Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“Climate Change Adaptation:
Decision-making under
Uncertainty”
May 30, 2013
Paul Kirshen, PhD
Research Professor, UNH
Topics
• Uncertainties in Climate Change Adaptation Planning
• Adaptation Planning
• Decision Making
Two sets of IPCC scenarios
2000 Special Report on Emission Scenarios IPCC (2007), NECIA (2007), NCA (2009)
2010 Representative Concentration Pathways IPCC (2013), NCA (2014)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/
4a/Global_Atmospheric_Model.jpg
Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (GCMs) used to model climate system
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZmgJDgkDx8UC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=navier+-
stokes+equations+in+fluids&source=bl&ots=Pm4nLtDtul&sig=X0c5jOC1dUXZma9C9kG7aCGA7
I0&hl=en&ei=t4qPTO-
9BcGBlAfrqr2PDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCDgK#v=onep
age&q=navier%20-stokes%20equations%20in%20fluids&f=false
Our scientific knowledge is limited
(WG1, IPCC, 2007)
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
tem
pe
ratu
re c
ha
nge
( o
F)
observations
higher emissions
lower emissions
Source: NECIA/UCS, 2007 (see: www.climatechoices.org/ne/)
Hayhoe et al,
Past and
Future
Changes in
Climate and
Hydrological
Indicators in
the US
Northeast,
Climate
Dynamics, 28,
381-407, 2007
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
A1b 2050 A1b 2100 B1 2050 B1 2100 A2 2050 A2 2100
Re
lati
ve
Ch
an
ge
(%
)
SRES Scenario and Year
Relative Change in Precipitation for 10-Yr 24-hr Design Storm
Q1
Min
Median
Max
Q3
Changes in 10 Year, 24 Hour Precipitation
Somerville MA
Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009)
Scenario Projections for Eustatic SLR
Table of Future Recurrence Intervals
100-yr Storm Surge
Elevation at MHHW
(feet NAVD)
Recurrence
Interval of
2005 100-yr
Anomaly
(years)
Station Scenario 2005 2030 2050 2100 2050 2100
Boston B1 (mid-range) 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.8 3 <<2
A1FI (mid-range) 9.7 10.2 10.7 12.3 2 <<2
Woods Hole B1 (mid-range) 10.0 10.2 10.5 11.1 51 21
A1FI (mid-range) 10.0 10.2 10.5 11.6 46 9
New London B1 (mid-range) 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.3 61 32
A1FI (mid-range) 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.9 56 17
New York City B1 (mid-range) 9.0 9.3 9.5 10.2 50 22
A1FI (mid-range) 9.0 9.3 9.6 10.7 46 11
Rahmstorf (mid-range) 9.0 9.5 10.1 12.5 24 <2
Atlantic City B1 (mid-range) 7.7 8.7 9.5 11.6 4 <<2
A1FI (mid-range) 7.7 8.7 9.6 12.1 4 <<2
Estimated storm surge elevations for 2005, 2050 and 2100 for each site. Also included are the
recurrence intervals in 2050 and 2100 for the 2005 100-year storm surge elevation Based on 7.06.07 table
Note, 22 % chance of 100 year
flood occurring in 25 year period
Can we assign probabilities to these
climate projections ?
All human and natural systems are sensitive to climate: thus as climate changes, their services will change. Therefore we must consider how we will adjust to the changes, the process of adaptation
(And we also do not know probabilities of the changes….)
Science 319 2/08
Forms of Adaptation
• Reactive
• Proactive
• Spontaneous
Research shows that ‘proactive’ is generally most effective
Ecological adaptation
•“Resistance options” that forestall impacts and protect highly valued resources
• “Resilience options” that improve the capacity of ecosystems to return to desired conditions after disturbance,
• “Response options” that facilitate transition of ecosystems from current to new conditions.
Millar, Constance I., Stephenson, Nathan L., Stephens, Scott L., 2007. Climate change and forests of the future
Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8), 2145–21513.
Built Environment
Adaptation
No Action
Accommodate
Protect
Retreat
Prepare for Recovery
“A mix of actions taken over space and time by public and private organizations…”
Address Uncertainty with
Strategies that:
• Consider a range of future conditions
• Are robust, and/or flexible and adjustable
• Include no-regrets and co-benefit solutions
• Are integrated with mitigation and sustainability planning
• Recognizes Adaptive Capacity (economic, social, and natural resources, institutions, technology )
• Evaluated with Multiple Criteria
• Are stakeholder driven
• Combine “here and now” and “prepare and monitor” actions
Mechanical, electrical and
emergency services on roof
out of harm’s way
Operable windows keyed open
in event of systems failure
Critical patient programs above
ground floor
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Charlestown Navy Yard, Boston Architect: Perkins + Will Analytical diagrams P+W / Partners HealthCare
Example of “Here and Now”
Key floors above 2085 High
Estimate 100 Year Flood
“Prepare and Monitor”
• Process results in a series of adaptation actions planned to be implemented in the future with:
- the approximate future time periods of their implementation
- the amount of climate change and other changes within the approximate periods when actions should be taken – trigger points
• Establishment of climate, biophysical and socio-economic monitoring system to determine when trigger points have been reached
• Options are preserved for implementation of future actions
.
Example of “Prepare and Monitor” Thames Estuary, United Kingdom Thames Estuary 2100
The Plan
Trigger Points
• Mean Sea Level
• Peak Surge Level
• Peak River Flood
• Erosion
• Habitat
• Land Use
• Public/Institutional Attitudes to Flood Risk
Flexibility
• Timing of Actions
• Changing Actions
• Adjustable Infrastructure
• Safeguarding Land for Future Options
• Coordination with Other Infrastructure Projects
Infrastructure design has often had
demand flexibility, now must have
climate flexibility built in !
Floodwall with Gates, Houston
Articulating Floodwall
Enhanced Natural Dunes and Vegetation
Floodproofing
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1681
Phase 1
Local Solution - Aquarium MTBA
Station,
February, 11, 2103
112 Paris St
City of Boston
Evacuation
Routes
&
Emergency
Neighborhood
Centers
12/2005
The Netherlands
“Living with Water”
Nature 11 17 05
Elevating Prefabricated Bridge
Decks as Needed
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/successstories/091104/index.cfm
Add Bridge Piers as Scour Increases
http://www.maine.gov/mdot/martinspointbridgedb/documents/pdf/bridgetypes9-21-10.pdf
Porous Pavement Rain Barrel
Green Roof
Dry
Wells
Blue Roof
Bioretention
Drainage
Management
- Increase
Low Impact
Development
As Climate
Changes
Expandable Dams
Ross Hydropower Dam, Washington Designed to be
125 feet higher
Addressing Water Quantity Impacts
• Increased Pumping – Multiple and/or Floating
Water Intakes
– Expansion of Groundwater Wells
• Increased Water Conservation
• Increased Water Reuse Practices
• Treatment and Use
of Brackish Water
• Increased Reliance
on Seawater
Desalination
Addressing Water Quality Impacts
Microbial Risks
• Improved Filtration Systems – MF and UF Membranes
• Advanced Disinfection – Ozone
– Ultraviolet
– Advanced Oxidation Chemical Risks
• Improved Pretreatment
• GAC and Ion Exchange Sorption
• NF and RO Membranes
• Advanced Oxidation
Mitigation of Hydraulic Impacts over Time
(with James Malley, UNH)
• I/I Control Options
– Joint Sealing
– Pipe Lining
– Spot Repairs
– Line Replacement
• Effluent Discharge
Options
– Increased Pumping
– Install Multi-Level Outfalls
– Use Recharge Beds
Mitigation of Process Impacts over
Time
• Improved Hydraulics
• Improve BOD and NOD Removals
– Increased Contact Time
- Additional Basins
– Increased Mean Cell Residence Time
- Increased Return Activated Sludge
– Increased Aeration
• Implement Advanced Treatment
– Biological Nutrient Removal
– Effluent Sand Filtration
– Membrane Treatment
Multiple Options for Municipal and Commercial Freshwater
Adaptation
Example of Staged Strategy
Figure 15. Example of parapet wall
Retreat
Present to 2050 – Local Solutions
2050 to 2100– Regional Solutions
Figure 12. Estimated current 100-year flood zone (Federal
Emergency Management Agency)
Upland Flooding Potential
Recommended Engineering
Adaptations
Estimated
Adaptation Cost*
4.0
2010
5.0
6.0
2010 7.0
8.0
9.0
2010 10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
2100
2100
The Boston Marriott parcel , res iding at the landward end of Long Wharf,
becomes flooded when the s ti l lwater elevations exceed approximately 9.5 ft
NAVD. Sti l lwater elevations less than 9.5 ft NAVD do create access i ssues , as
areas around the Marriott parcel become flooded. The MBTA station entrance,
west of the Marriot, floods at 7.5 Ft NAVD.
No Flooding Expected No Action Required N/A
Widespread flooding of
enti re area during s torm
events . Water arriving into
Long Wharf area from other
regional sources in addition
to loca l flooding.
Develop a l ternate access
route plans . Minor flood
proofing.
See Regional Adaptations
In addition to adaptations
above, additional flood
proofing and elevation of
cri tica l infrastructure.
Evacuate during s torm event
and return.
MinimalFlooding of surrounding area and
7.5 ft NAVD entrances to below-
ground garage and MBTA station.
* = Ini tia l Capita l Costs and Operational and Maintenance costs provided are estimates based on costs from s imi lar types of
projects . More deta i led and accurate costs would be required for actual engineering and construction. Es timated costs are based
on 2010 dol lar va lue.
Long and Central Wharves - Coastal Climate
Change Adaptation Planning
General Description
An
nu
al (
1-y
ear
) St
orm
Su
rge
Tim
elin
e
Me
an H
igh
er
Hig
h W
ate
r (M
HH
W)
Tim
elin
e
10
0-y
ear
Sto
rm S
urg
e
Tim
elin
eApproximate
Maximum Water
Surface Elevation
(ft, NAVD88)
Marriott Hotel and MBTA Aquarium Station
Flooding of Marriott
infrastructure and enti re
Long Wharf region.
See Regional
Adaptations
*Capita l Cost:
$20 per square foot
of bui lding for wet
flood proofing
2050
2100
2050
2050
Ex: Portsmouth Flooding with high SLR
Sample of Portsmouth NH Plan
NCA Adaptation Draft, 2013
Vulnerability
Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.
IPCC, 2007
Development of Adaptation
Plans
Scenario Planning coupled with:
-Simulation (solution defined, performance determined)
-Optimization (performance defined, solution determined)
• Tufts University, University of Maryland, Boston University
Paul Kirshen, Project Manager, Co-PI, [email protected]
Matthias Ruth, Co-PI, [email protected]
William Anderson, [email protected], T.R. Lakshmanan, [email protected]
• MAPC
Judith Alland, [email protected]
Martin Pillsbury, mpillsbury.org 1999-2004
Example from the
The MAPC Area
Climate Change Scenarios for
Storm Surge Damage
• 0.60 m by 2100
• 1.00 m by 2100
• 0.15 m subsidence by 2100.
Adaptation to Flooding
• Do Nothing (“Ride-It-Out”)
• Protect (“Build Your Way Out”)
• Accommodate (“Green”)
• Retreat (“Retreat”)
Ensembles
of SLR
time series
over
planning
period
Land Use and
Other Changes
over time
Expected
Values of
damages
over
planning
period
(Risk
Based
Design)
Storm Surge
Damage
Model
Adaptation
Action
Storm Surge Flooding
Sample Bootstraps
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
Se
a L
ev
el (m
NG
VD
)
SLR 0.6 (1)
SLR 0.6 (2)
SLR 0.6 (3)
100-yr flood
500-yr flood
Show screen shot of STELLA, show out put of changes over time
SLR and Storm Surge Adaptation
Example of Temporal Impacts
RIO
Damage
Costs
Green Damage
Costs
Green
Adaptation
Costs
Source: CLIMB Study
BYWO
Damage
Costs
Retreat
Damage
and Loss
Costs
Retreat
Adaptation
Costs (Removal)
0.6 m by
2100
Model Run Residential Commercial/
Industrial Emergency Adaptation Total
Baseline - Growth, One Event 1205 4305 937 0 6447
Ride-It-Out - 0.6m SLR, One Event 3563 13525 2905 0 19993
Build-Your-Way-Out - 0.6m SLR, 1 Event
1091 3984 863 3462 9400
Green - 0.6m SLR, One Event 756 2697 587 1766 5806
Retreat – 0.6m SLR, One Event 5093 9142 2420 500 17155
Ride-It-Out – One meter SLR, One Event
6131 25014 5295 0 36440
Build-Your-Way-Out - One meter SLR, One Event
969 3613 779 3462 8823
Green - One meter SLR, One Event 1268 4959 1059 2897 10183
Retreat – One meter SLR, One Event 5564 9632 2583 546 18325
Metro Boston Total Costs ($ million) of
Damages and Adaptation (2000-2100) –
Buildings and Contents
Ride It Out is worst action, Green and BYWO may make
sense. Environmental impacts must also be considered.
Areas Vulnerable to Surge Flooding at HHW
Application to SLR Impacts in
Old Orchard Beach
• Develop SLR scenarios
• Determine areas vulnerable to storm surge flooding for present, 2030, and 2050
• Develop Adaptation Options
• Determine Expected Value of Damage to Buildings in present, 2030, and 2050 (just using one metric in example)
• Use above values to estimate expected net benefits of adaptation options for period 2010 to 2050
• Review for Robust Decision
Eustatic Sea Level Rise
Projections
Rahmstorf, Science, Jan 19, 2007
SLR Adaptation Options
• Take no action
• Nourish the beach in 2010 to an elevation of the present 100 year floodplain plus 0.305 m (action100+)
• Nourish the beach in 2010 to an elevation of the present 50 year floodplain plus 0.305 m (action 50+)
Two SLR scenarios – high & low
Expected Value Net Benefits (present to
2050)
Beach Nourishing to 100+ works well over all SLR scenarios (also note B/C ratios !)
SLR
Scenario
Adptation
Action
Expected
Value of
Residual
Damages
$million
Adaptation
Cost
$million
Total
Damage
and Cost
$million
Damages
Avoided
(Benefit)
$million
Net Benefits
$million
No SLR No Action 680 0 680 0 -680
100 + 0 60 60 680 620
50 + 3.4 52.4 55.8 676.6 620.8
Low No Action 899.3 0 899.3 0 -899.3
100 + 0 60 60 899.3 839.3
50 + 28.3 52.4 80.7 871 790.3
High No Action 1016.6 0 1016.6 0 -1016.6
100 + 37.6 60 97.6 979 881.4
50 + 67.8 52.4 120.2 948.8 828.6
Optimization: Example of Water
Supply, Amman, Jordan
with Patrick Ray and David
Watkins
2085 Climate Changes
Temperature increase: 1 to 3 C
Precipitation decrease: 0 to 50 %
Scenario of
Yields of
Sources
over time
Optimal Mix of
Sources over
Time to Most
Economically
meet
Demands
Optimization
Model
Scenario of
Demands over
Time
Example of Meeting Water Demands
Performance
Measures (eg
Cost)
Optimization Model
Constraint Set
Objective Function
“multistage stochastic linear programming model”
Constraint Set
Structure of Model
Objective Function
Zomyr = cost of operating and maintaining all water system
Zcapyr, = amortized capital costs of all newly-constructed additional
water system capacity
Zpenyr, = piece-wise linear function representing the cost of water
shortage in the selected year.
Zdevyr, = penalty for cost over-runs.
2008
2035
Expected values of water supplies from
each source under the scenarios
Expected values of water supplies from
each source under the scenarios
2085
2060
Adaptation Strategy
Here and Now
•Rely upon conventional sources
•Start recycling
•Tolerate occasional shortages
Prepare and Monitor
•2035- 2060: Add reclaimed waste water
•2060-2085: Consider Desi Aquifer and Desalinated Red Sea
Risk-Based Trend Detection with Rich
Vogel, Tufts University
Cost of Regret of
Over-Investing =
Total Cost of
Adaptation +
Expected Damages
without increase
with adaptation
-
Expected Damages
without increase
without adaptation
Cost of Regret of
Under-Preparing =
Expected Damages
with increase
without adaptation
-
Expected Damages
with increase
with adaptation
- Total cost of
adaptation
Thank you
Energy-Water Nexus (USGCRP(2009) Implications for Climate Change
Management