Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The triple bottom line: bringing a sustainability framework to prioritize climate change investments for infrastructure planning

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Climate change is an increasing concern of agencies, governments, and communities around the world. It poses potential adverse impacts to civil infrastructure, with consequences that include increased financial resources, economic impacts, social impacts, and planning issues. This paper aims to enhance and broaden the discussion on sustainability and the importance of the consideration of social, environmental, and technical aspects in relation to infrastructure planning. Particularly under climate change, these considerations allow for more holistic, effective, and long-term benefits to communities and economies. This paper introduces the triple bottom line (TBL) approach to sustainability as a framework for holistic infrastructure planning under the uncertainty of climate change. The economic pillar will focus on the impacts of climate change on road infrastructure and the cost–benefit of potential adaptation options; environmental considerations include quantifying the potential increase in GHG emissions from increased roadworks required by climate change damages; and the social pillar will be quantified using an index based upon the SoVI method. Each of these ‘pillars’ of sustainability will be analyzed individually and mapped using geographic information systems (GIS). Finally, a ‘holistic’ approach will be discussed, where these individual layers are combined using GIS to display the information. A case study focused on the Sacramento Region of California is used as a proof-of-concept for how the triple bottom line framework introduced here can be utilized to provide actionable, more equitable decision-making for investment in critical infrastructure adaptation policy.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arent DJ, Tol RSJ, Faust E, Hella JP, Kumar S, Strzepek KM, Toth FL, Yan D (2014) Key economic sectors and services. 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, New York

  • Berdica K (2002) An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and should be done. Transp Policy 9(2):117–127. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00011-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomberg M, Paulson H Jr, Steyer T (2014) Risky business: the economic risks of climate change in the United States. http://riskybusiness.org/

  • Bocchini P, Frangopol D, Ummenhofer T, Zinke T (2014) Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach. J Infrastruct Syst 20(2):04014004. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brekke L, Thrasher B, Maurer E, Pruitt T (2013) Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate projections: release of downscaled CMIP5 climate projections, comparison with preceding Information and Summary of User Needs. http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/techmemo/downscaled_climate.pdf

  • Chinowsky P, Arndt C (2012) Climate change and roads: a dynamic stressor-response model. Rev Dev Econ

  • Chinowsky P, Schweikert A, Strzepek N, Manahan K, Strzepek K, Schlosser A (2013a) Climate change adaptation advantage for African road infrastructure. Clim Change

  • Chinowsky PS, Price JC, Neumann JE (2013b) Assessment of climate change adaptation costs for the U.S. Road Network. Global Environ Change 23(4):764–773. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinowsky P, Schweikert A, Strzepek N, Strzepek K (2014) Infrastructure and climate change: a study of impacts and adaptations in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia. Clim Change 130:49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley H, Moore E, Heberger M, Allen L (2012) Social vulnerability to climate change in California. Pacific Institute; California Energy Commission. http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/full_report31.pdf

  • Cutter SL (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20(4):529–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8402002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environ Change 18(4):598–606. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalziell E, Nicholson A (2001) Risk and impact of natural hazards on a road network. J Transp Eng 127(2):159–166. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2001)127:2(159)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Homeland Security (2013) DHS climate action plan. http://www.dhs.gov/topic/critical-infrastructure-security

  • Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4(2):107–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds G (1998) Wasted time: the price of poor access, vol 3. ILO-International Labour Office

  • Espinet X, Schweikert A, Chinowsky P (2015) Robust prioritization framework for transport infrastructure adaptation investments under uncertainty of climate change. Am Soc Civil Eng J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A

  • European Commission (2014) Climate action. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/index_en.htm. Accessed 16 Sept 2014

  • Executive Office of the President (2013) The president’s climate action plan

  • Federal Highway Administration (1999) Materials and procedures for sealing and filling cracks in asphalt-surfaced pavements: manual of practice. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-147

  • Federal Highway Administration (2015) Office of Planning Environment and Realty (HEP). Census transportation planning products. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/

  • Feng W, Lessard D, Cameron B, Crawley E (2013) Stakeholders, issues and the shaping of large engineering projects. In: Working paper proceedings, engineering project organization conference

  • Field C, Barros V, Mach K, Mastrandrea M (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Technical summary. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II AR5. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-TS_FGDall.pdf

  • Füssel H-M, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75(3):301–329. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallivan F, Ang-Olson J, Papson A, Venner M (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation measures for transportation construction, maintenance, and operations activities. NHCRP Project 25-25/Task58

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Gloabl change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(756). doi:10.1126/science.1150195

  • Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environ Change Tradit Peoples Clim Change 19(2):240–247. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Industrial Economics (2010) Costing climate impacts and adaptation: a Canadian Study on Public Infrastructure, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Canada, Contributing Author

  • Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain Sci 3(2):215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koetse MJ, Rietveld P (2009) The impact of climate change and weather on transport: an overview of empirical findings. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 14(3):205–221. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2008.12.004

    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. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leichenko R (2011) Climate change and urban resilience. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3(3):164–168. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27(4):1009–1026. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00940.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert R, Nakicenovic N, Sarewitz D, Schlesinger M (2004) Characterizing climate-change uncertainties for decision-makers. An editorial essay. Clim Chang 65(1):1–9. doi:10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037561.75281.b3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macharis C, Ampe J (2007) The use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for the evaluation of transport projects: a review. Euro XXII Prague Book of Abstracts

  • Macharis C, de Witte A, Ampe J (2009) The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice. J Adv Transp 43(2):183–202. doi:10.1002/atr.5670430206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):36–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinich J, Neumann J, Ludwig L, Jantarasami L (2012) Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United States. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 18(2):169–185. doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows D, Meadows D, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) Limits to growth. Potomac Associates, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M, Amekudzi A, O’Har J (2010) Transportation asset management systems and climate change. Transp Res Rec 2160(1):12–20. doi:10.3141/2160-02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035 (Draft Program Environmental Impact Report). http://www.sacog.org/mtp/

  • Morrow BH (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23(1):1–18. doi:10.1111/1467-7717.00102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moteff J, Parfomak P (2004) Critical infrastructure and key assets: definition and identification

  • MTP2035 Issue Papers: Road Maintenance. http://www.sacog.org

  • National Research Council, Policy Division. Board on Sustainable Development (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nebraska Department of Roads (2012) Estimating quantities in English and Metric. http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/gov-aff/lpa/cost-estimating/est-quantities.pdf

  • Nemry F, Demirel H (2012) Impact of climate change on transport: a focus on road and rail transport infrastructures. Joint Research Commission Scientific and Policy Reports, European Commission. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC72217.pdf

  • Neumann J, Price J, Chinowsky P, Wright L, Ludwig L, Streeter R, Jones R et al (2014) Climate change risks to US infrastructure: impacts on roads, bridges, coastal development and urban drainage. Clim Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1037-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Going beyond Panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(39):15176–15178. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701886104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738. doi:10.1073/pnas.0611291104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revi A, Sattherwaite D (2013) IPCC WGII AR5 Chap. 8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II AR5. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap8_FGDall.pdf

  • Sachs JD (2012) From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet 379(9832):2206–2211. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Mapping Center: Regional GIS Clearing House. http://www.sacog.org/mapping/clearinghouse/

  • Schweikert A, Chinowsky P, Kwiatkowski K, Johnson A, Shilling E, Strzepek K, Strzepek N (2014) Road infrastructure and climate change: impacts and adaptations for South Africa. J Infrastruct Syst. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000235

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweikert A, Espinet X, Goldstein S, Chinowsky P (2015) Resilience versus risk: assessing the cost of climate change adaptation to California’s transportation system and the City of Sacramento. Transp Res Rec, 13–20. doi:10.3141/2532-02

  • Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) (2013) 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. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

  • Superpave: Performance by Design (2005) Final Report of the TRB Superpave Committee. Transportation Research Board. ISBN 0-309-09414-3

  • Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf

  • Taylor MAP, D’Este GM (2007) Transport network vulnerability: a method for diagnosis of critical locations in transport infrastructure systems. In: Murray AT, Grubesic TH (eds) Critical infrastructure. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–30 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-68056-7_2

  • Transportation Research Board (2005) Superpave: performance by design. Final Report of the TRB Superpave Committee. ISBN 0-309-09414-3

  • Transportation Research Board (2008) Potential impacts of climate change on US transportation. National Research Council. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf

  • Triantaphyllou E, Baig K (2005) The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(2):213–226. doi:10.1109/TEM.2005.845221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tribbia J, Moser S (2008) More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environ Sci Policy

  • Turner BL et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14)

  • Tyler S, Moench M (2012) A framework for urban climate resilience. Clim Dev 4(4):311–326. doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.745389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2013) TIGER/Line Shapefiles: roads. U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division. 2014. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles2013/layers.cgi (accessed June 26)

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs (2015) Climate change in the United States: benefits of global action. EPA 430-R-15-001. http://www2.epa.gov/cira

  • United States Census Bureau. Geographic terms and concepts—census tract. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_ct.html

  • US DHS. National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is860a/CIRC/NIPPinfo.htm

  • US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1999) LTPP pavement maintenance materials: SHRP Crack Treatment Experiment, Final Report. FHWA-RD-99-143

  • Walker D, Entine L, Kummer S (2002) Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) Asphalt Roads Manual. Transportation Information Center, Wisconsin Transportation Information Center

  • Warner K, Van der Geest K, Kreft S (2013) Pushed to the limit: evidence of climate change-related loss and damage when people face constraints and limits to adaptation. http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/11486.pdf

  • Westphal M, Hughes G, Brommelhorster J (eds) (2013) Economics of climate change in East Asia. Asian Development Bank. http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30434/economics-climate-change-east-asia.pdf

  • Wood NJ, Jones J, Spielman S, Schmidtlein MC (2015) Community clusters of tsunami vulnerability in the US Pacific Northwest. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(17):5354–5359. doi:10.1073/pnas.1420309112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • World Climate Research Programme. Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections’ website. http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future

  • Zimmerman JB (2005) http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol1iss2/communityessay.zimmerman.html. Publication October 19

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the feedback from the following members for their feedback and valuable input that contributed to the design of this study and results presented in this article: Dr. Bernard Amadei and Dr. Ross Corotis of the Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department at the University of Colorado Boulder; Dr. Seth Spielman of the Department of Geography at the University of Colorado Boulder; and Dr. Sherman Robinson of the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy Schweikert.

Additional information

Handled by Akiyuki Kawasaki, The University of Tokyo, Japan.

Appendix: Climate change models and information

Appendix: Climate change models and information

For the CMIP5 models used in this paper, the information was obtained from the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble archive (Brekke et al. 2013). A full list of the models used from the 4.5 RCP scenario are provided in Table 1. The authors acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modeling groups (listed in Table 1) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals (see World Climate Research Programme; Brekke et al. 2013).

Table 1 CMIP5 daily models for california downloaded

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schweikert, A., Espinet, X. & Chinowsky, P. The triple bottom line: bringing a sustainability framework to prioritize climate change investments for infrastructure planning. Sustain Sci 13, 377–391 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0431-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0431-7

Keywords

Navigation