Climatic Change

, Volume 145, Issue 3–4, pp 397–412 | Cite as

Fail-safe and safe-to-fail adaptation: decision-making for urban flooding under climate change

  • Yeowon Kim
  • Daniel A. Eisenberg
  • Emily N. Bondank
  • Mikhail V. Chester
  • Giuseppe Mascaro
  • B. Shane Underwood


As climate change affects precipitation patterns, urban infrastructure may become more vulnerable to flooding. Flooding mitigation strategies must be developed such that the failure of infrastructure does not compromise people, activities, or other infrastructure. “Safe-to-fail” is an emerging paradigm that broadly describes adaptation scenarios that allow infrastructure to fail but control or minimize the consequences of the failure. Traditionally, infrastructure is designed as “fail-safe” where they provide robust protection when the risks are accurately predicted within a designed safety factor. However, the risks and uncertainties faced by urban infrastructure are becoming so great due to climate change that the “fail-safe” paradigm should be questioned. We propose a framework to assess potential flooding solutions based on multiple infrastructure resilience characteristics using a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) analytic hierarchy process algorithm to prioritize “safe-to-fail” and “fail-safe” strategies depending on stakeholder preferences. Using urban flooding in Phoenix, Arizona, as a case study, we first estimate flooding intensity and evaluate roadway vulnerability using the Storm Water Management Model for a series of downpours that occurred on September 8, 2014. Results show the roadway types and locations that are vulnerable. Next, we identify a suite of adaptation strategies and characteristics of these strategies and attempt to more explicitly categorize flooding solutions as “safe-to-fail” and “fail-safe” with these characteristics. Lastly, we use MCDA to show how adaptation strategy rankings change when stakeholders have different preferences for particular adaptation characteristics.



This research is supported by several National Science Foundation awards from the IMEE (Nos. 1335556, 1335640, and 1635490), SRN (No. 1444755), TUES (No. 1245205), WSC (No. 1360509), and RIPS (No. 1441352) programs and by the CHI University Grant Program (software package PCSWMM).

Supplementary material

10584_2017_2090_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2173 kb)


  1. Ahern J (2011) From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc Urban Plan 100:341–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahern J, Cilliers S, Niemelä J (2014) The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a framework for supporting innovation. Landsc Urban Plan 125:254–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnbjerg-Nielsen K, Fleischer HS (2009) Feasible adaptation strategies for increased risk of flooding in cities due to climate change. Water Sci Technol 60:273–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley RM, Balmforth DJ, Saul AJ, Blanskby JD (2005) Flooding in the future—predicting climate change, risks and responses in urban areas. Water Sci Technol 52:265–273Google Scholar
  5. Blockley D, Agarwal J, Godfrey P (2012) Infrastructure resilience for high-impact low-chance risks. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Civ Eng 165:13–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown DG, Polsky C, Bolstad P et al (2014) Ch. 13: land use and land cover change. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessmentGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang H, Lafrenz M, Jung I, Figliozzi M (2011) Future flooding impacts on transportation infrastructure and traffic patterns resulting from climate change. Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang SE (2016) Socioeconomic impacts of infrastructure disruptions. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen JH, Hewitson B, Busuioc A et al (2007) Regional climate projections. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kindom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. CIRIA (2014) Managing urban flooding from heavy rainfall—encouraging the uptake of designing for exceedance. Literature reviewGoogle Scholar
  11. Dominguez F, Rivera E, Lettenmaier DP, Castro CL (2012) Changes in winter precipitation extremes for the western United States under a warmer climate as simulated by regional climate models. Geophys Res Lett 39:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenberg DA, Linkov I, Park J et al (2014) Resilience metrics: lessons from military doctrines. Solutions 5:76–87Google Scholar
  13. FCDMC (2014) Flood control district of maricopy county. Storm report: Sep 8, 2014Google Scholar
  14. Fratini CF, Geldof GD, Kluck J, Mikkelsen PS (2012) Three points approach (3PA) for urban flood risk management: a tool to support climate change adaptation through transdisciplinarity and multifunctionality. Urban Water J 9:317–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garfin G, Jardine A, Merideth R et al (2013) Assessment of climate change in the southwest United States: a report prepared for the national climate assessment. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins GA, Vivoni ER, Robles-Morua A et al (2015) A climate change projection for summer hydrologic conditions in a semiarid watershed of central Arizona. J Arid Environ 118:9–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt A, Watkiss P (2011) Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Clim Chang 104:13–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keath NA, Brown RR (2009) Extreme events: being prepared for the pitfalls with progressing sustainable urban water management. Water Sci Technol 59:1271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A et al (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:95–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirshen P, Ruth M, Anderson W (2008) Interdependencies of urban climate change impacts and adaptation strategies: a case study of metropolitan Boston USA. Clim Chang 86:105–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liao K-H (2012) A theory on urban resilience to floods—a basis for alternative planning practices. Ecol Soc 17:15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linkov I, Bridges T, Creutzig F et al (2014) Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat Clim Chang 4:407–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu W, Chen W, Peng C (2014) Assessing the effectiveness of green infrastructures on urban flooding reduction: a community scale study. Ecol Model 291:6–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M (2016) Defining urban resilience: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 147:38–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer MD, Brinckerhoff P, Rowan E et al (2013) Impacts of extreme weather on transportation: national symposium summaryGoogle Scholar
  28. Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M et al (2008) Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science 319:573–574. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Möller N, Hansson SO (2008) Principles of engineering safety: risk and uncertainty reduction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:798–805. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation (2008) Potential impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation. Wachington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  31. National Weather Service Forecast Office (2014) NOAA online weather data. Accessed 1 Jul 2016
  32. Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC et al (2013) Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal 33:356–367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC (2011) Lessons in risk- versus resilience-based design and management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:396–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piras M, Mascaro G, Deidda R, Vivoni ER (2016) Impacts of climate change on precipitation and discharge extremes through the use of statistical downscaling approaches in a Mediterranean basin. Sci Total Environ 543:952–964. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Revi A, Satterthwaite DE, Aragón-Durand F et al (2014) Urban areas. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Rossman LA (2015) Storm water management model user’s manual. 1–353Google Scholar
  37. Salinas Rodriguez CNA, Ashley R, Gersonius B et al (2014) Incorporation and application of resilience in the context of water-sensitive urban design: linking European and Australian perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 1:173–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sayers PB, Galloway GE, Hall JW (2012) Robust decision-making under uncertainty—towards adaptive and resilient flood risk management infrastructure. In: Flood risk. ICE Publishing, pp 281–302Google Scholar
  39. Schmitt TG, Thomas M, Ettrich N (2004) Analysis and modeling of flooding in urban drainage systems. J Hydrol 299:300–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seager R, Ting M, Held I et al (2007) Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–1184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seager TP (2008) The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 17:444–453. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Semadeni-Davies A, Hernebring C, Svensson G, Gustafsson L-G (2008) The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: combined sewer system. J Hydrol 350:100–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shortridge J, Guikema S, Zaitchik B (2017) Robust decision making in data scarce contexts: addressing data and model limitations for infrastructure planning under transient climate change. Clim Chang 140:323–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Duda MG et al (2012) A multiscale nonhydrostatic atmospheric model using centroidal Voronoi tesselations and C-grid staggering. Mon Weather Rev 140:3090–3105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solecki W, Rosenzweig C (2014) Climate change, extreme events, and Hurricane Sandy: from non-stationary climate to non-stationary policy. J Extrem Events 1:1450008. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suarez P, Anderson W, Mahal V, Lakshmanan TR (2005) Impacts of flooding and climate change on urban transportation: a systemwide performance assessment of the Boston Metro Area. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 10:231–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Transportation Research Board (2011) Adapting transportation to the impacts of climate changeGoogle Scholar
  48. Tye MR, Holland GJ, Done JM (2015) Rethinking failure: time for closer engineer–scientist collaborations on design. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Forensic Eng 168:49–57. Google Scholar
  49. Wilbanks TJ, Fernandez SJ (2014) Climate change and infrastructure, urban systems, and vulnerabilities. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilby RL, Dawson CW (2013) The statistical downscaling model: insights from one decade of application. Int J Climatol 33:1707–1719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilby RL, Dessai S (2010) Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65:180–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilby RL, Keenan R (2012) Adapting to flood risk under climate change. Prog Phys Geogr 36:348–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Willems P, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K, Olsson J, Nguyen VTV (2012) Climate change impact assessment on urban rainfall extremes and urban drainage: methods and shortcomings. Atmos Res 103:106–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Woods DD, Leveson N, Hollnagel E (2012) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing, LtdGoogle Scholar
  55. Zevenbergen C, van Tuijn J, Rijke J et al (2013) Rijkswaterstaat room for the river. Tailor made collaboration: a clever combination of process and contentGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Civil, Construction, and Environmental EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations