Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1343–1355 | Cite as

Clusters of community exposure to coastal flooding hazards based on storm and sea level rise scenarios—implications for adaptation networks in the San Francisco Bay region

  • Michelle A. Hummel
  • Nathan J. Wood
  • Amy Schweikert
  • Mark T. Stacey
  • Jeanne Jones
  • Patrick L. Barnard
  • Li Erikson
Original Article

Abstract

Sea level is projected to rise over the coming decades, further increasing the extent of flooding hazards in coastal communities. Efforts to address potential impacts from climate-driven coastal hazards have called for collaboration among communities to strengthen the application of best practices. However, communities currently lack practical tools for identifying potential partner communities based on similar hazard exposure characteristics. This study uses statistical cluster analysis to identify similarities in community exposure to flooding hazards for a suite of sea level rise and storm scenarios. We demonstrate this approach using 63 jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay region of California (USA) and compare 21 distinct exposure variables related to residents, employees, and structures for six hazard scenario combinations of sea level rise and storms. Results indicate that cluster analysis can provide an effective mechanism for identifying community groupings. Cluster compositions changed based on the selected societal variables and sea level rise scenarios, suggesting that a community could participate in multiple networks to target specific issues or policy interventions. The proposed clustering approach can serve as a data-driven foundation to help communities identify other communities with similar adaptation challenges and to enhance regional efforts that aim to facilitate adaptation planning and investment prioritization.

Keywords

Climate change Adaptation Flooding Exposure Cluster analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sandrine Dudoit for early discussions about clustering stability. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Funding information

This study is part of the Resilient Infrastructure as Seas Rise (RISeR) project, supported by the National Science Foundation Critical Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Systems and Processes (CRISP) Award 1541181.

US Geological Survey (USGS)-affiliated authors are supported by the USGS Land Change Science Program and the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program.

Supplementary material

10113_2017_1267_MOESM1_ESM.eps (6.1 mb)
ESM 1 Study area of the San Francisco Bay region in California (USA), including boundaries for the 55 incorporated cities and 8 counties with land in flood-hazard zones that reflect various storm and sea level rise scenarios summarized by Jones et al. (2016). San Francisco is considered both a city and a county and thus contains no unincorporated land (EPS 6200 kb)
10113_2017_1267_MOESM2_ESM.eps (1.8 mb)
ESM 2 Cluster analysis of population exposure to coastal-flooding hazards with 50 cm, 100 cm, and 150 cm of SLR, assuming (a) no storm and (b) 100-year storm. Variables in each graph of z-scores and clustering group assignments include the number and community percentages of residents and employees in hazard zones. Tables identify the communities that are included in each group, organized in geographical order by county (clockwise around San Francisco Bay, starting with Marin County) (EPS 1818 kb)
10113_2017_1267_MOESM3_ESM.eps (2.5 mb)
ESM 3 Cluster analysis of built environment exposure to coastal-flooding hazards with 50 cm, 100 cm, and 150 cm of SLR, assuming (a) no storm and (b) 100-year storm. Variables in each graph of z-scores and clustering group assignments include the number of critical infrastructure and critical facilities in hazard zones. Tables identify the communities that are included in each group (EPS 2520 kb)

References

  1. 100 Resilient Cities Program (2017) The Rockefeller Foundation. http://www.100resilientcities.org/#/-_/. Accessed 24 January 2017
  2. Abdollahian N, Jones J, Wood N (2016) Community exposure to potential climate-driven changes to coastal-inundation hazards for six communities in Essex County, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1187, 87 p.  https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161187
  3. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Chang 15(2):77–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA) (2017) http://www.arccacalifornia.org/about/. Accessed 25 January 2017
  5. Baird J, Plummer R, Bodin O (2016) Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in Canada: experimenting with adaptive co-management. Reg Environ Chang 16(3):747–758.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0790-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnard PL, O'Reilly B, van Ormondt M, Elias E, Ruggiero P, Erikson LH, Hapke C, Collins BD, Guza RT, Adams PN, Thomas JT (2009) The framework of a coastal hazards model; a tool for predicting the impact of severe storms. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1073, 21 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1073/
  7. Barnard PL, van Ormondt M, Erikson LH, Eshleman J, Hapke C, Ruggiero P, Adams PN, Foxgrover AC (2014) Development of the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) for predicting the impact of storms on high-energy, active-margin coasts. Nat Hazards 74(2):1095–1125.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1236-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burby R, Steinberg L, Basolo V (2003) The tenure trap: the vulnerability of renters to joint natural and technological disasters. Urban Aff Rev 39(1):32–58.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087403253053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) State and metro area employment, hours, and earnings. U.S. Department of Labor website. https://www.bls.gov/sae/790over.htm. Accessed 27 January 2017
  10. C40 Cities (2017) http://www.c40.org/. Accessed 24 January 2017
  11. California Energy Commission (2012) Identifying and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation in San Francisco Bay: Results from case studies. Report CEC-500-2012-034. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-034/CEC-500-2012-034.pdf
  12. Cayan DR, Bromirski PD, Hayhoe K, Tyree M, Dettinger MD, Flick RE (2008) Climate change projections of sea level extremes along the California coast. Clim Chang 87(S1):S57–S73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9376-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutter S, Boruff B, Shirley W (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniell K, Manez Costa M, Ferrand N, Kingsborough A, Coad P, Ribarova I (2011) Aiding multi-level decision-making processes for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Reg Environ Chang 11(2):243–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0162-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeConto RM, Pollard D (2016) Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature 531(7596):591–597.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dow K, Haywood B, Kettle N, Lackstrom K (2013) The role of ad hoc networks in supporting climate change adaptation: a case study from the southeastern United States. Reg Environ Chang 13(6):1235–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0440-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engle N, Lemos M (2010) Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Glob Environ Chang 20(1):4–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fekete A (2012) Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: challenges in their quality and acceptance. Nat Hazards 61(3):1161–1178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9973-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fothergill A, Maestas E, Darlington JD (1999) Race, ethnicity, and disasters in the United States: a review of the literature. Disasters 23(2):156–173.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazier TG, Wood NJ, Yarnal B, Bauer D (2010) Influence of potential sea level rise on societal vulnerability to hurricane storm-surge hazards, Sarasota County, Florida. Appl Geogr 30(4):490–505.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanak E, Moreno G (2012) California coastal management with a changing climate. Clim Chang 111(1):45–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0295-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauer ME, Evans JM, Mishra DR (2016) Millions projected to be at risk from seal-level rise in the continental United States. Nature Clim Change 6(7):691–695.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hennig C (2007) Cluster-wise assessment of cluster stability. Comput Stat Data Anal 52(1):258–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hennig C (2016) Package: fpc. CRAN. R Repository. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fpc/fpc.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2016
  25. Hinkel J, Nicholls RJ, Tol RSJ, Wang ZB, Hamilton JM, Boot G, Vafeidis AT, McFadden L, Ganopolski A, Klein RJT (2013) A global analysis of erosion of sandy beaches and sea-level rise: an application of DIVA. Glob Planet Chang 111:150–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holand I, Lujala P (2013) Replicating and adapting an index of social vulnerability to a new context: a comparison study for Norway. Prof Geogr 65(2):312–328.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.681509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Infogroup (2012) Employer database: Infogroup online database. http://www.infogroup.com/ Accessed 8 October 2016
  28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Synthesis report—contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 p. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf
  29. Jones B, Andrey J (2007) Vulnerability index construction: methodological choices and their influence on identifying vulnerable neighbourhoods. Int J Emerg Manag 4(2):269–295.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2007.013994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones JM, Wood N, Ng P, Henry K, Jones JL, Peters J, Jamieson M (2016) Community exposure in California to coastal flooding hazards enhanced by climate change, reference year 2010: U.S. Geological Survey data release. doi:  https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PZ56ZD
  31. Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (1990) Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kok M, Lüdeke M, Lucas P, Sterzel T, Walther C, Janssen P, Sietz D, de Soysa I (2016) A new method for analysing socio-ecological patterns of vulnerability. Reg Environ Chang 16(1):229–243.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0746-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lam N, Reams M, Li K, Li C, Mata L (2016) Measuring community resilience to coastal hazards along the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Nat Hazard Rev 17(1): 12 p. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000193, 04015013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leck H, Simon D (2013) Fostering multiscalar collaboration and co-operation for effective governance of climate change adaptation. Urban Stud 50(6):1221–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012461675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luthe T, Wyss R, Schuckbert M (2012) Network governance and regional resilience to climate change: empirical evidence from mountain tourism communities in the Swiss Gotthard region. Reg Environ Chang 12(4):839–854.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0294-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K, Studer M, Roudier P, Gonzalez J (2016) Package: cluster. CRAN. R Repository. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cluster/cluster.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2016
  37. Marshall N, Stokes C, Webb N, Marsall P, Lankester A (2014) Social vulnerability to climate change in primary producers—a typology approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 186:86–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAllister R, McCrea R, Lubell M (2014) Policy networks, stakeholder interactions and climate adaptation in the region of South East Queensland, Australia. Reg Environ Chang 14(2):527–539.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0489-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mezosi G, Meyer B, Loibl W, Aubrecht C, Csorba P, Bata T (2013) Assessment of regional climate change impacts on Hungarian landscapes. Reg Environ Chang 13(4):797–811.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0326-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morrow BH (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23(1):1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Research Council (2012) Sea-level rise for the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: past, present, and future. Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington. The National Academies Press, Washington. doi:  10.17226/13389
  42. Nelson R, Kokic R, Crimp S, Meinke H, Howden S (2010) The vulnerability of Australian rural communities to climate variability and change. Part II—integrating impacts with adaptive capacity. Environ Sci Policy 13(1):18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nicholls RJ (2004) Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Glob Environ Change 14(1):69–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Riahi K, Ebi KL, Hallegatte S, Carter TR, Mathur R, van Vuuren DP (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim Chang 122(3):387–400.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Our Coast Our Future (2017) http://data.pointblue.org/apps/ocof/cms/. Accessed 27 January 2017
  46. Paprotny D, Terefenko P (2017) New estimates of potential impacts of sea level rise and coastal floods in Poland. Nat Hazards 85(2):1249–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2619-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perret S, Yuerlita (2014) Adapting to declining fish resources: the differentiation of livelihood systems and fishing strategies in Singkarak Lake’s fishing community, West Sumatra. Reg Environ Chang 14(3):1203–1214.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0554-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pollnac R, Seara T, Colburn L, Jepsen M (2015) Taxonomy of USA east coast fishing communities in terms of social vulnerability and resilience. Environ Impact Assess Rev 55:136–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rouillard J, Spray C (2016) Working across scales in integrated catchment management: lessons learned for adaptive water governance from regional experiences. Reg Environ Chang 17(7):1869–1880.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0988-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rousseeuw PJ (1987) Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 20:53–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schweikert A, Espinet X, Goldstein S, Chinowsky P (2015) Resilience versus risk: assessing cost of climate change adaptation to California’s transportation system and the City of Sacramento, California. Transp Res Rec 2532:13–20.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2532-02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sharma U, Patwardhan A (2008) Methodology for identifying vulnerability hotspots to tropical cyclone hazard in India. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 13(7):703–717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9123-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sleeter B, Wood N, Soulard C, Wilson T (2017) Projecting community changes in hazard exposure to support long-term risk reduction: a case study of tsunami hazards in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:10–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stafford S, Abramowitz J (2017) An analysis of methods for identifying social vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise: a case study of Hampton Roads, Virginia. Nat Hazards 85(2):1089–1117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2622-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strauss BH, Ziemlinski R, Weiss JL, Overpeck JT (2012) Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States. Environ Res Lett 7(1):12p.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014033
  56. Sweet W, Park J, Marra J, Zervas C, Gill S (2014) Sea level rise and nuisance flood frequency changes around the United States NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 073, 58 p. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/NOAA_Technical_Report_NOS_COOPS_073.pdf
  57. Tate E (2013) Uncertainty analysis for a Social Vulnerability Index. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 103(3):526–543.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.700616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tebaldi C, Strauss BH, Zervas CE (2012) Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm surges along U.S. coasts. Environ Res Lett 7: 11p. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014032
  59. Thaler T, Priest S, Fuchs S (2016) Evolving inter-regional co-operation in flood risk management: distances and types of partnership approaches in Austria. Reg Environ Chang 16(3):841–853.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0796-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. United States Census Bureau (2010) TIGER products. Geography, Maps & Data. http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html. Accessed 27 January 2017
  61. United States Geological Survey (2015) CoSMoS 2.1: San Francisco Bay, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center. https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/coastal_processes/cosmos/sfbay/index.html. Accessed 10 November 2016
  62. United States Geological Survey (2017) Hazard Exposure Reporting and Analytics (HERA) www.usgs.gov/apps/hera. Accessed 26 January 2017
  63. Vermeer M, Rahmstorf S (2009) Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(51):21527–21532.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907765106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wood N, Burton CG, Cutter SL (2010) Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Nat Hazards 52(2):369–389.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9376-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wood N, Ratliff J, and Peters J (2012) Community exposure to tsunami hazards in California. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5222, 49 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5222/
  66. Wood N, Jones J, Spielman S, Schmidtlein M (2015) Community clusters of tsunami vulnerability in the US Pacific Northwest. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(17):5354–5359.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420309112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu SY, Yarnal B, Fisher A (2002) Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise: a case study of Cape May County, New Jersey, USA. Clim Res 22:255–270.  https://doi.org/10.3354/cr022255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle A. Hummel
    • 1
  • Nathan J. Wood
    • 2
  • Amy Schweikert
    • 2
  • Mark T. Stacey
    • 1
  • Jeanne Jones
    • 2
  • Patrick L. Barnard
    • 3
  • Li Erikson
    • 3
  1. 1.Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA
  3. 3.Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, U.S. Geological SurveySanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations