Synthesizing and Integrating Regional Climate Projections into a Local Government
Framework:
CIMPACT-DST
Spencer Reeder – Cascadia Consulting Group Sascha Peterson – Adaptation International
Hilary Papendick – City of Seattle / California Coastal CommissionAmy Snover – Climate Impacts Group
The Various Roles of Decision Support Tools
National Academy of Sciences: America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (2010)
Classification of Decision Support Tools
– Guidebooks (CRiSTAL, CIG/ICLEI/King County, StormSmart Coasts)
– Climate impact maps & scenario visualization tools (CIG maps, NOAA hazard assessment tool & SLR visualizer, OSU ENVISION, COAST, NatureServe VISTA)
– Databases/Clearinghouses (Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange, WeAdapt)
– Engagement strategies & methodologies (Coast-Smart Communities, Climate Witness, Scenario Planning)
Simplifying the Process
CIMPACT-DST
What Most Decision Makers Want:
Upper Extreme
Best Estimate
Lower Extreme
Impact A
Year X, Y, Z
Key Challenge
What Science Often Produces:
Upper
Best
Lower
Impact A
Model Analysis 1
Empirical Analysis 7
Model Analysis 4
Upper
Best
Lower
Impact A
Upper
Best
Lower
Impact A
Projected Increases in Annual Temperature
2020s
2040s
2080s
°C
Compared with 1970-1999 average
Climate Impacts Group 2009, Ch. 1
+2.0ºF (1.1-3.4ºF)
+3.2ºF (1.6-5.2ºF)
+5.3ºF (2.8-9.7ºF)
°F
Choice of emissions scenario matters more after
2040s
Project Lifespan Parameter
Fast method for updating global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissionsG Myhre, K Alterskjær, and D Lowe Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009)
Global Emissions &SRES Projections
Considering Alternate Approaches: Benefits vs. Limitations of formal Scenario
Planning ApproachMajor Benefits:
• Consistent with conventional risk management approaches• Allows for an organization to explicitly “test decisions under a
variety of plausible futures.” (D. Weeks et al, Parks Science, Aug. 2011)
Major Limitations:
• Requires “availability of technical and financial capacity to handle scenario information” (S. Dessai et al, Global Environmental Change, 2005)
• Requires significant investment of time by staff
Integrating Key Factors in the CIMPACT-DST
Climate Observations & Projections
Spatial InformationState & Federal RegulationsLocal Gov’t Policies
Best Practices
Functional Overview
Primary Impacts Temperature Sea Level Rise Precipitation
Secondary Impacts Thermal Loads/Stress Erosion/Landslides Flooding Etc. ….
Type Bridge Building (new/remodel) Drainage System Electricity Distribution Park/Open Space Right-of-Way
Lifespan Up to 2030 Up to 2050 Up to 2090 Beyond 2090
Hazard Zone Flood Zone Landslide Sea Level Rise
Project Factors Climate Factors
Outputs Overview Impact Range Guidance CIMPACT-DST
Tool OverviewMenu Title Options
PROJECT TYPE • Road• Bridge• Building• Park/open space• Drainage system• Electricity distribution &
transmissionPROJECT NAME & LOCATION
• Project name• Address
Menu Title Options
CLASSIFICATION • New• Remodel/retrofit/upgrade
PROJECT/ASSET LIFESPAN • Up to 2030• Up to 2050• Up to 2090• Beyond 2090
COASTAL INUNDATION POTENTIAL
drop-down options, informed by GIS viewer
PROXIMITY TO FLOODPLAIN drop-down options, informed by GIS viewer
PROXIMITY TO LANDSLIDE HAZARD
drop-down options, informed by GIS viewer
OVERALL RISK SENSITIVITY • High• Medium• Low
Link to GIS system
Seattle Project Objectives & Status
- Deploying the tool as part of an effort to integrate climate change adaptation into capital project design
- Status:- Building internal awareness with City staff- Pilot testing with a variety of projects (e.g., bridge project)- Integrating tool into current City project design process
Last Slide
• Next Steps: – Continue to deploy tool with local governments– Examine non-infrastructure focused applications
• Acknowledgements: City of Seattle staff, Adaptation International – Sascha Peterson, Cascadia Staff - Shannon Donegan, Christy Shelton, Andrea Martin, Sidney Brown.
Contact info: [email protected]