Lifelines in Megacities

Future Directions of Lifeline Systems for Sustainable Megacities
Chapter
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 15)

Abstract

The sustainability of megacities and the ecosystems they influence are critical for ensuring quality of life and environment throughout the world. This sustainability requires infrastructure systems that provide a good and equitable quality of life, and a balance between consumption, disposal, and environmental capacity. Megacities must be strengthened and prepared to resist all hazards that may threaten them. Megacities function as a mega-system made up of many independent subsystems that have been developed in silos. However, the operations of each system depend upon other subsystems within the mega-system, under both extreme and usual circumstances. Lifeline systems are the basic infrastructure that supports all other systems needed for a megacity to function properly. The resiliency of lifeline systems is critical to the sustainability of megacities. Future directions in lifeline systems require improved interactions between the interdependent systems and improved inter-agency coordination. Megacities are extremely vulnerable to risks from natural and man made hazards. Transformative research is needed to better understand how interdependent systems interact and to develop decision support tools that help to understand the performances of complex systems under normal and extreme events. Examples from the Los Angeles megacity region are presented to show the makeup of megacities and mega-systems, and to illustrate their vulnerabilities to extreme events. The simulated performance of water supply and distribution systems in Southern California during a great earthquake scenario are summarized to show how advanced decision support tools may be used for improving the functionality of critical infrastructure systems under normal and extreme circumstances. This study indicates that resilience can be enhanced through multi-system integration and the risks and vulnerabilities to hazards can be overcome through integration of existing infrastructure.

Keywords

Infrastructure System Modify Mercalli Intensity Transformative Research Interdependent System Lifeline System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abhat D, Dineen S, Jones T, Motavalli J, Sanborn R, Slomkowski K (2005) Cities of the future, today’s mega-cities are overcrowded and environmentally stressed. Emagazine.com, vol XVI, no 5, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2849
  2. Bardet JP, Ballantyne D, Bell GEC, Donnellan A, Foster S, Fu TS, List J, Little RG, O’Rourke TD, Palmer MC (2010) Expert review of water system pipeline breaks in the City of Los Angeles during summer 2009. Report to the Steering Committee on water pipeline breaks of the City of Los Angeles, 9 AprGoogle Scholar
  3. Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future. World commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis CA (2008) Seismic practices to improve water system resilience. Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. S21-015, Beijing, China, 12–17 OctGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis CA (2009) Scenario response and restoration of Los Angeles water system to a magnitude 7.8 San Andreas fault earthquake. Proceedings of the 7th U.S. conference on lifeline earthquake engineering, ASCE, Oakland, CA, 28 June–1 July, Paper 232Google Scholar
  6. Davis CA (2010) Los Angeles water supply impacts from a M7.8 San Andreas fault earthquake scenario. International Water Association, J Water Supply: Res Technol – AQUA 59(6–7): 408–417Google Scholar
  7. Davis CA, O’Rourke TD (2011) ShakeOut Scenario: water system impacts from A M7.8 San Andreas earthquake. EERI Spectra 27(2)Google Scholar
  8. Dewar M, Epstein D (2007) Planning for “Megaregions” in the United States. J Planning Literature 22:108, http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/2/108 Google Scholar
  9. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2011) “Shakeout,” Special edition on Shakeout Scenario, Spectra 27(2)Google Scholar
  10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007) “EPANET”. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/epanet.html
  11. Haynes KE (2006) Infrastructure: the glue of megacities. Proceedings of the 9th lecture megacities foundation, The Netherlands. http://www.megacities.nl/, 3 Jan 2010
  12. Jones LM, Bernknopf R, Cox D, Goltz J, Hudnut K, Mileti D, Perry S, Ponti D, Porter K, Reichle M, Seligson H, Shoaf K, Treiman J, Wein A (2008) The ShakeOut Scenario. U.S. Geological Survey OFR 2008-1150 and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25Google Scholar
  13. Munich Re (2003) A natural hazard index for megacities. Topics, Annual review: natural hazards of 2002, 10th year, Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Georisks Research Department, Germany, http://www.munichre.co.jp/public/PDF/Topics_2002_NaturalHazardIndex.pdf, 7 Jan 2010
  14. Munich Re (2004) Megacities – megarisks: trends and challenges for insurance and risk management. Knowledge series, Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Georisks Research Department, Germany, http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-04271_en.pdf, 3 Jan, 2010
  15. O’Rourke TD, Jezerski JM, Olson NA, Bonneau AL, Palmer MC, Stewart HE, O’Rourke MJ (2008) Geotechnics of pipeline system response to earthquakes. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV (GEESD), Sacramento, CA, MayGoogle Scholar
  16. Pisano MA (2006) The Southwest mega region. Presentation from the 2006 MegaRegions symposium on 30 Jan 2006, Atlanta, GA, http://hdl.handle.net/1853/21302
  17. Planning Department, City of Los Angeles (2010) City of Los Angeles community planning areas map. http://cityplanning.lacity.org/, 7 Jan 2010
  18. Romero N, O’Rourke TD, Nozick LK, Davis CA (2009) Los Angeles water supply response to 7.8 Mw earthquake. Proceedings of the 7th U.S. conference on lifeline earthquake engineering, ASCE, Oakland, CA, 28 June–1 July, Paper 220Google Scholar
  19. Romero N, O’Rourke TD, Nozick LK, Davis CA (2010) Seismic hazards and water supply performance. J Earthquake Eng, Taylor and Francis, 14(7):1022–1043Google Scholar
  20. Sadowski A, Lau SSY, Mahtab-uz-Zaman QM (2000) Megacities: trends and issues towards sustainable urban development. Megacities Background Paper, http://mc2000.arch.hku.hk/Megacities2000.pdf, 3 Jan 2010
  21. Scawthorn CR (2008) Fire following earthquake. ShakeOut Scenario supplement study prepared for United States Geologic Survey and California Geologic Survey, http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/shakeout/fire.pdf
  22. Southern California Association of Governments (2009) Census data, http://scag.ca.gov/census/index.htm, 3 Jan 2010
  23. United Nations (2008) World urbanization prospects. The 2007 revision, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. United States Census Bureau (2000), United States Census 2000, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geotechnical EngineeringLos Angeles Department of Water and PowerLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Center on Megacities, University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations