Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Climate and other scenarios disrupt priorities in several management perspectives

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Climate vulnerability and adaptation assessments are increasingly typical of infrastructure agencies. In contrast to global emissions reductions, adaptation decision making tends to occur on smaller geographic scales and nearer time horizons. The supporting analyses are performed by local agencies with relatively sparse data and few resources. Recent efforts of the authors introduced scenario-based preferences to perform risk analysis for these agencies in a single perspective, updating management priorities when climate and non-climate stressors combine. On the other hand, a single perspective fails to account for the complexities of infrastructures, organizations, and stakeholders. Several perspectives should include asset management, project selection, policy-making, demography/geography, research and development, and others. This paper develops a framework to address several management perspectives, finding the implications of climate and other conditions to update agency priorities. The framework is demonstrated for a twenty-year transportation plan with approximately 600 square miles in the mid-Atlantic region of the USA. The demonstration includes that a scenario of climate combined with increased travel demand is relatively more influential across several perspectives, when considering climate both alone and in combination with each of economic recession, wear and tear, and ecosystem stressors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The heat index (HI) is an index that combines air temperature and relative humidity in an attempt to determine the human-perceived equivalent temperature. For example, when the temperature is 32 °C with very high humidity, the heat index can be about 41 °C.

References

  • Allen Consulting Group (2003) Climate change risk and vulnerability: promoting an efficient adaptation response in Australia. Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage. ISBN: 1 920840 94 X

  • Andrey J, Knapper C (2003) Motorists’ perceptions of and responses to weather hazards. In: Andrey J, Knapper C (eds.) Weather and transportation in Canada. Department of Geography Publications Series Number 55. University of Waterloo: Waterloo

  • Attavanich W, McCarl BA, Ahmedov Z, Fuller SW, Vedenov DV (2013) Effects of climate change on US grain transport. Nat Clim Change 3:638–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V (1999) Multi-criteria problem structuring and analysis in a value theory framework. In: Gal T, Stewart T, Hanne T (eds) Multicriteria Decis. Mak. SE-12. Springer US. International series in operations research & management science, vol 21, pp 335–366. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5025-9_12

  • Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis, an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout F, van den Hurk B, Bessembinder J, de Boer J, Bregman B, van Drunen M (2014) Framing climate uncertainty: socio-economic and climate scenarios in vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Reg Environ Change 14(3):879–893

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current states of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9(1):5–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton I, Malone E, Huq S, Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E (2005) Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Chok NS (2010) Pearson’s versus Spearman’s and Kendall’s correlation coefficients for continuous data. Master’s Thesis, University of Pittsburgh

  • Church JA, Clark PU, Cazenave A, Gregory JM, Jevrejeva S, Levermann A, Merrifield MA, Milne GA, Nerem RS, Nunn PD, Payne AJ, Pfeffer WT, Stammer D, Unnikrishnan AS (2013) Sea level change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

  • Desantis LRG, Bhotika S, Williams K, Putz FE (2007) Sea-level rise and drought interactions accelerate forest decline on the Gulf Coast of Florida, USA. Global Change Biol 13:2349–2360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Füssel HM (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global Environ Change 17(2):155–167

  • Fussel HM, Klein RJT (2005) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75(3):301–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton MC, Thekdi SA, Jenicek EM, Harmon RS, Goodsite ME, Case MP, Karvetski CW, Lambert JH (2013) Case studies of scenario analysis for adaptive management of natural resource and infrastructure systems. Environ Syst Decis 33:89–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton MC, Lambert JH, Keisler JM, Holcomb FH, Linkov I (2014) Research and development priorities for energy islanding of military and industrial installations. ASCE J Infrastruct Syst 19:297–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (2010) Climate change in hampton roads—phase I: impact and stakeholder involvement. Accessed online 1/12/2012. <http://hrpdc.org/Documents/PhysPlanning/2010/Climate_Change_Final_Report_All.pdf>

  • Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, HRPDC (2011) Climate change in hampton roads—phase II: storm surge vulnerability and public outreach. Accessed online 1/12/2012. <http://hrpdc.org/Documents/PhysPlanning/2011/HRPDC_ClimateChange2010.PDF>

  • Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) (2011a) Prioritization of transportation projects: project evaluation and scoring. Accessed online 1/12/2012. <http://hrtpo.org/Documents/Prioritization_Report.pdf>

  • Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) (2011b) Prioritization of transportation projects: input data. Accessed online 1/12/2012. <http://hrtpo.org/MTG_AGNDS/HRTPO/2010/Dec2010/E10B_AppendixE.pdf>

  • Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) (2012) Assessing vulnerability and risk of climate change effects on transportation infrastructure. Accessed online 1/12/2012. <www.virginia.edu/crmes/fhwa_climate/files/finalReport.pdf>

  • Ibarrarán ME, Malone EL, Brenkert AL (2008) Climate change vulnerability and resilience: current status and trends for Mexico (PNNL-18136). US Dept of Energy and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Retrieved from CAKE. http://www.cakex.org/virtual-library/2638

  • IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

  • Karvetski CW, Lambert JH (2012) Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority-setting with an application to facility energy investments. Syst Eng 15(4):483–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Linkov I (2009) Emergent conditions and multicriteria analysis in infrastructure prioritization for developing countries. J Mult Criteria Decis Anal 16(5):125–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Keisler JM, Sexauer B, Linkov I (2011a) Climate change scenarios: risk and impact analysis for Alaska coastal infrastructure. Int J Risk Assess Manag 15(2/3):258–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Keisler JM, Linkov I (2011b) Integration of decision analysis and scenario planning for coastal engineering and climate change. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 41(1):63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Linkov I (2011c) Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7(2):228–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1971) Utility independence and preferences for multiattributed consequences. Oper Res 19(4):875–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (2012) Value-focused brainstorming. Decis Anal 9(4):303–313

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kirshen P, Ruth M, Anderson W (2006) Climate’s long-term impacts on urban infrastructures and services: the case of Metro Boston, Chapter 7. In: Ruth M, Donaghy K, Kirshen PH (eds) Climate. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein RJT (2004) Approaches, methods and tools for climate change impact, vulnerability and adaptation assessment. Keynote lecture to the In-Session Workshop on Impacts of, and Vulnerability and Adaptation to, Climate Change. Vol. 8

  • Klein RJ, Eriksen SE, Næss LO, Hammill A, Tanner TM, Robledo C, O’Brien KL (2007) Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change into development assistance. Clim change 84(1):23–44

  • Lambert JH, Karvetski CW, Spencer DK, Sotirin BJ, Liberi DM, Zaghloul HH, Koogler JB, Huner SL, Goran WD, Ditmer RD, Linkov I (2012) Prioritizing infrastructure investments in Afghanistan with multiagency stakeholders and deep uncertainty of emergent conditions. ASCE J Infrast Syst 18(2):155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert JH, Keisler JM, Wheeler WE, Collier ZA, Linkov I (2013a) Multiscale approach to the security of hardware supply chains for energy systems. Environ Syst Decis 33:326–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert JH, Wu YJ, You H, Clarens A, Smith B (2013b) Climate change influence on priority setting for transportation infrastructure assets. ASCE J Infrast Syst 19:36–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen PH, Goldsmith S, Smith O, Wilson ML, Strzepek K, Chinowsky P, Saylor B (2008) Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Global Environ Change 18(3):442–457

  • Laurencelle L (2009) Le tau et le tau-b de kendall pour la corrélation de variables ordinales simples ou catégorielles. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 5:51–58

  • Lung T, Lavalle C, Hiederer R, Dosio A, Bouwer L (2013) A multi-hazard regional level impact assessment for Europe combining indicators of climatic and non-climatic change. Global Clim Change 22(2):522–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez LJ, Lambert JH, Karvetski C (2011) Scenario-informed multiple criteria analysis for prioritizing investments in electricity capacity expansion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:883–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mashayekh Y, Jaramillo P, Samaras C, Hendrickson CT, Blackhurst M, MacLean HL, Matthews HS (2012) Potentials for sustainable transportation in cities to alleviate climate change impacts. Environ Sci Technol 46:2529–2537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane BJ, Walberg EJ (2010) Climate change in hampton roads: impacts and stakeholder involvement. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), Chesapeake

    Google Scholar 

  • Næss LO, Norland IT, Lafferty WM, Aall C (2006) Data and processes linking vulnerability assessment to adaptation decision-making on climate change in Norway. Global Environ Change 16(2):221–233

  • North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) (2011) Climate change vulnerability and risk assessment of New Jersey’s transportation infrastructure. Accessed online 5/31/2012. <http://www.njtpa.org/plan/Element/Climate/documents/CCVR_REPORT_FINAL_4_2_12_ENTIRE.pdf>

  • Schroeder MJ, Lambert JH (2011) Scenario-based multiple criteria analysis for infrastructure policy impacts and planning. J Risk Res 14(2):191–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somers RH (1962) A new asymmetric measure of association for ordinal variables. Am Sociol Rev 27:799–811

  • Stewart TJ (1996) Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. J Oper Res Soc 47(5):654–665

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009) Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise a focus on the Mid-Atlantic region. Accessed online 1/15/2012. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/pdfs/SAP_4-1_SynthesisandAssessmentProduct.pdf>

  • U.S. Federal Highway Administration (2011) Assessing vulnerability and risk of climate change effects on transportation infrastructure: pilot of the conceptual model. Accessed 1/10/2011. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/HEP/climate/conceptual_model62410.htm>

  • Vervoort JM, Thornton PK, Kristjanson P, Forch W, Ericksen PJ, Kok K, Ingram JSI, Herrero M, Palazzo A, Helfgott AES, Wilkinson A, Havlik P, Mason-D’Croz D, Jost C (2014) Challenges to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under climate change. Global Environ Change 28:383–394

  • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (2011) Climate impacts vulnerability assessment. Accessed online 5/30/2012. <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B290651B-24FD-40EC-BEC3-EE5097ED0618/0/WSDOTClimateImpactsVulnerabilityAssessmentforFHWAFinal.pdf>

  • You H, Lambert JH, Clarens AF, McFarlane B (2014) Quantifying the influence of climate change to priorities for infrastructure projects. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44(2):133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This case study was funded in part by the US Federal Highway Administration, climate change vulnerability, and risk assessment project (Project No. 136780). The authors are grateful to the support of Benjamin McFarlane and others of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research (VCTIR). The authors give special thanks to Dr. Christopher J. Karvetski for consulting on the methodology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Haowen You & Elizabeth B. Connelly

  2. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    James H. Lambert

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Andres F. Clarens

Authors
  1. Haowen You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth B. Connelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James H. Lambert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andres F. Clarens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth B. Connelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

You, H., Connelly, E.B., Lambert, J.H. et al. Climate and other scenarios disrupt priorities in several management perspectives. Environ Syst Decis 34, 540–554 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9525-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9525-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation