Green Infrastructure for Disaster Resilience: Exploring

Green Infrastructure for Disaster Resilience: Exploring Connections with Scenario PlanningThomas Hilde

Levin Research Day

24 August 2017

Problem: Limited connection between disaster resilience and green infrastructure planning

Hazard Mitigation Green Infrastructure

Emergency Management Land Use & Environmental Planning

Green Infrastructure: Growing importance in community planning

“interconnected network of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.”

“ecological framework for environmental, social, and economic health – in short, our natural life-support system.”

- Benedict & McMahon (2012)

Dis

aste

r R

esili

ence

Dissertation objective

Draw a stronger connection between green infrastructure and disaster resilience in community planning using innovative scenario-based planning techniques and integrated planning support tools

Scenario Planning:The state of the art in sustainable community planning

Planning Support Systems: Modeling urbanization & impacts

Geographic Information Systems

Urbanization Scenarios & Sustainability Outcomes

Hazard Scenarios & Disaster Impacts

Case Study: Austin, TexasThe heart of flash flood alley

Embedded Units of Analysis:Onion Creek and Gilleland Creek

Onion Creek

“100 year” flood events in 1998, 2001, 2013, 2015

$175 M in housing buyouts over the past 15 years

GillelandCreek:In the context of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)

Historical Counterfactual Scenarios

RQ1. Examined retrospectively, can revisiting past disasters help demonstrate missed opportunities for improving resilience through green infrastructure planning approaches?

Envision Tomorrow Hazus

Exploratory Scenarios

RQ2. Examined prospectively, can modeling plausible future disasters help inform long-term green infrastructure planning approaches for community resilience?

Envision Tomorrow Hazus

Semi-Structured Interviews:Supporting the scenario-based analysis with qualitative information

Discipline/Role Sector Planning Information

1 Developer/Builder Private Consumer

2 Watershed Planner Public Producer/Consumer

3 Environmental Program Manager Public Producer/Consumer

4 Environmental Planner Private Producer/Consumer

5 Sustainability Director Public Producer/Consumer

6 GIS Practitioner Private Producer/Consumer

7 Urban Forester Public Consumer/Producer

8 Landscape Architect Private Consumer

9 Parks Fundraiser Non-Profit Consumer

ET-HazusCrosswalk, part 1:Translating from Aggregate to Building-Level Point Data

ET-HazusCrosswalk, part 2: Translating ET outputs into Hazusinputs

Development Type OccupancyNumStories

FoundationType

FirstFloorHt

BldgType BldgValue*DesignL

evelArea**

Onion Creek Single Family RES1 1 7 WOOD 224 3 3

Onion Creek Mobile Home RES2 1 7MANUFHO

USING71 3 2

Onion Creek Duplex RES3A 2 7 WOOD 311 3 4

Onion Creek Large Lot SF RES1 1 7 WOOD 335 3 5

Onion Creek Quadplex RES3B 2 7 WOOD 735 3 6

Onion Creek Apartment/Condo RES3D 3 7 WOOD 2,271 3 19

Onion Creek Large Format Retail COM1 1 7 STEEL 3,248 3 29

Onion Creek Low Rise Office COM4 1 7 STEEL 16,693 3 71

Onion Creek Industrial IND2 1 7 STEEL 6,464 3 60

Onion Creek Civic and Education GOV1 1 7 MASONRY 16,457 3 88

Whisper Valley SFD-Low RES1 2 7 WOOD 222 3 3

Whisper Valley SFD-Med RES1 1 7 WOOD 162 3 2

Whisper Valley SFD-High RES1 2 7 WOOD 149 3 2

Whisper Valley Townhomes RES3D 2 7 WOOD 1,470 3 15

Whisper Valley Apartments RES3D 2 7 WOOD 2,852 3 24

Lifestyle Retail COM1 1 7 WOOD 2,672 3 18

T4MS Main Street COM1 3 7 WOOD 3,312 3 19

Low Rise Office COM4 1 7 WOOD 4,856 3 21

Office 3:1 FAR COM4 5 7 STEEL 17,293 3 111

Retail 2:1 FAR COM1 3 7 WOOD 6,764 3 39

Elevated SFD-Med RES1 2 1 10 WOOD 341 3 5Elevated SFD-High RES1 2 1 10 WOOD 192 3 3Elevated Townhomes RES3C 2 1 10 WOOD 1,437 3 18Elevated Apartments RES3D 2 1 10 STEEL 2,871 3 32

*replacement cost in

thousands

**Sq Ft in thousand

s

Results

Onion Creek:‘As Built’ Baseline Scenario

Onion Creek:Green Infrastructure Network Scenario

Onion Creek:Flood Impacts

Indicator As BuiltStructural Mitigation

Riparian Conservation

GI Network

Total Buildings 14,309 +4% -11% -22%

Buildings Damaged 2,140 -31% -78% -96%

Average Building Damage % 60% -33% -31% -57%

Average Content Damage % 63% -47% -27% -51%

Total Building Loss $344M -38% -85% -92%

Total Content Loss $241M -51% -86% -93%

Total Inventory Loss $27M -35% -68% -94%

Total Losses $613M -42% -85% -92%

Onion Creek:SelectSustainability Outcomes

Indicator As BuiltStructural Mitigation

Riparian Conservation

GI Network

Parkland & Open Space Acres per 1,000 residents

69 - +95% +191%

New Impervious Acres 3,194 -1% -14% -29%Average Owner Size (SqFt) 2,518 -5% -12% -28%Annual Household Income Needed to Afford Housing

$62,500 +4% -3% -11%

Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 0.91 -1% +1% +4%Improvement Value per SqFt $98 +5% +8% +38%Property Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre

$3,680 +6% +23% +34%

Sales Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre $1,050 +3% +108% +81%Parking Spaces 106,820 +2% -9% -9%Parking Cost $600M +27% -9% -15%

New Road Cost $793M -2% -18% -43%

Building Carbon Emissions (Tons/Yr) 17 -1% -6% -14%

Landscaping Water Use (G/Day) 241 -8% -22% -52%Per Housing Unit Residential VMT 24 +0.1% -3% -6%

GillelandCreek:‘As Planned’ Baseline Scenario

Gilleland Creek:Green Infrastructure Network Scenario

Gilleland Creek:Flood Impacts

Indicator As PlannedStructural Mitigation

Riparian Conservation

GI Network

100-year Flood

Total Buildings 7,996 - +5% -23%

Buildings Damaged 21 -67% -86% -100%

Average Building Damage % 17.7% +2% -14% -100%

Average Content Damage % 21.4% +6% -14% -100%

Total Building Loss $2.1M -25% -96% -100%

Total Content Loss $2.6M -12% -98% -100%

Total Losses $4.7M -18% -97% -100%

500-year Flood

Total Buildings 7,996 - +5% -23%

Buildings Damaged 32 -63% -91% -100%

Average Building Damage % 18.0% -1% +37% -100%

Average Content Damage % 22.1% -2% +27% -100%

Total Building Loss $3.2M -24% -96% -100%

Total Content Loss $4.0M -12% -98% -100%

Total Losses $7.2M -17% -97% -100%

Gilleland Creek:Select Sustainability Outcomes

IndicatorAs

PlannedStructural Mitigation

Riparian Conservation

GI Network

Parkland & Open Space Acres per 1,000 residents

111 -1% 39% 102%

New Impervious Acres 1,361 - -6% -22%Average Owner Size (SqFt) 1,788 -1% -4% -16%Annual Household Income Needed to Afford Housing

$58,440 - -3% -7%

Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 0.68 -1% - -1%Improvement Value per SqFt $122 - 1% 7%Property Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre

$7,810 1% 8% 36%

Sales Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre $5,960 - 12% 43%

Parking Spaces 53,550 1% - -4%

Parking Cost $400M 5% -1% -

New Road Cost $295M - -10% -27%

Building Carbon Emissions (Tons/Yr) 14 - - -10%

Landscaping Water Use (G/Day) 91 -1% -10% -31%

Per Housing Unit Residential VMT 22 - 1% -4%

Contributions

Methodological Innovation: First analysis of its kind to integrate disaster loss estimation into community planning at building-level resolution

Research provides a roadmap for programming a streamlined tool for participatory applications

Theoretical contribution: A new application of historical counterfactual and exploratory scenarios in community planning

Practical contribution: An opportunity to make connections between green infrastructure and resilience interests within local community planning, with potential participatory and policy applications

Future Research

Next step: In-depth follow up interviews with stakeholders to discuss further strengths and limitations of the information and how it is presented in a participatory setting

Partnership with a programmer to streamline and automate the ET-Hazus crosswalk

Incorporate hurricane wind and storm surge models to expand the possible applications

Big picture: Lays the groundwork for a comprehensive green infrastructure planning tool

Thank you!