The page you requested has moved and you've automatically been taken to its new location.
Please update your link or bookmark after closing this notice.
Contacts
For more information, please contact:
Prepared for:
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Environment and Planning
Mike Culp
Prepared by:
ICF International
1725 Eye Street, NW
Washington , DC 20006
July 24, 2009
Contract No. DTFH61-05-D-00018/19/20/21; TOPR No. EV0101
Incorporation of climate change impacts into transportation decisions is still a relatively new concept. As decision makers in various sectors grapple with information on climate change effects and how they may or may not impact their core mission(s), they are turning to existing tools and approaches for guidance. To date, three closely-related approaches are being used to help transportation decision makers consider and prepare for future climate impacts: vulnerability assessment, risk assessment, and adaptation assessment.
These approaches have been applied at varying levels of sophistication in assessing climate change impacts on human and natural systems. This document details how these approaches have been or could be used to integrate climate change impacts into transportation decisions and ultimately increase the adaptive capacity of the highway system.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the importance of understanding and responding to information on impacts of climate change on the U.S. transportation system. FHWA further recognizes that this is a rapidly evolving area of research and that useful information may come from a wide variety of sources both inside and outside the United States . For that reason, FHWA has commissioned a review of U.S. and international approaches to address global climate change adaptation. FHWA recognizes that efforts to address adaptation are in their infancy and in some cases, adaptation efforts may be limited to a qualitative assessment of vulnerability. Thus, this literature review focuses on three major categories of activities: vulnerability assessments, risk assessments, and adaptation approaches. Ultimately, some combination of these actions will inform a new risk assessment framework for FHWA.
This remainder of this report presents the findings of a streamlined literature review for Task 2.1 (see Appendix A for a detailed discussion of the literature review methodology). Ultimately, this Task and the subsequent Tasks (2.2 and 2.3) are intended to inform the development of a risk assessment framework (Task 2.4). The framework will draw on several tools to assist policy makers in assessing and responding to projected climate change impacts. Transportation officials will likely begin by identifying the climate effects, assessing the climate impacts on transportation infrastructure, and evaluating/prioritizing adaptation options. In order to maximize the usefulness of the information presented in this report, examples from the literature are presented in three categories: (1) vulnerability assessment, (2) risk assessment, and (3) adaptation approaches. Each of these sections provides a general overview of the assessment or approach, the methodology that policymakers may utilize for applying the assessment or approach, and selected examples. In the absence of a framework, one or all of the methodologies discussed here may be utilized to address climate change impacts on transportation systems; the methodologies' relative usefulness in specific situations is highly dependent on several factors including the infrastructure in question, the design life, and available resources, among other considerations.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines vulnerability as "the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes" (IPCC, 2007). The vulnerability of a given system to climate change can vary with the unique characteristics of that system including its exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Snover et al., 2007). Climate change can impact a study group (or system) by introducing new stressors into the system, and may also exacerbate existing stressors.
Depending on how "the system" is defined for the purpose of conducting a vulnerability assessment, factors external to the system itself may influence its vulnerability; these factors may include development patterns, the surrounding physical environment, the distribution of resources, and existing stressors (IPCC, 2007). Vulnerability analysis has evolved over time drawing on issues associated with entitlement, diversity, and resilience (Turner et al., 2003). The first relates to human needs that render a system more or less vulnerable. The second, diversity, addresses the need for redundant functions and the third has roots in ecology, alluding to a system's ability to maintain equilibrium (even if that equilibrium is dynamic) despite exposure to disturbance or stress. There is a rapidly growing body of literature addressing terms such as vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity, particularly for natural systems. The remainder of this section focuses on how "vulnerability assessments" may be useful for FHWA in addressing climate change impacts on the U.S. highway system.
In this context, vulnerability to climate change and climate variability acts as a function of the structural strength and integrity of the infrastructure, as well as the potential for damage and disruption in transportation services (CCSP, 2008). While factors for determining the vulnerability of transportation infrastructure may vary across transportation agencies, common factors may include: the age of the infrastructure element; condition/integrity of the infrastructure element; proximity to other infrastructure elements/concentrations; and the level of service (CCSP, 2008). Currently, there is no comprehensive inventory of U.S. transportation infrastructure considered vulnerable to climate change, the degree of infrastructure vulnerability, or the estimated costs of associated damages (NRC, 2008). However, there are several local and regional studies available in the U.S. that utilize a bottom-up approach to evaluate infrastructure vulnerability that attempt to capture this information (Larsen et al., 2007; Kirshen et al., 2006). In addition, various international vulnerability assessments have been conducted at local and regional levels (Andrey and Knapper, 2003; Allen Consulting Group, 2005; Ibarrarán et al., 2008).
The literature provides some guidance on the methodology of vulnerability assessments. Two reports provide the foundation for this described methodology (Mehdi et al., 2006 and Snover et al., 2007). In general, a vulnerability assessment can be broken into 3 key elements as illustrated in Box 1 . The available budget, time allocated for the study, the number of planning areas encompassed within the study, and the objective of the assessment will dictate the level of effort and detail appropriate as evidenced by the vulnerability assessment examples in section 2.2 (Snover et al., 2007). Once a vulnerability assessment has been assembled, continual monitoring and review is necessary to ensure the findings throughout each element of the process are up-to-date and relevant including integrating new information into the decision-making and planning process as it becomes available (Mehdi et al., 2006; Snover et al., 2007).
Element One: Assess Current Vulnerability. This element identifies the system's vulnerabilities to existing stressors, including relevant climate conditions that currently affect the system stressors. This assessment provides a roadmap for which climate variables (temperature, precipitation, etc.) are most likely to be of interest. The current vulnerabilities are apt to be affected by a complex number of factors including environmental (extreme weather), social (policy changes) and economic (market changes) factors (Mehdi et al., 2006). This step may draw heavily from historical data, experience, and past climate events to provide further insight into the potential responses and vulnerabilities of the system (Mehdi et al., 2006).
Element Two: Estimate Future Conditions. The future climate change effects within the assessment area are projected to a particular time period to determine the potential changes in relevant climate variables and climate variability (Mehdi et al., 2006). Questions for this step may include (Snover et al., 2007):
Further, it is important to recognize that these climate effects may have strong seasonal and regional signatures (e.g., excessive summertime drought conditions in the Southwest); it is critical to capture these signals to adequately assess vulnerability (Mehdi et al., 2006).
Element Three: Estimate Future Vulnerabilities. How vulnerable a system is to climate change can be determined by (1) estimating how sensitive the system is to climate change and (2) how resilient the system is to change (Turner et al., 2003). A system is considered sensitive to climate change if the system is likely to be affected by the projected climate scenarios (Snover et al., 2007). This step will draw from the findings of element two which describes how the projected climate effects affect the current and newly introduced system stressors and uses this information to identify system vulnerabilities. This step may further rank the associated impacts through a quantitative or qualitative process, using rankings such as high, medium, or low, enabling decision makers to prioritize the future impacts (Snover et al., 2007). In addition, estimates of vulnerability will include the system's adaptive capacity (i.e., how well can the system sustain the climate effects with minimum disruption or cost) (Snover et al., 2007). Key considerations for evaluating adaptive capacity include (Snover et al., 2007):
Table 1 is an example of a vulnerability assessment conducted for various planning activities (Snover et al., 2007). The vulnerability scenarios may be broken into sectors such as the potential effects on environmental, social and economic systems. Here the vulnerability of pavement to extreme heat events is analyzed qualitatively: the pavement is considered to be extremely sensitive to the heat event, yet the decision makers have opportunities to cope with the consequences leading to a moderate level of vulnerability. Policymakers can use this type of ranking system to assess and prioritize the vulnerability of planning areas or impacted systems.
Once future vulnerabilities are assessed, adaptive approaches can be developed in response to the increased vulnerabilities or new opportunities, and no-regrets adaptation strategies can be identified (Mehdi et al., 2006). Depending on the level of the assessment, the identification of adaptation options may occur as part of a more quantitative risk management approach and/or in the context of a dedicated adaptation planning effort; both of these approaches are described in the following sections. In fact, the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CIARN) expanded upon this three element approach described above by prefacing these three elements with stakeholder involvement and adding a final step of identifying adaptation strategies when outlining the elements of a vulnerability assessment (Mehdi et al., 2006). This demonstrates the grey lines that exist between these different assessments and approaches.
Table 1 . Sample vulnerability assessment
Planning Area |
Current and Expected Stresses |
Projected Climate Change Impacts |
Vulnerability Assessment |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sensitivity |
Adaptive Capacity |
Vulnerability |
|||
Water supply |
Summer drought |
Increases in summer droughts due to warmer, drier summers |
High - water supply is very sensitive to changes in snowpack |
Low - numerous regulatory constraints on reallocating water, options for expanding supply limited, summer demand already greater than supply |
High |
Stormwater management |
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) during heavy rainstorms |
More localized flooding, water quality problems possible if precipitation becomes more intense and/or frequent |
High - CSO events are sensitive to changes in the intensity and frequency of rain events |
Medium - can upgrade the system but costly; some upgrades already underway |
Medium |
Road operations and maintenance |
Pavement buckling on asphalt roads during extreme heat events |
More required asphalt maintenance likely |
High - pavement Buckling an existing problem on many roads |
Medium - can replace asphalt more frequently but costly; dependent on industry-wide changes in asphalt for improved asphalt mixes |
Medium |
Source: Snover et al., 2007
The following summarizes studies that have utilized some aspect of the vulnerability assessment methodology outlined above in the approach and highlights each study's key findings.
Synthesis and Assessment Product (SAP) 4.7 focuses on the Gulf Coast and examines the potential impacts of climate change on vulnerable transportation systems and infrastructure. This study follows many of the steps described in the methodology section including the assessment of current vulnerabilities, estimating future climate conditions and identifying the associated projected vulnerabilities. Future projections of climate will vary depending on the choice of emission scenarios (i.e., various scenarios describing how emissions of greenhouse gases will change over the projected years in response to changes in policies, population growth, economic development, etc.). This report estimates future conditions using climate models driven by a variety of emissions scenarios from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), including the low-emissions B1 scenario, the mid-range A1B scenario, and the high-emissions A2 scenario. The AIFI scenario was also added to the SRES scenarios to assess the impacts of sea level rise.
These scenarios examined climate impacts in 2050 and 2100. The climate impacts on transportation infrastructure assessed in this study rely on the combination of an understanding of historical climate trends and future projections from general circulation models (GCM). Factors of existing transportation infrastructure were considered in assessing future climate changes. For example, sea level rise scenarios for 2050 and 2100 were factored against land surface elevation and subsidence rates of sample sites.
In the case of increasing temperatures, transportation analysts have identified several specific attributes of temperature change of concern in transportation planning: "changes in annual days above 32.2 °C (90 °F) and maximum high temperature, for example, will impact the ability to construct and maintain transportation facilities. Concrete loses strength if it is set at air temperatures greater than 32.2 °C and the ability of construction workers and maintenance staff to perform their duties is severely curtailed at temperatures above 32.2 °C degrees" (CCSP, 2008).
This study finds highways, ports, and rail infrastructure are particularly vulnerable to projected sea level rise and future storm surges (see Table 2 for sample results). In addition, the maintenance of infrastructure (such as rail and highways) is projected to be vulnerable to increasing temperatures while bridges are projected to be especially vulnerable to changes in precipitation and flooding.
Table 2 . A sample of the vulnerability assessment findings of the percent of highway facilities vulnerable to relative sea level rise and storm surge impacts.
Facility |
Relative Sea Level Rise |
Storm Surge |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
61 cm (2 ft) |
122 cm (4 ft) |
5.5 m (18 ft) |
7.0 m (23 ft) |
|
Arterials |
20% |
28% |
51% |
57% |
Interstates |
19% |
24% |
56% |
64% |
Intermodal connectors |
23% |
43% |
73% |
73% |
Source: CCSP, 2008
In addition to assessing potential transportation infrastructure vulnerabilities based on climate scenario modeling, the report also presents case studies of the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. It is understood that although changes in tropical cyclone activity have not been directly attributed to climate change, these case studies illustrate the types of impacts that would occur if the Gulf Coast experiences an increase of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Tropical cyclones at hurricane strength damage infrastructure through increased winds, storm surges, and wave action. This assessment focuses on how the elevation of roads and bridges are linked to the vulnerability to storm surges and sea level rise by examining actual damages to transportation infrastructure that occurred as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and the associated costs of repairs (CCSP, 2008). This type of vulnerability assessment can be replicated in other regions as the climate scenarios are applicable worldwide and the results can be incorporated into regional vulnerability assessments relying on regional expertise and existing infrastructure inventories.
The bridges most impacted by the storms are found to be the numerous bay and river crossings throughout the region. Several bridges were completely destroyed, while others sustained significant damage. The vulnerability of these roads and bridges are attributed to the storm surge and wave action from the storms, as well as problems with structural design. Roadways were likewise inundated and damaged by these storms resulting in roadway weakening and sinkholes requiring reconstruction and improvements.
The analysis also includes a discussion of the cost of infrastructure repair. Requests for emergency repairs to Mississippi highways after Katrina totaled approximately $580 million. The Louisiana Recovery Authority estimates that the cost of rebuilding transportation infrastructure damaged by the hurricanes would cost $15-18 billion. These estimates provide some indication of the potential expense that would occur if hurricane frequency and/or intensity increase as the climate changes.
This Australian report uses a vulnerability assessment to investigate how projected climate effects will affect road infrastructure. The climate effects were projected based on the IPCC SRES A2 scenario providing temperature, precipitation and moisture for 2100. This paper focuses on select road system components including: pavement performance, road use demand, and road design and maintenance; additional modeling tools were utilized to make the connection between climate projections and road system component (e.g., Pavement Life Cycle Costing (PLCC) model, and the Highway Development and Management Version 4 (HDM-4) model). In order to undertake the vulnerability assessment, the following road system datasets were utilized: road inventory data, traffic information (e.g., annual average daily traffic), pavement type (e.g., materials, strength, thickness), and pavement condition (e.g., age, initial pavement roughness).
This study finds significant state variations in the change of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation costs as a result of climate variation and population and transport demand levels. In addition, there is a small decrease (between 0% and -3%) in the required pavement maintenance and rehabilitation budget based solely on change in climate factors. This result reflects the generally warmer and drier Australian climate which reduces the rate of pavement deterioration.
In 2008, Engineers Canada conducted this engineering vulnerability assessment on four categories of Canadian public infrastructure: stormwater and wastewater, water resources, roads and associated structures, and buildings. The report provides an assessment of vulnerability based on case studies. In the case of transportation infrastructure (i.e., roads and associated structures), the locations analyzed include the City of Greater Sudbury, Ontario, and the City of Edmonton, Alberta. The engineering vulnerability assessment conducted in these two case studies employed a sophisticated three-dimensional analysis of infrastructure components including how the components respond to climate events and the particular set of climate events under consideration. Examples of the factors considered in these case studies are presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3 . Factors considered in the roads and associated structures engineering vulnerability assessments
Relevant Infrastructure Elements |
Performance Response |
Relevant Climate Events and other Environmental Factors |
|---|---|---|
Arterial roads Collector roads Local urban roads Local rural roads Bridges |
Structural integrity Serviceability Functionality Operations & maintenance Emergency response risk Insurance considerations Policies & procedures Economics Public health & safety Environmental effects |
High temperature Low temperature Extreme temperature range Precipitation as rain Precipitation as snow Wind Ice accretion Ice force Hail Freeze-thaw cycles Groundwater Flooding Fog Humidity |
Source: Engineers Canada , 2008
Key findings of transportation infrastructure vulnerabilities to climate change include: (1) infrastructure systems studied were generally resilient to discrete, one-time, climate events; and (2) infrastructure systems were particularly vulnerable to long-term cumulative impacts.
A Canadian study conducted a case study analysis of pavement sensitivity to temperature and precipitation. Specifically, this report analyzes pavement performance over a 20-year period using the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (M-E PDG) to determine how climate changes in precipitation and temperature will affect the pavement performance indicators of international roughness index (IRI), longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, alligator cracking, asphalt concrete (AC) deformation, and total deformation. This analysis requires traffic, and structure and material properties datasets to represent current stressors and pavement conditions. Climate effects were represented by temperature, wind speed, percent sunlight, precipitation, and relative humidity.
Large temperature and precipitation increases are shown to have a negative impact on the pavement performance in the Canadian environment. In most cases, a 1°C temperature increase did not significantly affect the pavement performance, while a larger temperature increase showed noticeable differences. Pavement deterioration will be significantly accelerated by climate change (Smith et al., 2008). Pavement performance will require maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction to occur earlier in pavement design life.
This report assesses the vulnerability of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline to the impacts of climate change, identifies information needs for future vulnerability assessments, and suggests near-term and long-term strategies to address climate change impacts. For this assessment, two IPCC scenarios were used to report on climate change impacts in California : A2 (a higher emissions scenario) and B1 (a medium-low scenario). Researchers used the A2 and B1 scenarios to run multiple global climate computer models and performed additional research to project specific climate changes in California . Two sea level rise estimates were selected for analysis in this report: a 16-inch (40 cm) sea level rise by mid-century and a 55-inch rise in sea level by the end of the century (SFBCDC, 2009).
Many of the major roads and highways within the Bay region may be significantly impacted by sea level rise and extreme flooding events due to their proximity to the Bay and the Pacific Ocean . Approximately 99 miles of the major roads and highways within the region are vulnerable to a 16-inch rise in sea levels (by mid-century) and approximately 186 miles of major roads and highways are vulnerable to a 55-inch rise (by the end of the century). Some roads and highways will be subjected to other impacts, such as erosion from increased storm activity. These types of impacts have been shown to undermine existing structures, which can substantially increase maintenance costs. Supporting structures of many of the region's bridges may also be vulnerable to unanticipated, prolonged contact with corrosive salt water (SFBCDC, 2009).
This study considers the vulnerability of regional transportation infrastructure to climate change to be "High" as there are many highways are adjacent to the Bay and crossing the Bay. Flooding of these highway segments in the regional transportation network would disrupt the movement of goods from ports. Approximately 99 miles of the major roads and highways within the region are vulnerable to a 16-inch rise in sea levels (by mid-century) and approximately 186 miles of major roads and highways are vulnerable to a 55-inch rise (by the end of the century). Where rising sea level and storm activity do not actually flood roads and highways, it will further complicate maintenance and congestion relief projects (SFBCDC, 2009).
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) produced the Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) report in order to provide transportation owners and operators with resource allocation guidelines for safety and security investments. The CAPTA methodology is available to the public as a computer-based spreadsheet model providing a means to analyze assets, relevant threats and hazards, and consequence levels of interest in a common framework (TRB, 2009).The report and accompanying tool consider natural hazards as potential risk to highway infrastructure, including: flooding, earthquakes, extreme weather (including extreme wind, rainwater, snow, ice, etc.), and mud/landslides (TRB, 2009). While this assessment does not take into account long-term climate changes or variability, this assessment may be useful for providing a vulnerability assessment methodology framework for the highway system.
The concept of risk is not new to transportation planners, designers, engineers, managers, community stakeholders and policymakers; however, the application of risk assessment methods in the context of climate change is relatively new. The purpose of a climate change risk assessment is to identify hazards that may be caused or exacerbated by climate change, and to assess the likelihood and relative consequence of these hazards in order to prioritize responses and mitigate risks (NZCCO, 2004); where the term "hazards" refers to perturbations and stresses (Turner et al., 2003). A climate change risk assessment can help identify no-regrets climate change adaptation options, that is, the uncertainty associated with the stressor is very low warranting implementation of adaptation options (Willows and Connell, 2003).
Climate change risk assessment can be a tool for enhancing the resilience of the transportation network (CCSP, 2008). Weather conditions are becoming increasingly variable due to climate change, which translates into additional risks that have the potential to carry financial, environmental, and social costs related to long-lived transportation infrastructure assets (Fankhouser et al., 1999). For example, a financial "side effect" of bearing this increased risk may include difficulty in financing climate-sesitive projects (Frankhouser, et al., 1999). Identifying potential climate-related hazards and prioritizing at-risk infrastructure in the context of other risks currently under consideration by policymakers is critical in assessing whether or not adaptation is appropriate, and if so, when and where to focus adaptation efforts.
In the context of climate change risk assessment, riskis best defined as the combination of two elements: (1) the likelihood of an event occurring (e.g., flooding, hurricane, heat wave, etc.), and (2) the consequence of such an event (e.g., moderate highway flooding resulting in disruption in services for several days) (NZCCO, 2004). In developing quantitative risk assessmentsand related risk-based indices as a tool for prioritizing risks, risk can be more precisely defined as the product of the probability and the consequence of a given event (i.e., risk = probability x consequence) (Snover et al., 2007). Several fundamental concepts apply to any climate change risk assessment process (see Box 2 ).
Methodologies for conducting risk assessment (i.e., incorporating tools and approaches to prioritize the potential impacts of climate change) can vary depending upon resources and information available. In the literature, risk assessment approaches fall into two distinct classes based on the availability of data and effort and are discussed here as the Tier 1 assessment and the Tier 2 assessment.
The primary elements of a preliminary risk screening, or a more detailed qualitative risk assessment include (Snover et al., 2007; NZCOO, 2004):
The evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of climate-related impacts provides policymakers with some guidance on the level of risk and may be based upon a literature review or expert survey (Snover et al., 2007). The risk can be determined for a given system or program and focuses on a defined set of stressors (such as climate change effects). The analysis for a given system or program can be divided into endpoints of interest such as environmental, human health, and financial where each endpoint has its own risk table. The risk product for each stressor and endpoint reflects the level of risk for policymakers. Table 4 describes a qualitative approach of assessing risk of hazardous events and describes how risk associated with an event is categorized (adapted from NZCCO, 2004; CSIRO et al., 2007; IPCC, 2007). For example, an event that is very likely to occur and produce catastrophic consequences has a high level of risk associated with it (illustrated below in red). Alternatively, an event that is not likely to occur and, if it were to occur, would produce very little damage would be considered a very low risk (illustrated below in white). Ideally, the risk thresholds of the policymaker are also incorporated into the design of the evaluation. For example an extreme climate event such as intense rainfall events may be considered rare but the actual impacts may be very severe and may warrant a greater degree of associated risk than the findings of the evaluation (Willows and Connell, 2003).
Table 4 . Qualitative evaluation of likelihood and consequence of hazardous events
Likelihood |
Consequence |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.Catastrophic |
2.Major |
3.Moderate |
4.Minor |
5.Insignificant |
|
A. Very likely |
1A |
2A |
3A |
4A |
5A |
B. Likely |
1B |
2B |
3B |
4B |
5B |
C. Medium |
1C |
2C |
3C |
4C |
5C |
D. Unlikely |
1D |
2D |
3D |
4D |
5D |
E. Very unlikely |
1E |
2E |
3E |
4E |
5E |
Source: Adapted from NZCCO 2004; CSIRO et al., 2007; IPCC, 2007
The consequence of impact for the risk table can be determined for each endpoint of interest described in Box 4 .
The likelihood of impact and/or severity of the stressor on the system or program for each endpoint of concern can be assessed and described also according to a qualitative scale (Snover et al., 2007). For example, "very likely" may refer to an event or stressor that occurs repeatedly across multitude of regions and/or within one region but continually over time; "likely" may refer to an event or stressor that has occurred in a particular location more than once; and so on. For climate projections, it may be more appropriate to also include scientific literature that provides some indication of the potential magnitude of an event or stressor opposed to relying on historical observations.
A Tier 1 analysis can help ensure that climate-related stressors are included in the decision process at an early stage (Willows and Connell, 2003).
Fewer examples of quantitative climate change risk assessment exist. Deterministic "what if" or "worst case" scenario analyses are based on historical data without consideration of recurrence or probability. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) does attempt to associate probabilities with specific hazardous events (e.g., storm surge). Further, some approaches attempt to superimpose incremental climate-related hazards on existing hazards in order to assess potential changes in frequency and severity in the future (Jacob et al., 2000).
Methods or frameworks for quantitatively assessing and prioritizing risks and direct and indirect consequences, or probable losses, due to climate-related impacts are not well established. However, models do exist to help understand existing natural hazards that may be exacerbated by climate change and to quantify damage-e.g., the HAZUS-MH Hurricane Wind Model is a scenario-based model that draws upon National Weather Service forecasts and enables analysis of economic and social losses from hurricane winds at the state and local levels; or, for example NOAA's Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model, which is used to estimate storm surge heights and wind speeds based on historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes (CCSP, 2008).
Additionally, some state DOTs have developed mathematical models to prioritize bridges for retrofitting based on their seismic vulnerability and their importance as "lifelines" (see WSDOT Bridge Seismic Retrofit Planning Program). For example, the WSDOT "priority index" is expressed as:
I = A x C
Where "A" describes the criticality of the route, "C" describes the vulnerability of each bridge to seismic failure and "I" is between zero and 100 representing the relative priority of Washington state.
In contrast to managing seismic risks, climate change impacts usually involve complex interactions of multiple climate-related effects. For example, in some areas coastal flooding will become more frequent and more severe due to the confluence of rising sea levels, storm surge, and heavy precipitation events, which introduces a high degree of uncertainty in judgments about specific climate-related impacts. While assessing seismic risks is a similar exercise to assessing climate-related risks in terms of uncertain timing, location, and severity of the hazard, data on seismic activity is more readily assimilated into impactanalysis because the singular effect(i.e., an earthquake of a given magnitude) more directly translates into a given impact(i.e., infrastructure damage due to the earthquake) based on historical data. For these reasons, while the framework outlined above is instructive, it may not be feasible to follow precisely without thorough consideration of interacting climate-related effects, and consideration of how these effects might accelerate or otherwise change in the future.
The United Kingdom has developed a seven-phase process for assisting transportation decision-makers in addressing climate change impacts on highways. This approach provides methodologies for vulnerability assessment, risk assessment, and adaptation. Developed by the United Kingdom Department for Transport (DfT) Highways Agency, Highways Agency Adaptation Strategy Model (HAASM) is a seven-phase, systematic approach that identifies and manages the transportation-related activities projected to be affected by a changing climate to assist transportation decision-makers in the development of the Highways Agency Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (see Box 5 ).
This framework draws upon UK climate projections and practical templates, schedules, and guidance of assessments for vulnerability, risk, and adaptation options. The first step of the framework defines the objectives and decision making criteria to then be used throughout the process. The next two steps help transportation decision-makers identify the climatic trends that may impact the highway agency and the associated vulnerabilities.
In step 4, each vulnerability identified receives a risk-ranking based on a risk appraisal scoring using four primary criteria: (1) uncertainty, (2) rate of climate change, (3) extent of disruption, and (4) severity of disruption (see Table 5 ).
Table 5 . Risk Scoring of Primary risk criteria.
| Primary risk criteria | Risk Source | Risk Score (numerical) |
|---|---|---|
| Uncertainty | Low | 1 |
| Rate of Climate Change Criterion | Medium | 2 |
| Extent of Disruption | Medium | 2 |
| Severity of Disruption | High | 3 |
Source: U.K.HACCAS, 2008
Step 5 and 6 then prioritize the results of step 4 determining the timescales for action and highlighting the priority areas requiring early involvement through adaptation strategies (see Table 6).
Table 6 . Prioritization criteria and respective indicator score.
| Prioritisation Criteria | Indicator score |
| Time-criticality | 2/3=0.67 |
| High Extent | 2/3=0.67 |
| High disruption duration | 3/3=1 |
| Potential research need (asset or activity) | 1/3=0.33 |
| Highly disruptive, time-critical with high confidence | [2x2x3x(4-1)/81=0.44 |
Source: U.K. HACCAS, 2008
Early rounds of implementation of the HAASM have identified more than 80 Highways Agency activities that may be affected by climate change. A preliminary appraisal of the risks associated with these vulnerabilities has been undertaken finding that over 60% of them are expected to be affected by current predicted levels of climate change within the relevant asset life or activity time horizon.
This report includes a Tier I infrastructure risk assessment for Victoria , Australia and implements the New Zealand risk management guidebook (NZCOO, 2004). The study assesses the risk for various types of infrastructure against a range of climate change variables. Each climate change variable in the report is described in terms of a worst-case scenario for low and high climate change projections for 2030 and 2070 while assuming no adaptation between now and then.
Each infrastructure category, including transportation infrastructure, was assessed in terms of the impact of climate change on physical infrastructure assets, the services they provide, their value as a "social amenity", and the impact on operations, maintenance, repair, and replacement. The primary transportation infrastructure types include roads, rail, bridges, tunnels, airports and maritime ports.
In the transportation infrastructure risk summary, risk scenarios and ratings (i.e., low, moderate, high risk) were assigned to each transport type for 2030 and 2070. Road-related risks include: asphalt degradation due to increased solar radiation and increased variation in wet/dry spells and decrease in available moisture; flood damage to roads due to increases in extreme daily rainfall and increases in frequency and intensity of storms (see Table 7 and Table 8 ).
This study reviews the current understanding of the risks posed by climate stressors to the Metropolitan East Coast infrastructure with a focus on coastal storm surge inundation and then looks at the incremental hazards associated with projected sea level rise including risks associated with coastal storm surge.
This approach represents a partial probabilistic risk assessment (Tier 2) while building upon elements of the Tier 1 approaches. Due to a lack of detailed, regionally-specific data on historic storms-including the height and duration of storm surge by location and data on the damage that past storms have caused-a "comprehensive" probabilistic risk assessment was not performed as part of this study. This risk assessment found an increase of sea level rise of less than 1 meter by 2100 increases the frequency of coastal flooding by factors of 2 to 10 by 2100.
The report appendix provides a description of a, "…basic probabilistic hazard definition," and its applicability in probabilistic risk assessment, which is a more detailed, mathematical approach to probabilistic risk assessment. However, as previously noted, a more detailed probabilistic approach requires detailed, location-specific data on climate-related effects, physical infrastructure characteristics (including detailed vulnerability data), and direct and indirect infrastructure value.
Table 7 . Victoria , Australia transportation infrastructure risk assessment summary, 2030 Low (excerpt)
Table 8 . Victoria , Australia transportation infrastructure risk assessment summary, 2030 High (excerpt)
As indicated previously, transportation professionals currently take into account a variety of risks outside the context of climate change, including seismic risks and other natural hazards, as well as human-induced risks such as terrorist attacks. Methods currently used in assessing these risks and prioritizing responses could be augmented and employed in the context of climate change risks.
For example, the Transportation Research Board Special Report 290, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation (2008)highlights the California Seismic Retrofit Program as a strategic, risk-based approach that could be considered in the context of climate change risks. The program was designed to identify and rank roughly 25,000 California bridges based on vulnerability to earthquakes in order to prioritize limited state resources in carrying out retrofits.
The general approach of the Seismic Retrofit Program is as follows:
Phase I of the program was implemented after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and included the retrofitting of 1,039 state highway bridges through May 2000. Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, an additional 1,155 state-owned bridges were deemed in need of retrofits, which are nearly complete but presently ongoing (CALTRANS, 2009).
The New York City Panel on Climate change investigated the likelihood and potential impacts on infrastructure. Global climate models (GCM) projections of temperature, precipitation, sea level rise and extreme events for three scenarios were combined with qualitative projections of heat indices, frozen precipitation, intense precipitation, lightning and large-scale storms to determine the potential climate hazards over the 21st century. This study finds:
The findings of this study are considered applicable to other coastal urban areas.
This study investigates the potential impacts of mudslides associated with the recent and projected increase in seasonal intense storm events in Scotland . Changes in the frequency and annual timing of heavy precipitation events have a direct impact on the debris flow that causes mudslides. The risk assessment is a GIS based assessment using maps to represent debris flow as a function of water conditions, vegetation and land cover, stream flow, and slope angle. Ground-truthing was employed through site specific studies. The study suggests two approaches for reducing the climate impact: exposure reduction through outreach and road closures, and hazard reduction through road protection, minimizing the opportunity of debris flow, and road realignment. Mudslides are not confined to Scotland but are of global concern. The Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research network (C-CIARN) hosted a workshop to discuss and identify the impacts of landslides, adaptation and risk management and future needs associated with future climate projected in Canada to include increased water, steepness, and intensity of storms (CCIARN, 2004).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptation as the "adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities" (IPCC, 2007); that is, adaptation enhances resilience or reduces vulnerability to observed or projected changes in climate (PPIC, 2008). Reducing vulnerability may address one or many of the projected impacts of climate change. For example, elevating coastal roads reduces vulnerability to the impacts of anticipated sea level rise; or investing in coastal protection infrastructure reduces coastal vulnerability to storm surges and anticipated sea level rise (IPCC, 2007). Alternatively, adaptation may increase a system's resilience to future impacts through the fortification of structures or implementing measures to increase a system's ability to bounce back after an impact (Turner et al., 2003).
An adaptation assessment is defined by the IPCC as "the practice of identifying options to adapt to climate change and evaluating them in terms of criteria such as availability, benefits, costs, effectiveness, efficiency and feasibility" (IPCC, 2007). Long-term planning can prepare for potential climate changes and address the uncertainty with changing conditions. For example, roads and bridges are designed to be maintained and replaced in a certain time frame. Incorporating improvements in design and maintenance can enhance the lifetime expectancy of this infrastructure, and improve resilience to climate impacts.
The IPCC discussed adaptation strategies in its first assessment report in 1995. Despite acknowledgement that adaptation strategies were needed, action on climate change adaptation is still in its infancy. The literature is relatively sparse, but growing with respect to systematic descriptions of adaptation approaches compared to vulnerability and risk assessment methodologies (Heinz, 2007). Through our literature review, we have compiled a series of core steps that may be considered within an adaptation approach based on the information gathered from a limited number of reports (IPCC, 2007; Willows and Connell, 2003; Snover et al., 2007; U.S. EPA, 2009). It is assumed this methodology will continue to evolve as planners begin to incorporate climate change into their decision making processes. Interestingly, adaptation approaches are extremely broad and are likely to include qualitative screening assessments, some quantitative risk assessments, policy and implementation actions, as well as outreach and communication efforts. As officials and managers of natural and human systems are finding, adaptation is an extremely far-reaching concept, requiring a wide range of activities and skillsets. As the literature has noted, planning for climate change requires building and improving partnerships, soliciting expert assistance, partnering with funding organizations, and convening advisory groups (Snover et al., 2007).
Identify Adaptation Responses.There are three types of adaptation responses relevant to transportation planning which address climate impacts at varying time scales: protect, retreat and accommodate (CCSP, 2008). These responses can be put into practice through investing in infrastructure and technology or changes in management approaches (PPIC, 2008; CCSP, 2008):
In some cases, these options are not implemented until pre-determined climate change thresholds are observed or are until an established time frame is reached.
Proactive or anticipatory options take place before the impacts of climate change are observed, this includes a "no regret" option (IPCC, 2007). A no regret option applies to a decision option that is determined to be worthwhile now (in that its immediate benefits exceed its costs), and continues to be provide benefits with or without changing climate conditions (Willows and Connell, 2003). This is in contrast to the generally more expensive reactive adaptation which describes actions that take place in response to already occurring climate change (Mehdi et al., 2006).
Determine Appropriate Adaptation Action. Adaptation actions may be either incorporated into existing policies, practices and procedures through some modification or, in some cases, new policies, practices, and procedures will need to be created (Snover et al., 2007). According to the Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington (2007), modification to existing policies, practices and procedures should: allow regular reevaluation and adjustment in accordance with changing conditions; require planning that is not based strictly on the past, and does not restrict certain decisions to certain periods or seasonal patterns; and reinforce trends that reduce vulnerability or increase adaptive capacity. On the other hand, climate change adaptation can be incorporated into existing planning through modifying zoning codes, land use planning guidance, or emergency planning.
Select and Prioritize Actions.Adaptation assessments may identify a wide variety of potential options for considered action. In order to prioritize and select among these options, planners may consider a range of criteria including: the timeframe of risk; design life of the infrastructure at risk; cost of action/inaction; the likelihood of the action to reduce risk; the timeframe for implementation; and other constraints or limitations (Snover et al., 2007) (see Box 7 for more discussion).
Implementing Actions. Once particular actions have been identified, a plan for implementation is developed. Implementation may include near-term operational and maintenance responses or longer-term design strategies (see Box 6 ). Implementation is often the most difficult stage of adaptation to accomplish. Plans may languish on the shelf unless the actions identified in the plan are tied to specific actors and timelines for implementation. In many cases, implementation will require input and cooperation from several actors inside and outside the relevant transportation agency.
Measuring Progress.Ideally, any adaptation plans will incorporate regular evaluation of adaptation effectiveness and consideration of new or better information on climate effects (U.S. EPA, 2009). Standards for evaluating effectiveness may need to be developed and re-evaluated in order to facilitate the periodic evaluation process. The timeframe for measuring progress in climate change preparedness will depend on: the nature of the
vulnerabilities and risks that are addressed in priority planning areas; the planning horizon, investment rules and/or other factors related to a given capital project or system in a priority planning area; and organizational planning and budget cycles (Snover et al., 2007). Over time, climate change data and information used to develop planning goals may need to be updated based on new research. Climate change plans and actions will also need to be regularly updated once new information has been reviewed and basic assumptions have been examined (Snover et al., 2007).
While these considerations provide a general methodology for assessing adaptation options, individual organizations may vary in the specific application of this process. For example, the United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (Willows and Connell, 2003) identifies a three-tiered approach for analyzing actions:
Some states and communities have begun to integrate climate change adaptation into their planning process as illustrated in Box 8 .
Alaska 's Public Infrastructure Technical Working Group identified the following actions as part of the Alaska Climate Change Strategy (2008) in order to address climate impacts on Alaska 's transportation infrastructure:
King County , Washington has been considering adaptation activities since 2005, and many are currently underway. Strategic focus areas for adaptation include: climate science; public health, safety and emergency preparedness; surface water management; freshwater quality and water supply; land use, building and transportation; economic impacts; and, biodiversity and ecosystems. The King County Climate Plan (2007) outlines strategic goals and actions under each focus area. Examples of King County 's strategic adaptation actions include:
The Governor's Action Team on Energy and Climate Change, established by the Executive Order 07-128, is tasked it with creating a comprehensive Florida Energy and Climate Change Action Plan. The Plan (2008) provides a framework for climate change adaptation strategies. The adaptation recommendations are a comprehensive first look at the issues and opportunities facing the State of Florida, as well as an analysis of actions that can be taken in the now versus in the future. The framework and major objectives for adaptation outlined in the Plan are:
The Maryland Climate Change Commission (MCCC) developed an action plan to address the causes of climate change, prepare for the likely consequences and impacts of climate change to Maryland , and establish firm benchmarks and timetables for implementing the Commission's recommendations. The Adaptation and Response Working Group (ARWG) was created within the MCCC to develop a Comprehensive Strategy outlining specific policy recommendations for reducing the vulnerability of the State's natural and cultural resources and communities to the impacts of climate change. The initial focus of the Strategy (2008) encompasses sea level rise and coastal hazards, including shore erosion and coastal flooding. This report lays out the specific priority policy recommendations of the ARWG to address short-and long-term adaptation and response measures, planning and policy integration, education and outreach, performance measurement, and, where necessary, new legislation and/or modifications to existing laws. Key recommendations outlined in the Strategy include:
According to the National Research Council's (NRC) Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation: Transportation Research Board Special Report 290 (2008), adaptation to climate change within the transportation sector falls into three categories of actions: operational changes, design changes, and other actions. Table 7 demonstrates the findings of a number of studies investigating adaptation options for transportation infrastructure and is organized by climate impact.
Climate variability and extreme events, such as storms and precipitation of increased intensity, will require changing operational responses from transportation providers. While U.S. transportation providers already address the impacts of weather on transportation system operations in a diverse range of climatic conditions, existing planning does not take into account long-term changes in climate. Operational changes may include (NRC, 2008): adjusting maintenance (both in the timing and type of maintenance); improved monitoring of conditions (both climatic and infrastructure conditions); incorporating climate scenario modeling into infrastructure planning; modifying procedures for emergency management; and altering construction schedules. In general, operational changes will apply to procedural planning at varying degrees of adjustment. For example, greater use of technology such as climate scenario modeling can enable infrastructure providers to monitor climate changes and receive advance warning of potential failures due to changing conditions (such as water levels and currents, wave action, winds, and temperatures) exceeding what the infrastructure was designed to withstand (NRC, 2008).
While transportation planning efforts do take weather conditions into account in the design of infrastructure, there is less examination of whether current design standards are sufficient to accommodate climate change (NRC, 2008). For example, the drainage capacity of road infrastructure often incorporates consideration of a 100-year storm event. However, climate projections indicate that current 100-year storm events are likely to occur more frequently (such as every 50 or perhaps even every 20 years) by the end of the current century (NRC, 2008). In this case, design standards for drainage would need to be updated to consider these changing conditions. Examples of design strategies include (NRC, 2008): improving materials or developing new materials; using alternative methods; upgrading current systems with improvements in design; and enhancing protection. Similarly, FEMA maps are often used to support development decisions, including citing roads. Because FEMA maps do not reflect projected climate change impacts, including effects of climate change on floodplain designations, roads may be established in areas that are highly vulnerable to flooding in the future.
Larsen et al. (2007) employs a bottom-up approach to monetize the costs and benefits of adapting through strategic redesign and replacement in Alaska . This study uses climate change projections for the near-term and far-term to estimate the replacement of statewide infrastructure and compares these estimates with what would be anticipated in the absence of climate change. The study determines the cost of adaptation through the redesign and replacement of airports, bridges, harbors, major roads, and railroads in response to permafrost melt, sea level rise, accelerated coastal erosion, increased flooding and increased fire risk. Benefits are realized over the long term as agencies will have greater opportunity to incorporate adaptation options into the state infrastructure planning (as planning practices evolve and infrastructure replacement opportunities arise) and include the reduction of costs that would have been realized had proactive adaptive strategies not been implemented. Kirshen et al. (2006) also uses a bottom-up approach to estimate the impact of climate change on various infrastructure sectors in metro Boston . The study compares three adaptation scenarios including a proactive scenario, a reactive scenario, and no adaptation scenario. The costs of the climate impact sustained through loss of service and repair/replacement are calculated as well as the adaptation costs associated with adjusting infrastructure systems and services to avoid the climate impact. Interestingly, this study allows for the inter-relation of climate impacting one infrastructure sector that in turn adversely impacts a secondary infrastructure structure, suggesting studies which focus on a single sector may minimize the actual costs. This study finds proactive adaptation optimally minimizes the costs associated with climate impacts
In addition to operational and design changes, other types of adaptation options are available for transportation infrastructure. Transportation planning and land use controls, especially concerning new construction and development, can integrate projected climate changes into the planning process. For example, development can be restricted or prohibited in zones most at risk from storm surges, flooding, and sea level rise. In addition, long-range planning and promoting cross-agency collaboration are two examples of other potential adaptation actions for transportation planning (NRC, 2008). Simpson et al. (2007) investigates the suitability of current culvert infrastructure in the White Brook watershed in Keene , NH to meet the projected increased frequency of heavy precipitation events. GCM projections are used to represent the changing climate. The assessment finds almost half of the culverts were undersized and will require upgrading.
Table 9 . Adaptation Options for Transportation Infrastructure
Climate Impact |
Potential Infrastructure Impact |
Operational responses |
Design strategies |
Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Increased summer temperatures, increases in very hot days and heat waves |
Highway asphalt rutting, possible movement of liquid asphalt (NRC, 2008) |
|
|
|
Thermal expansion of bridges (NRC, 2008) |
|
|
||
Limitation on construction periods during summer (NRC, 2008) |
|
|||
Decreases in very cold days |
Regional changes in snow and ice removal costs and environmental impacts from salt and chemical use (NRC, 2008) |
|
||
Fewer cold-related restrictions for maintenance workers (NRC, 2008) |
|
|||
Later onset of seasonal freeze and earlier onset of seasonal thaw |
Improved mobility and safety associated with a reduction in winter weather (NRC, 2008) |
|||
Regional reduction in pavement deterioration resulting from less exposure to freezing, but possibility of more freeze-thaw in some locations (NRC, 2008) |
||||
Thawing Permafrost, increased temperatures in the Arctic |
Road embankments will fail and shallow pile foundations could settle; cave-in of bridge supports; shortened ice road season (NRC, 2008) |
|
|
|
Exacerbated rutting and cracking of roads (Tighe et al., 2008) |
|
|
||
Increased pavement deterioration as a result of high summer temperatures (southern Arctic areas) (Andrey, 2005) |
|
|||
Increased scouring on bridges (CCSP, 2009) |
||||
Increased Precipitation |
Flooding of roads (frequency and magnitude will increase) |
|
|
|
Sea Level Rise |
Bridge scour |
|
|
|
Inundations of roads in coastal areas and coastal erosion ( San Francisco Bay area, New Orleans , Norway ) (CCSP, 2009; CCSP, 2008; Deyle et al., 2007) |
|
|||
Storms: More Frequent Strong Hurricanes (Category 4-5) |
Highway embankments at risk of subsidence/heave |
|
|
|
Erosion of coastal highways |
|
|
||
Greater probability of infrastructure failures |
|
|||
Increases in intense precipitation events |
Increases in weather-related delays and traffic disruptions (NRC, 2008) |
|||
Increases in flooding of roadways; Increases in road washout, landslides and mudslides that damage roadways, increased bridge scour in the short term, compromised integrity of roads and bridges due to increased soil moisture (Department for Transport, 2004; NRC, 2008; CCSP, 2008) |
|
|
||
Changes in seasonal precipitation and river flow patterns |
Potential benefit if frozen precipitation shifts to rainfall (NRC, 2008) |
|||
Increased risk of floods, landslides and damage to roads (areas where precipitation changes from snow to rain in winter and spring thaws) (NRC, 2008) |
|
|||
Increased variation in wet/dry spells and decrease in available moisture may cause degradation of road foundations (CSIRO, 2007) |
||||
Increases in drought conditions |
Increased risk of mudslides in areas deforested by wildfires (NRC, 2008) |
|
||
Storm Surges |
Increased threat to stability of bridge decks |
|
||
Decreased expected lifetime of highways exposed to storm surge |
||||
Increased Wind Speeds |
Coastal road flooding |
|
|
|
Bridges at risk |
|
|||
Increased risk of dryland salinity |
Shallow, saline groundwater damages to roads and bridges ( Australia ) (CSIRO, 2007) |
Alaska Climate Change Strategy. 2008. Draft Catalog of State Actions. Public Infrastructure Technical Working Group. Version 1, July 2008. http://www.akclimatechange.us.
Allen Consulting Group. 2005. Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability: Promoting an efficient adaptation response in Australia. Canberra , Australia : Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Greenhouse Office.
Andrey, J. 2005. "Transportation." Chapter 8 In: Lemmen, D. and F. Warren, eds., Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective. Ottawa , Canada : Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resource Canada .
Andrey, J. and C. Knapper, eds. 2003. Weather and Transportation in Canada. Department of Geography Publication Series #55. Ontario , Canada : University of Waterloo .
Bueno, R., C. Herzfeld, E. Stanton, and F. Ackerman. 2008. The Caribbean and Climate Change: The Costs of Inaction. Stockholm Environment Institute and Tufts University report.
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). 2009. Seismic Retrofit Program: Fact Sheet.http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/retrofit.htm.
Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (CCIARN). 2004. Vulnerability of Landslide Risk to Climate Change. Proceedings from C-CIARN Landscape Hazards Workshop 2003.
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (Engineers Canada). 2008. Adapting to Climate Change: Canada 's First National Engineering Vulnerability Assessment of Public Infrastructure.
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 2008. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Savonis, M. J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter (eds.). Washington , DC : Department of Transportation.
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 2009. "Transportation" In: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 2nd Public Review Draft.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). 2007. Infrastructure and climate change risk assessment for Victoria. Report to the Victorian Government. Australia .
Department for Transport. 2004. The changing climate: its impact on the Department for Transport. United Kingdom : Department for Transport. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/key/thechangingclimateitsimpacto1909.
Fankhauser, S., J. Smith, and R. Tol. 1999.Weathering climate change: Some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecological Economics 30(1): 67-78.
Florida Action Team on Energy and Climate Change. 2008. Florida's Energy and Climate Change Action Plan. http://www.flclimatechange.us/documents.cfm.
Harvey, M., P. Whetton, K. McInnes, B. Cechet, J. McGregor, K. Nguyen, N. Houghton, C. Leston, E. Styles, N. Michaels, T. Martin, A. Heaney, S. Beare and G. Norwell. 2004. Impact of climate change on road infrastructure. Austroads, Report no. AP-R243/04. Sydney , Australia : Austroads and the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics. 145 pp.
Heinz Center, 2007. A Survey of Climate Change Adaptation Planning.
Ibarrarán, M.E., E.L. Malone, and A.L. Brenkert. 2008. Climate Change Vulnerability and Resilience: Current Status and Trends for Mexico. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
ICF International (ICF). 2007. The Potential Impacts of Global Sea Level Rise on Transportation Infrastructure. Phase 1 - Final Report: the District of Columbia , Maryland , North Carolina and Virginia . http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/0965210.pdf.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson. Cambridge , UK : Cambridge University Press, 976 pp.
Jacob, K., et al. 2000. Risk Increase to Infrastructure due to Sea Level Rise. In: Climate Change and a Global City: An Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast Region. Washington , DC : United States Global Change Research Program.
Kirshen, R., Ruth, M. and W. Anderson. 2006. Climate's Long Term Impacts on Urban Infrastructure and Services: The Case of Metro Boston. Chapter 7 In: M. Ruth, K. Donaghy, and P. Kirshen (eds). Regional climate change and variability: impacts and responses.
Larsen, P., S. Goldsmith, O. Smith, M. Wilson, K. Strzepek, P. Chinowsky, and B. Saylor. 2007. Estimating Future Costs for Alaska Public Infrastructure At Risk from Climate Change. Anchorage , Alaska : University of Alaska Anchorage .
Maryland Commission on Climate Change (MCCC). 2008. Climate Action Plan. http://www.mdclimatechange.us/.
Mehdi, B., C. Mrena, and A. Douglas. 2006. Adapting to Climate Change: An Introduction for Canadian Municipalities. Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CIARN).
National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). 2008. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. Transportation Research Board Special Report 290. Washington , DC : Transportation Research Board.
New Zealand Climate Change Office (NZCCO). 2004. Coastal Hazards and Climate Change. A Guidance Manual for Local Government in New Zealand. 1st edition. 2nd edition revised by Ramsay, D, and Bell , R. (NIWA). Prepared for Ministry for the Environment. Wellington , New Zealand . http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual/.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Adaptation Planning: What U.S. States and Localities are Doing.
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). 2008. Preparing California for a Changing Climate. Bedsworth, L. and E. Hank. www.ppic.org
Rosenzweig, C. and W. Solecki. 2009. Climate Risk Information: New York City Panel on Climate Change.Published by the New York City Panel on Climate Change.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (SFBCDC). 2009. Living with a Rising Bay : Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. Draft Staff Report. San Francisco , CA. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBayvst.pdf.
Simpson, M. 2007. Projected Impacts of Development and Climate Change on Low Order Streams. Resource, NHANRS, Concord, NH.
Smith, J., S. Tighe, J. Andrey, and B. Mills, 2008. Temperature and Precipitation Sensitivity Analysis on Pavement Performance.Transportation Research Circular. Number E-C126: 558-571.
Snover, A.K., L. Whitely Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott , J. Kay, D. Howell and J. Simmonds. 2007. Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional and State Governments. In association with and published by ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, Oakland , CA .
Stanton, E. and F. Ackerman. 2008. Florida and Climate Change: The Costs of Inaction. Stockholm Environment Institute and Tufts University report.
Tighe, S., J. Smith, B. Mills, and J. Andrey, 2008. Evaluating Climate Change Impacts on Low Volume Roads in Southern Canada.Abstract submitted to Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, January 11-17, 2008, Washington , D.C.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2009. Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA). NCHRP Report 525. Surface Transportation Security, Volume 15.
Turner, B., R. Kasperson, P. Matson, J. McCarthy, R. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, A. Schiller. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS July 8, 2003 vol. 100 no. 14 8074-8079. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/14/8074.full.
U.K. Highways Agency Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Draft for final approval dated 10 November 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Adaptation Planning for the National Estuary Program.White Paper. http://www2.epa.gov/cre/adaptation-planning-national-estuary-program.
Williamson, S., C. Horin, M. Ruth, R. Weston, K. Ross, and D. Irani. 2008. Climate Change Impacts on Maryland and the Cost of Inaction. A review and assessment for integrative environmental research (CIER) at the University of Maryland.
Willows, R.I. and R.K. Connell, eds. 2003. Climate adaptation: Risk, uncertainty and decision-making. UKCIP Technical Report. Oxford : UKCIP.
Winters, M.G., F. Macgregor, and L. Shackman. 2008. Scottish Road Network Landslides Study: Implementation.Transport Scotland . ISBN: 978-1-906006-38-9.
The approach for the literature review and analysis that informed this report was broken into three distinct tasks which are discussed below.
We established search terms for the literature search based upon guidance from our in-house adaptation experts. The goal was to gather information on climate change adaptation approaches, including risk assessments and vulnerability assessments.
The search terms selected include:
The search was repeated replacing infrastructure with each of the following: highway, bridges, roadways, transportation, freight, built environment. It was determined the hazard assessment searches would most likely demonstrate work done in flooding and seismic activity.
The search was conducted using the DIALOG database system. DIALOG allows us to "multi-file" search which allows for searching across relevant data base files simultaneously including environmental, energy, governmental, sci/tech and other related files. The search found over 300 hits.
Box 9. DIALOG Database "A collection of more than 550 data base files from a broad range of disciplines. A variety of more than 800 million full text or abstracted documents drawn from more sources than any other online service, including business and industry journals and trade press, scientific and technical literature, company directories, local/international newspapers, U.S. and foreign patents, financial statistics, demographic data, and chemical records. DIALOG is particularly noted for its focus on business, science, technology and intellectual property. Other major areas of interest include agriculture, biosciences, company/industry data, computers, energy and environment, government and law, medicine and health care, pharmaceuticals, local/regional/national/ international news, patents/trademarks/copyrights, people, consumer news, physical science and technology, and social sciences and humanities." (DIALOG software) |
2. Literature Screening
The literature identified in the search was then quickly screened and prioritized by title and information within the abstract, as available, for inclusion: thirty-two sources were identified as most relevant to this report; seventy-one sources were identified as second-tier relevance and have been marked for future reference; nine sources had already been identified through other in-house searches and were available in-house; and two hundred and eleven articles were viewed to be unlikely to be relevant for this work. The thirty-two likely relevant documents were then retrieved and placed on the ICF hard drive.
3. Evaluate Screened Literature
The thirty-two sources were then examined for useful report information and an excel spreadsheet was created to house the literature and identify the assessments discussed. Useful information retrieved from each document was placed into a table from each to provide the notes for this report (see Table 8 below).
Table 10 . Sample excerpt taken from the Excel Spreadsheet used to organize the collected literature
