“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, paul.kirshen@tufts.edu

Matthias Ruth, Co-PI, mruth1@umd.edu

William Anderson, bander@bu.edu, T.R. Lakshmanan, laksh@bu.edu

• MAPC

Judith Alland, jalland@mapc.org

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