ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT GUIDEBOOK
2010; Wiley; Volume: 1196; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05324.x
ISSN1749-6632
AutoresDavid C. Major, Megan O’Grady,
Tópico(s)Disaster Management and Resilience
ResumoCynthia Rosenzweig (Co-chair), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) and Columbia University Earth Institute, Center for Climate Systems Research (Columbia EI CCSR) William Solecki (Co-chair), City University of New York, CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities (CUNY CISC) Reginald Blake, CUNY, New York City College of Technology Malcolm Bowman, SUNY, Stony Brook Andrew Castaldi, Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation, represented by Megan Linkin Craig Faris, Accenture Vivien Gornitz, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Klaus Jacob, Columbia Earth Institute Alice LeBlanc, Consultant Robin Leichenko, Rutgers University Edna Sussman, SussmanADR, LCC Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University Rae Zimmerman, New York University Megan O’Grady (Project Manager), Columbia EI CCSR Lesley Patrick (Project Manager), CUNY CISC David Major (Lead, Adaptation Planning), Columbia EI CCSR Radley Horton (Lead, Climate Science), Columbia EI CCSR/NASA GISS Daniel Bader, Columbia EI CCSR Richard Goldberg, Columbia EI CCSR Michael Brady, CUNY CISC Brian Thomas, Sustainability Communications Adam Freed, Deputy Director Aaron Koch, Policy Advisor ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT GUIDEBOOK New York City Panel on Climate Change David C. Major and Megan O’Grady were the lead authors for the writing and preparation of the AAG. Additionally, David C. Major led the Adaptation Assessment group creating the approach embodied in this document, and Megan O’Grady provided substantial content and served as the NPCC's main liaison to the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. Radley Horton, Daniel Bader, Gabe Cowles and Samantha Roberts also served as editors. We thank Adam Freed of the Mayor's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability for his contributions as Director of the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The Boston Consulting Group provided valuable expertise in bridging the worlds of science and stakeholders. We would also like to express sincere gratitude to Nancy Beller-Simms for her expert review. The information in this document reflects the views and opinions of the New York City Panel on Climate Change and not the City of New York. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 235 1. CLIMATE CHANGE & NEW YORK CITY 237 2. ADAPTATION AS A RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUE 239 3. ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT GUIDEBOOK 245 Step 1. Identify current and future climate hazards 247 Step 2. Conduct inventory of infrastructure and assets 248 Step 3. Characterize risk of climate change on infrastructure 251 Step 4. Develop initial adaptation strategies 255 Step 5. Identify opportunities for coordination 260 Step 6. Link strategies to capital and rehabilitation cycles 261 Step 7. Prepare and implement Adaptation Plans 262 Step 8. Monitor and reassess 263 4. ANNEXES 265 A. Infrastructure Questionnaires 267 Communications 268 Energy 270 Transportation 272 Water and Waste 274 Policy 276 B. The National Research Council's 2009 Report, Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate, and its relation to climate change adaptation in New York City 277 C. Other adaptation reports: summaries and links 279 5. GLOSSARY & ABBREVIATIONS 287 6. REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING 291 The Adaptation Assessment Guidebook (AAG) lays out a multi-step process to help stakeholders create an inventory of their at-risk infrastructure and develop adaptation strategies to address those identified risks. The steps outlined in this document are designed to be incorporated into the risk management, maintenance and operations, and capital planning processes of the agencies and organizations that manage and operate critical infrastructure. These steps are discussed in detail throughout the guidebook. The eight Adaptation Assessment Steps are: Identify current and future climate hazards Conduct inventory of infrastructure and assets Characterize risk of climate change on infrastructure Develop initial adaptation strategies Identify opportunities for coordination Link strategies to capital and rehabilitation cycles Prepare and implement adaptation plans Monitor and reassess The adaptation assessment steps have been developed in substantial part through work conducted by Columbia University and New York City and regional agencies in the last decade.11 Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2001; Rosenzweig et al., 2007; Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2007; NYCDEP 2008. Similar approaches can be found in many of the documents described in Annex C, “Other adaptation reports: summaries and links.” The New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) frames climate change adaptation as an extension of risk management planning because it involves multiple layers of uncertainty. Traditionally, risk management has been used as a mechanism for planning in the face of uncertainties, especially in fields such as financial planning. More recently, risk management has begun to appear as a way to encourage planning for adaptations to climate change. There are at least three layers of uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning: Climate-related uncertainties Climate impact uncertainties Uncertainties surrounding developing and implementing adaptation strategies To accompany the adaptation assessment steps, the AAG contains tools developed for the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force by the NPCC in collaboration with the City. These are designed to help stakeholders identify critical infrastructure at risk from a changing climate, characterize the risks, and develop and prioritize adaptation strategies. They are: Infrastructure Questionnaires (IQ) Sector-specific questionnaires to guide stakeholders in initiating their assessment process and in beginning to create an inventory of their infrastructure at risk to climate change impacts. Risk Matrix (RM) Tool to help stakeholders categorize their lists of at-risk infrastructure based on the probability of the climate hazard, likelihood of impact, and magnitude of consequence. Prioritization Framework (PF) Framing tool to assist stakeholders in developing and prioritizing adaptation strategies based on selected criteria. For each adaptation step, the Guidebook includes a description of how the principles set out in the document have been utilitized in practice by the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. In this way, the Guidebook provides not only the fundamental principles of adaptation planning, but also the basis for continuing improvements in planning as stakeholders become more experienced in the development of adaptation plans. In addition, the Guidebook includes three annexes: the Infrastructure Questionnaires for different sectors; the treatment of the New York City experience in a recent National Resource Council report; and links to other adaptation reports. Convened by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the NPCC advises the Mayor on issues related to climate change and adaptation. Made up of climate change and impacts scientists, legal, and insurance and risk management experts, the NPCC is modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Among its ongoing activities, the NPCC developed climate change projections for New York City; created this set of workbooks (Appendices A, B and C) to assist the City's Climate Change Adaptation Task Force; and drafted this report on the effects of climate change on New York City—similar to the IPCC reports on global climate change. The NPCC is chaired by Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute's Center for Climate Systems Research, and Dr. William Solecki of CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities at Hunter College. The NPCC is funded through a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation fosters innovative solutions to many of the world's most pressing challenges, affirming its mission, since 1913, to “promote the well-being” of humanity. Today, the Foundation works to ensure that more people can tap into the benefits of globalization while strengthening resilience to its risks. Foundation initiatives include efforts to mobilize an agricultural revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa, bolster economic security for American workers, inform equitable, sustainable transportation policies in the United States, ensure access to affordable and high-quality health systems in developing countries, and develop strategies and services that help vulnerable communities cope with the impacts of climate change. For more information, please visit http://www.rockfound.org. Global mean temperatures and sea levels have been increasing for the last century, accompanied by other changes in the earth's climate. As these trends continue, climate change and its impacts are increasingly being recognized as a major concern both globally and in specific regions such as New York City. An international panel of leading climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide objective and up-to-date information regarding the changing climate. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the IPCC states that there is a greater than 90% chance that rising global temperatures, observed since 1750, are primarily due to human activities (IPCC 2007a, 2008). As had been predicted in the 19th century, the principal driver of climate change over the past century has been increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases associated with fossil fuel combustion, changing land use practices, and other human activities. Atmospheric concentrations of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) are now more than one-third higher than in pre-industrial times. Concentrations of other important greenhouse gases, including methane (CH4), ozone (O3) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased as well. Largely as a result of work done by the IPCC and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), efforts to mitigate the severity of climate change by limiting levels of greenhouse gas emissions are underway globally. Because of greenhouse gas forcing mechanisms already in the climate and the long timeframe of some climate system processes, awareness is growing that some impacts from climate change are inevitable. Responses to climate change have grown beyond a focus on mitigation to include adaptation measures in an effort to minimize the impacts of climate change already underway and to prepare for unavoidable future impacts. To respond to climate changes in New York City and accomplish the goals outlined in PlaNYC, the City's comprehensive plan to create a greener, more sustainable city, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation, convened the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) in August 2008. The NPCC, which consists of climate change and impacts scientists, and legal, insurance and risk management experts, serves as the technical advisory body for the Mayor and the New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force (the “Task Force”) on issues related to climate change, impacts and adaptation. The Task Force was also launched in August 2008 to identify climate change risks and opportunities for the city's critical infrastructure and to develop coordinated adaptation strategies. The Task Force consists of approximately 40 city, state and federal agencies, regional public authorities and private companies that operate, maintain or regulate critical infrastructure in the region. In the Task Force's work, critical infrastructure is defined as systems and assets (excluding residential and commercial buildings, handled by other city efforts) that support activities that are so vital to the city that the diminished function or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on public safety and/or economic security. The NPCC was charged with creating three workbooks (Appendices A through C of this volume) to guide Task Force members through the process of identifying climate risks to their critical infrastructure, creating adaptation plans, and considering the regulatory environment as it pertains to climate change adaptation. The Climate Risk Information (CRI) workbook provides a summary of climate data and projections for New York City and identifies potential risks to the City's critical infrastructure posed by climate change. This Adaptation Assessment Guidebook (AAG) guides stakeholder consideration of the climate information presented in the CRI in their risk management and planning processes. The Climate Protection Levels (CPL) report evaluates some of the policies, rules and regulations that govern infrastructure to determine how they could be affected by climate change. Climate change adaptation is defined by the IPCC as “initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects” (IPCC, 2007b). Climate change adaptation is an iterative process with various elements of uncertainty at each stage. Because of these multiple layers of uncertainty, the NPCC considers climate change adaptation a risk management issue and suggests the most effective adaptation strategies are those that allow for flexibility over time, referred to by the NPCC as “Flexible Adaptation Pathways” (adapted from City of London, see Definitions and Terms, Section 2). The NPCC frames climate change adaptation as an extension of risk management planning because of multiple layers of uncertainty related to climate change. Traditionally, risk management has been used to plan for uncertainties, especially in fields such as financial planning. More recently risk management has begun to appear as a way to encourage planning for adaptations to climate change. There are at least three layers of uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning: Climate-related uncertainties Climate impact uncertainties Uncertainties surrounding developing and implementing adaptation strategies These are each discussed in more detail in the Definitions and Terms section. Other types of uncertainties should be considered as necessary for particular situations. The NPCC also encourages development of flexible strategies, or “Flexible Adaptation Pathways,” for climate adaptation that can change over time as understanding of climate change science, impacts, technology and public risk tolerance evolve. This flexible approach provides a useful way to monitor climate risks and adaptation strategies, and alter responses as needed. Planning in this manner also allows for continued adjustment as understanding of risks advances. The Adaptation Assessment Guidebook (AAG) lays out a multi-step process to help stakeholders identify at-risk infrastructure and develop adaptation strategies to address those risks (Figure 1). The steps outlined in this document are designed to be incorporated into the risk management, maintenance and operations, and capital planning processes of the agencies and organizations that manage and operate critical infrastructure. These steps are discussed in detail throughout Section 3. Adaptation Assessment Steps The Adaptation Assessment steps are intended to be general enough to be useful for a range of jurisdictions and infrastructure sectors, yet specific enough to serve as the template for developing and implementing a sector's adaptation efforts. The guidebook may be used to assist in climate change adaptation in any urban area, with region-specific adjustments related to climate risk information, critical infrastructure, and protection levels. The eight Adaptation Assessment Steps (shown graphically in Figure 1) are: Identify current and future climate hazards Conduct inventory of infrastructure and assets Characterize risk of climate change on infrastructure Develop initial adaptation strategies Identify opportunities for coordination Link strategies to capital and rehabilitation cycles Prepare and implement adaptation plans Monitor and reassess These adaptation assessment steps have been developed in substantial part through work conducted by Columbia University and City and regional agencies in the last decade (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2001; Rosenzweig et al., 2007; Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2007; NYCDEP 2008). Similar approaches can be found in many of the documents described in Annex C, “Other adaptation reports: summaries and links.” The steps reflect the fundamental nature of adaptation planning, which is in principle a highly complex, multidimensional optimization problem. They are designed to enable stakeholders to adapt to climate change in practice, while at the same time staying within a suitable conceptual framework. The application of the steps described in this document primarily reflects their use in New York City, but they are designed to be broadly applicable to climate change adaptation in many jurisdictions. The AAG describes three tools developed for the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force by the NPCC in collaboration with the City to help stakeholders identify critical infrastructure at-risk from a changing climate, characterize the risks, and develop and prioritize adaptation strategies. These are: Infrastructure Questionnaires (IQ) Sector-specific questionnaires (Annex A) to guide stakeholders in initiating their inventory and risk assessment process and creating an inventory of their at-risk infrastructure. In the Task Force's work, these are called Risk Assessment Questionnaires; the more general name Infrastructure Questionnaires is used here, to reflect the fact that in many jurisdictions planning will start with a comprehensive infrastructure inventory and then move to risk assessment. Risk Matrix (RM) A tool to help stakeholders categorize risks based on the probability of the climate hazard, likelihood of an impact, and the magnitude of consequence should the impact occur. Prioritization Framework (PF) A framing tool to assist stakeholders in developing and prioritizing adaptation strategies based on selected criteria. Together with the adaptation steps, these process-based tools provide the foundation for the development of climate change adaptation plans for critical infrastructure in New York City. Climate change adaptation has been defined by the IPCC as: “Initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects. Various types of adaptation exist, e.g. anticipatory and reactive, private and public, and autonomous and planned” (IPCC, 2007b). The New York City Panel on Climate Change uses a more specific definition of adaptation, considering the changes made to maintenance or operations, capital investments, and policies that will minimize the potential consequences that climate change could have on New York City's critical infrastructure. The NPCC also considers specific adaptation elements such as time frame of impacts, risk thresholds, efficacy, and the persistence of impacts. Generally the NPCC defines risk as a product of the likelihood of an event occurring (typically expressed as a probability) and the magnitude of consequences should that event occur. The CRI provides estimates of the likelihood of occurrence of projected climate changes, along with a general description of the types of potential consequences for New York City's infrastructure. It also lays the foundation for the climate risks developed with further consideration of consequences in the AAG. The AAG provides a framework for combining the CRI's climate hazards with elements including an impact's magnitude, timing, importance of the system(s) at risk, and potential of reversibility. Assessments of risk can include the potential for adaptation to an impact, the distribution of an impact across a region and the importance of the system being affected. These risk estimates are improved as additional information becomes available. When assessing climate change impacts and adaptation strategies, multiple layers of uncertainty must be considered. The first layer deals with uncertainties in the climate projections. At the global scale these uncertainties take the form of uncertainties as to future greenhouse gas concentrations and uncertainties as to how sensitive the climate system will be to greenhouse gas concentrations and other climate drivers. At the local and regional scales, uncertainties are further increased by climate variability and changes in local physical processes that may not be fully captured by the global climate models used to make projections. (See the CRI for further information on climate hazard-related uncertainties.) The second layer is the uncertainty relating to whether and how the climate hazard will impact infrastructure. Examining how climate hazards currently impact infrastructure is a starting point, but it is uncertain if the increasing hazard will cause significant damage to the infrastructure, or what new impacts will be experienced. A question to consider is whether there are triggers or thresholds up to which infrastructure can withstand a certain hazard. In some situations, hazards may begin to have impacts not previously experienced. Additionally, climate change may have some positive benefits on infrastructure which also need to be considered. This layer of uncertainty is associated with the magnitude of consequence of various levels of impact. Generally, infrastructure is designed to withstand some level of impact or environmental stress; if that threshold is crossed, it may be challenging to estimate the magnitude of the consequences. Factors which add to this layer of uncertainty include, but are not limited to, the interconnectedness of many systems, timing of the impact, backup systems, and warning before impact. The third layer of uncertainty is related to developing adaptation strategies. Strategy feasibility will depend on external circumstances such as, but not limited to, economic growth and budgets, population growth, new technologies, and best practices from other cities which might influence strategy designs. None of these uncertainties can be eliminated completely, so stakeholders need to consider climate change adaptation as an extension of risk management planning practices and scenarios. It may also be necessary to consider layers of uncertainty other than those listed that are particular to a given situation. The term Flexible Adaptation Pathways describes an overall approach to developing effective climate change adaptation strategies for a region under conditions of increasing risk (Figure 2).22 This concept has been adapted from the City of London work on climate change adaptation, in particular work done by the TE2100 project and published in “The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan”, April 2009: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx Flexible Adaptation Pathways are not fixed; they are ones in which adaptations are defined in terms of acceptable risk levels, and re-evaluated over time, rather than using an approach that sets inflexible standards for adaptation early in the process. More permanent, inflexible approaches are likely to be costlier and less effective ways of implementing adaptations for the dynamic and on-going climate change conditions projected than are Flexible Adaptation Pathways. Flexible Adaptation Pathways Graphic adapted from: Lowe, J., T. Reeder, K. Horsburgh, and V. Bell. “Using the new TE2100 science scenarios.” UK Environment Agency. Throughout time, climate hazard-related standards such as those discussed in the CPL are maintained under a society's “acceptable level of risk” (represented by the light blue wavy line in Figure 2). While it is difficult to quantify society's acceptable level of risk, especially around areas of high uncertainty, it is easy to identify certain things that would be perceived as not acceptable, such as allowing the New York City subway system to flood very frequently. Society's acceptable level of risk is also likely to change over time. For instance, it is likely to be lower after an extreme event such as a hurricane. The light blue line in Figure 2 is wavy in order to reflect these varying factors. The royal blue line depicts a trajectory maintaining status quo with emissions, climate change risks and adaptation policies. The orange line represents a future, even with mitigated emissions, of a one-time static or inflexible adaptation. While this is better than maintaining the status quo, this trajectory would still eventually result in crossing into an unacceptable level of risk. The yellow and green lines depict Flexible Adaptation Pathways. The yellow line represents a future where adaptation measures are considered, but no mitigation is accomplished. The green line is an ideal in terms of risk management, creating Flexible Adaptation Pathways to adaptation alongside emission mitigation. This trajectory allows policymakers, stakeholders, and experts to develop and implement strategies that evolve as climate change progresses. Activities that can help to develop Flexible Adaptation Pathways include ongoing and regular updates to improve understanding of: 1) current and future climate hazards, 2) regulations and design standards, and 3) adaptation strategies. Specific examples of Flexible Adaptation Pathways are building a sea wall with a strong enough foundation to support an addition of a higher wall at a later period, depending on rates of sea level rise; or purchasing inland property in the event moving infrastructure away from a flood zone becomes necessary. Workbooks such as these developed by the NPCC can contribute to the achievement of such flexible pathways. Monitoring and reassessment of climate science, adaptation strategies and policies are critical so that responses to the evolving risks of climate change can be adjusted effectively. The New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force (“the Task Force”) utilized the steps outlined in the AAG in a multi-tiered eighteen-month process. Throughout the guidebook the activities of the Task Force are presented to illustrate how the AAG process was implemented in New York City Within the Task Force four working groups were created that represented the broad categories of infrastructure included in its scope: Communications, Energy, Transportation, and Water and Waste. In addition, a Policy Working Group was convened to review the codes, rules, and regulations that govern infrastructure in New York City and to identify those that may need to be changed or created to account for climate change. Each working group provided a forum within which stakeholders could identify common vulnerabilities, share best practices, take advantage of potential synergies, and develop coordinated adaptation plans. The Water and Waste Working Group includes agencies that handle the City's solid waste and wastewater as well as those entities responsible for the city's natural environment and significant portions of the city's waterfront properties. The Adaptation Assessment Guidebook (AAG) is designed to be used as a starting point for adaptation planning. The AAG provides the basis for operators and owners of infrastructure to incorporate climate change in their decision processes. It is intended to be a general roadmap for stakeholders to systematically assess the potential impacts of climate change on infrastructure and to develop adaptation strategies. The Adaptation Assessment steps can be adjusted to fit the specific needs, structure, and timing of different agencies, organizations and jurisdictions. An effective adaptation assessment framework has to be broad enough to address a wide variety of infrastructure and the differing missions of stakeholders, yet specific enough to produce consistent categorizations of risks and strategies. The AAG is designed to be used in conjunction with the Climate Risk Information (CRI) workbook, which describes current climate trends and future projections for the New York City region, and the Climate Protection Levels (CPL) workbook, which describes how climate change may affect regulations and approaches to design standards for adaptation. Use of all three workbooks in adaptation planning provides a comprehensive approach to climate hazards, impacts, adaptations and policy. Table 1 outlines the eight Adaptation Assessment Steps that infrastructure operators and managers should follow to assess how climate change could impact their infrastructure and to develop adaptation plans to cope with those impacts. Table 1 also suggests the NPCC resources relevant to each step. Each step is discussed in detail in this Section. The steps are designed to be incorporated into general planning and operations within an organization so that climate hazards are considered in all capital projects, repairs, and operations. Climate change adaptation strategies must also be monitored and reassessed on a regular basis to ensure that they are responsive to developments in climate science, materials science, technology, and policies. The first step in creating an adaptation plan is to identify the potential impacts of climate change. Localized or regional climate change scenarios, such as those included in the Climate Risk Information (CRI, Appendix A), are an ideal component of this, providing stakeholders with a science-based understanding of their risks and the uncertainties involved. Another important component in planning is the examination of the environmental stressors that currently affect infrastructure and operations. Using the information from existing stressors and climate risks
Referência(s)