth, noting geophysical dynamics that could influence the response of transportation infrastructure to climate changes. The report then describes the climate scenarios developed for the study, including the models and datasets uti- lized to develop this summary list of issues: Temperature, Precip- itation, and Runoff; Hurricanes and Less Intense Tropical Storms; Sea Level Rise and Subsidence; Storm Surge; and Other aspects (Wind and Wave regime; Humidity and Cloudiness; Convective activity). The report lists the implication and impacts of these variables. The report notes several impacts to airports; for exam- ple, temperature increases will affect construction labor schedules as well as aircraft lift, requiring consideration of runway lengths or manufacturer review of aircraft specifications; more intense precipitation may decrease visibility (requiring greater distances between aircraft and slowing the system), decrease braking effec- tiveness, increase stormwater management demands, weaken inundated roadways, increase turbulence, increase wing icing, affect engine thrust, increase the need for pilot training in Instru- ment Flight Rules, increase the need to evaluate airport design on floodplains, increase hurricane intensity that will cause physical damage and operational disruption to airports; increase the risk of airport inundation owing to the combination of sea level rise and storm surge. The report includes a valuable discussion of key terms used extensively in the climate change adaptation literature and how they can be aligned with risk assessment concepts for use in the transportation sector. It provides the following working definitions. Exposure: The combination of stress associated with climate- related change and the probability or likelihood that this stress will affect transportation infrastructure. Vulnerability: The structural strength and integrity of key facilities or systems and the resulting potential for damage and disruption in transportation services from climate change stressors. Resilience: The capacity of a system to absorb disturbances and retain essential processes. Adaptation: A decision that stakeholders can make in response to perceptions or objective measurements of vulnerabil- ity or exposure. Included in this concept is the recognition that thresholds exist where a stimulus leads to a significant response. From the probability of an exposure to a climate impact and the assessment of vulnerability, some idea of the risk the facility or the system faces can be determined. Here the report again notes that quantitative methods are needed. The report notes that an assessment of the resilience of facilities; for example, their ability to maintain full performance in their life span, requires different data than the resilience of a sys- tem, most notably redundancies that maintain the movement of goods and people. The report notes three broad areas for adaptation options (protect, accommodate, and retreat) and how improvements to capital, maintenance, or operational improvements can emerge from these analyses. The report asserts that it is premature to consider formal changes to the established federal transportation planning process, but the
65 framework it outlines can be part of a visioning process that now and later inform the development and evaluation of alter- native improvement strategies. It does list general areas for focus and consideration, including supplementing long-term plans with consideration of climate change horizons, ensur- ing review of the connectivity of the intermodal system, and providing an integrated analysis of impacts and risk wherein climate change per se is not analyzed separately from other non-climate stressors and conditions. Assessing Infrastructure for Criticality in Mobile, Alabama: Draft Final Technical Memorandum, Task 1, Gulf Coast Study, Phase II, Preprint, U.S. Department of Transporta- tion. Washington, D.C., Mar. 4, 2011. This report is currently in development. It was commissioned by the U.S.DOT and is a focused look at climate impacts on transportation, and related vulnerabilities, in Mobile, Ala- bama. Phase II involves several tasks, and the first task has been completed, with a draft final technical memorandum on its findings released to stakeholders in âdraft finalâ form. The information herein is based solely on that draft final report, dated March 2011. According to the report, Phase 2 involves the following tasks: (1) identify critical transportation assets; (2) develop cli- mate information and assess sensitivity of assets to climate stressors; (3) determine the vulnerability for key links and assets; (4) develop and apply detailed risk management tools; (5) coordinate with local planning authorities and the public on the process and implications of the analysis; and (6) pub- lish and disseminate the information learned. The March 2011 draft provides a definition of âcriticalâ infra- structure: infrastructure that serves to keep the mobility and accessibility functions of the transportation network viable as they enable economic and social activities. In short, the inves- tigators were looking at its importance to the functioning of the community. The authors reviewed the following transportation modes: high- ways, transit, railroads, ports, pipelines, and airports. The authors examined criticality by mode, conducting analysis within each mode. However, they deemed an assessment of criticality across modes too subjective given the data available and for lack of an analytical framework. The framework for determining the criticality of certain transpor- tation infrastructure involved these components: socio-economic, use and operational characteristics, and health and safety, which may include its role in emergencies. For each mode the data used to evaluate infrastructure under these criteria would vary. Desk top reviews, interviews, and professional judgment guided the data analysis. In some instances, however, stakeholder input provided qualitative statements on the importance of certain infrastructure and the report takes earlier collection and incorporation of local values as lessons learned in methodology. The authors include a discussion of how the studyâs scope evolved and expanded. Ini- tially, their conception of critical infrastructure focused primarily on highway and rail and their importance to homeland security and emergency management. The methodology was broadened to include socioeconomic and operational considerations, as well as other modes. The authors developed a methodology for testing system redun- dancy, used primarily for roadways. This methodology helped create a score for redundancy for each link in the system. In their review of the 17 airports in the area, the authors relied largely on FAA-reported data, as well as information in the State- wide Airport System Plan. With respect to the latter, the authors used state information in an initial âscanâ of transportation plans and demand models. They recorded and assessed the existence of several functions and activities at each airport. They exam- ined whether each airport had the following functions: air carrier; commuter; air charter; air taxi; hangar rental; tie downs; aircraft rental; aircraft sales; flight instruction; jet fuel; aviation gas; air- craft repair; avionics repair; U.S. customs; public telephone; res- taurant; vending; car rental; skydiving; loaner car; FTZ; industrial park; and FAA test center. The authors also examined whether each airport had the following services: recreational flying; agri- cultural spraying; corporate/business activity; aerial inspections; just in time shipping; gateway for resort visitors; community events; police/law enforcement; prisoner transport; community facilities; flight instructions/education; cap; environmental patrol; emergency medical evacuations; medical shipments/patients; for- est fire fighting; aerial photo survey; real estate tours; banner tow- ing; traffic news; air shows; fly-ins. The scan of transportation plans and demand models was fol- lowed by analysis of each airport facility for its criticality. The authors developed 20 criteria, described in detail here, for assessing the criticality of the aviation facilities (airports, fields, and heliports) and these encompassed three aviation categories: general aviation, civil aviation, and military aviation. Notably, none of the facilities was mentioned in evacuation or disaster management plans. The information selected to form the criteria for assessing criti- cality were as follows: Socioeconomic â¢ Part of the national/international commerce system â¢ Important multi-modal linkage â¢ Functions as community connection â¢ No system redundancy â¢ Serves regional economic centers. Use/Operational â¢ Status as a commercial use airport, military airport, public airport, or private airport â¢ Federal Acquisition Regulations Part 139 certification â¢ Aircraft performance and dimensions (approach speed codesâA, B, C, D, E; Aircraft design groupâI, II, III, IV, V, VI) â¢ Instrumentation (precision, nonprecision, visual) â¢ Category within the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (primary, reliever, general aviation) â¢ Category within Statewide Airport System Plan (interna- tional, national, regional, community, local) â¢ Passenger enplanements (most recent year) â¢ Annual aircraft operations (most recent year) â¢ Based aircraft (most recent year) â¢ Economic impact ($million/annually) (most recent year available). Health and Safety â¢ Identified in evacuation plans â¢ Component of a disaster relief and recovery plan â¢ Component of national defense system
66 â¢ Provides support to health facilities â¢ Provides support to offshore facilities â¢ The report concluded that 2 of 17 facilities were critical airport network assets, based on these criteria. Adapting to Rising Tides: Community Based Adaptation Planning, Preprint, NOAA, Coastal Services Center, Charleston, S.C., 2011. Adapting to Rising Tides Metrics Evaluation Worksheet, Asset Category: Airport, Preprint, NOAA, Coastal Services Cen- ter, Charleston, S.C., 2011. This report, Adapting to Rising Tides: Community Based Adaptation Planning, is in draft form and will be part of the project record for Adapting to Rising Tides (ART), a commu- nity awareness, vulnerability assessment, and risk assessment project jointly sponsored by NOAA and the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission. ART has conducted public workshops at a sub-regional level, wherein stakeholders learn about climate change impacts, identify key assets, agree to a process for determining their vulnerability to climate change, and then actually conduct vulnerability and risk assessments. The goal is to develop strategies for reducing and managing risks to the Bay Area from climate change impacts. As part of the process for inventorying sub-regional assets of interest, stakeholders were asked to select asset categories, choose metrics to characterize the assets, and use these metrics to assess existing conditions and stressors of assets. Representa- tives from various sectors have filled out worksheets that seek data on metrics that can describe conditions and characteris- tics of the asset as they relate to environmental, equity/society, economic, and governance factors and to broad climate change vulnerability components: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The worksheet cross-walks these factors and compo- nents with five sets of metrics: physical/ecological, manage- ment, public health and safety, community and economic value, and exposure to current stressors. The following metrics were used for airports: Physical/ecological: â¢ Number of runways â¢ Number of ground access roadways into airport â¢ Age of asset/remaining service life â¢ Level of use (commercial passenger service, number of passengers/flights) â¢ Level of use (general aviation, number of passengers/ flights) â¢ Level of use (number of cargo flights) â¢ Current/historical performance or condition â¢ Topographic elevation of site; for example, systems and facilities â¢ Depth to groundwater â¢ Proximity of site to wetlands, parks, and other protected natural resources. Management â¢ Ownership; for example, public or private â¢ Repair and maintenance schedule and costs â¢ Replacement or retrofit costs â¢ Regulations governing design â¢ Status of existing plans; for example, master plan, improvement plan, etc. â¢ Current/existing prioritization assessments. Public health and safety â¢ Role in emergency management â¢ Hazardous materials that pose a public health or environ- mental risk â¢ Proximity to emergency management centers; for exam- ple, police, fire, emergency operation, facilities, etc. Community and economic value â¢ Population served, current capacity and demand â¢ Future capacity and demand â¢ Serves low-income or disadvantaged community â¢ Number of jobs dependent upon use â¢ Serves major economic investment/employment center â¢ Intermodal Corridor of Significance. Exposure to current stressors â¢ Historic exposure, cost, and response to flooding â¢ Redundancy in the system â¢ Seismic susceptibility â¢ Located within current 100-year flood plain â¢ Historical evidence of past disruptions (damage caused, changes in system operations). Sources describing specific risks in depth Pejovic, T., V.A. Williams, R.B. Noland, and R. Toumi, âFactors Affecting the Frequency and Severity of Airport Weather Delays and the Implications of Climate Change for Future Delays,â Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2139, Transporta- tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washing- ton, D.C., 2009, pp. 97â106. This paper identifies the role of weather in delays experienced at Heathrow Airport between 2002 and 2006. Weather predictors were identified, and the authors were able to classify the sever- ity of delays correctly in 84% of cases. The results showed that weather events that affect visibility (i.e., fog and snow), as well as thunderstorms, tend to have the largest effect on delays. With confidence in these weather predictors, the authors then applied them to the outputs of the U.K. climate model projections for the Heathrow airport area in 2050s (2041â2070) time horizon. Of the predictors used in modeling delays, only minimum tem- perature is directly available from climate models. The authors used three other predictors, wind speed, crosswind speed, and head or tailwind speed, adopting some qualitative analysis. They conclude that increases in temperature are likely to decrease delays. It was concluded, using all four predictors, that there was probability of a 7% increase in delays in wintertime at Heathrow Airport for the 2050s time horizon. Inclusion of rain (using London as a proxy for Heathrow) increased delays in winter and decreased them in summer. The authors highlighted the need for better, more precise data for the purposes of this kind of study. They state that a study of delays requires detailed information on specific flight delays rather than daily averages. Another limita- tion that they note is the availability of weather parameters from climate model outputs, such as fog, snow, visibility, and wind.
67 Larsen, P., et al., âEstimating Future Costs for Alaska Pub- lic Infrastructure at Risk from Climate Change,â Global Environmental Change, Vol. 18, 2008, pp. 442â457. This article reports on research supported by University of Alaska, including the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), and on the projected cost of the infrastructure at risk from climate change impacts in Alaska, largely thawing per- mafrost, flooding, and coastal erosion. It concludes that climate change could add from $3.6 to $6.1 billion (more than 10%â20% above normal wear and tear) to future costs for public infrastruc- ture from 2008 to 2030, and from $5.6 billion to $7.6 billion (plus 10%â12%) from 2008 to 2080. Airports are included in the analysis of public infrastructure. Unlike many other states, Alaska owns most airports; more than 250 will need replacing at a cost of $5.6 billion. The investigators acquired climate pro- jections for Alaska, created a database of public infrastructure, and estimated the replacement costs for existing infrastructure. This information would support the use of its model, the ISER Comprehensive Infrastructure Climate Life-cycle Estimator (ICICLE) to value costs. ICICLE assumes climate change will reduce the useful life of infrastructure so that it has to be replaced sooner. Using ICICLE, the replacement costs estimate was cal- culated with and without climate change, while assuming that planners will adapt structures strategically. Developing the database involved defining what was critical infrastructure and determining whether records were kept on both the infrastructure and its replacement costs. Often these cost data were not available; therefore, estimates were used based on average insured value and other information. Infrastructure was assigned a location and each location given a set of values associated with the projected climate effects; for example, proximity to the coast and susceptibility to flooding (e.g., âexposed,â âprotected,â âinterior,â and âprone to floodingâ), as well as local permafrost conditions (âfrost-susceptibleâ and ânon-frost-susceptibleâ). Investigators also estimated the useful life of the infrastructure. Investigators calculated net present value cost of infrastruc- ture at risk owing to climate change as driven by changes in temperature and precipitation. They consider this a True Eco- nomic Depreciation approach, which is a representation of how the value of an asset declines over time as it moves toward its retirement from service. The investigators looked at the net pres- ent value of infrastructure replacement over time under different conditions. They calculated a base case useful life of the asset; for example, the typical 20 years for a roadâs life span. Then they determined an âadjusted useful lifeâ based on climate change effects on the infrastructure. The investigators list many sources of degradation that will result in increases in ordinary mainte- nance (including extraordinary maintenance), complete replace- ment of the facility at a different site, or alternative responses. The investigators provide an informative discussion of assumptions they make about the damage infrastructure will experience under climate drivers such as temperature and pre- cipitation. They assume a linear relationship between increased temperature, increased precipitation, and the reduction in use- ful life. However, they note that social systems respond not to gradual changes but to variability and extreme events. There- fore, they assume that when the temperature and precipitation are both in the 1st and 99th percentile of historical variance, there is an extreme event. In those instances, they accelerate depreciation by 10%. The investigators note that research is needed within the engineering community; they would like to see on the ground case studies that monitor slight changes in the useful life of structures over time. This information would help them establish a more appropriate damage function. Again, to allow for social system behavior, the investiga- tor then selected a model of adaptation behavior. They chose an event-driven adaptation model that assumes that although adaptation research is being conducted, no action will be taken until there is damage to the structure at some critical threshold. Until that threshold is met, the investigators assume that addi- tional repair money could maintain a reasonable useful life of the asset. They note that a rule of thumb in planning is that once a building loses 20% of its useful life, it becomes more feasible to build than repair; therefore, the threshold used in the ICICLE model was 20%. The modelsâ outputs provide a base case example, where there is no climate change; a no-adaptation case with climate change; and an event-based adaptation case wherein adaptation actions are taken to reduce the effects of climate change. The investigators determined that in the event-driven case, there are costs for adaptation, but overall the cost was less than the no- adaptation case. They found that adapting airports to climate change, under the warmest climate projection, would cost 85% as much as if there were no adaptation actions taken. In other words, adapting airports to climate change could save an esti- mated 15%. Overall projected climate change could add 10% to 20% to infrastructure costs by 2030 and 10% to 12% by 2080 under different climate projections and taking design adapta- tions into account. The article has a beneficial discussion of terminology. Inves- tigators note that there is a significant amount of literature devoted to formally defining adaptive capacity, resilience, and vulnerability, often in a hypothetical context. The investigators choose the term âinfrastructure at riskâ to denote the additional costs from projected climate change net of event-based struc- tural adaptation. The investigators cite many data needs: more complete infor- mation on the amount, assumed useful life, age, and average replacement costs of the infrastructure they are studying. They seek information on how changing building conditions affect life-cycle costs for infrastructure. They also seek what they term âplausible adaptation scenariosâ; for example, the cost of adap- tation options; what option not only ameliorate climate change effects but are also cost-effective. Challenges of Growth Environmental Update Study: Climate Adaptation Case Studies, EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium, 2010. This case study of possible shifts in tourism (and therefore air- line destinations) under climate change provides insight into the potential secondary effects and business risk from climate change impacts. It also outlines a potentially useful method- ological framework for determining the impacts of climate on an economic sector, rather than the commonly seen asset-focused approaches. As described in another article in this appendix, there are implications for airport and air traffic management planning. The location of interest was the Greek island of Crete. Inves- tigators interviewed government officials on strategies and priorities for tourism development and aviation development, and reviewed the likely cost and capacity level of a new airport under various demand scenarios, based on the tourism develop- ment. Next, the investigators conducted a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) analysis for the new airport. This was followed by a SWOT analysis of aviation development in Greece generally, to identify key parameters regarding avia- tion and tourism development, evaluate benefits and weaknesses,
68 and support strategic planning decisions. Next, they conducted an economic analysis that would help explain how and when cli- mate change impacts would impact the demand-side variables supporting tourism development. Finally, they ran a forecast study of passenger traffic estimations (demand) for the years 2020, 2030, 2050, and 2080. To do so they identified a measure that would explain future changes in tourism behavior, north- ern European tourist thermal discomfort, and examined likely changes in this measure over time. The study found that in 30 to 50 years thermal discomfort may drive tourists to cooler loca- tions or cause them to shift their visits to cooler months. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), âSummary for Policymakers,â In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, C.B. Field, et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. and New York, N.Y., 2011. This report summarizes key findings from the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX report assesses the interaction of climatic, environmental, and human factors that can lead to impacts and disasters, options for managing the risks posed by impacts and disasters, and the important role that non-climatic factors play in determining impacts. The impacts of climate extremes and the potential for disasters result from both the climate extremes themselves and from the exposure and vulnerability of human and natural sys- tems. Past experience with climate extremes contributes to the understanding of effective disaster risk management and the corresponding adaptation approaches to manage these risks, and the severity of the impacts of climate extremes depends strongly on the level of exposure and vulnerability to these extremes. Trends in exposure and vulnerability are major driv- ers of changes in disaster risk. Attention to the temporal and spatial dynamics of exposure and vulnerability is particularly important given that the design and implementation of adapta- tion and disaster risk management strategies and policies can reduce risk in the short term, but may increase vulnerability in the longer term. Future changes in exposure, vulnerability, and climate extremes resulting from natural climate variability, anthropogenic climate change, and socioeconomic development can alter the impacts of climate extremes on natural and human systems, and may change the potential for disasters. Confidence in projecting these changes will depend on many factors, including the type of extreme, the region and season, the amount of data, and the level of understand- ing of the underlying processes. There is a range of approaches for adaptation to climate change and disaster risk management, and effectively applying and combining these approaches may benefit from considering the broader challenge of sustainable develop- ment. Measures that provide benefits under current climate and a range of future climate change scenarios have the potential to offer benefits now and lay the foundation for addressing projected changes.