green infrastructure for disaster resilience: exploring
TRANSCRIPT
Green Infrastructure for Disaster Resilience: Exploring Connections with Scenario PlanningThomas Hilde
Levin Research Day
24 August 2017
Problem: Limited connection between disaster resilience and green infrastructure planning
Hazard Mitigation Green Infrastructure
Emergency Management Land Use & Environmental Planning
Green Infrastructure: Growing importance in community planning
“interconnected network of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.”
“ecological framework for environmental, social, and economic health – in short, our natural life-support system.”
- Benedict & McMahon (2012)
Dis
aste
r R
esili
ence
Dissertation objective
Draw a stronger connection between green infrastructure and disaster resilience in community planning using innovative scenario-based planning techniques and integrated planning support tools
Scenario Planning:The state of the art in sustainable community planning
Planning Support Systems: Modeling urbanization & impacts
Geographic Information Systems
Urbanization Scenarios & Sustainability Outcomes
Hazard Scenarios & Disaster Impacts
Case Study: Austin, TexasThe heart of flash flood alley
Embedded Units of Analysis:Onion Creek and Gilleland Creek
Onion Creek
“100 year” flood events in 1998, 2001, 2013, 2015
$175 M in housing buyouts over the past 15 years
GillelandCreek:In the context of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
Historical Counterfactual Scenarios
RQ1. Examined retrospectively, can revisiting past disasters help demonstrate missed opportunities for improving resilience through green infrastructure planning approaches?
Envision Tomorrow Hazus
Exploratory Scenarios
RQ2. Examined prospectively, can modeling plausible future disasters help inform long-term green infrastructure planning approaches for community resilience?
Envision Tomorrow Hazus
Semi-Structured Interviews:Supporting the scenario-based analysis with qualitative information
Discipline/Role Sector Planning Information
1 Developer/Builder Private Consumer
2 Watershed Planner Public Producer/Consumer
3 Environmental Program Manager Public Producer/Consumer
4 Environmental Planner Private Producer/Consumer
5 Sustainability Director Public Producer/Consumer
6 GIS Practitioner Private Producer/Consumer
7 Urban Forester Public Consumer/Producer
8 Landscape Architect Private Consumer
9 Parks Fundraiser Non-Profit Consumer
ET-HazusCrosswalk, part 1:Translating from Aggregate to Building-Level Point Data
ET-HazusCrosswalk, part 2: Translating ET outputs into Hazusinputs
Development Type OccupancyNumStories
FoundationType
FirstFloorHt
BldgType BldgValue*DesignL
evelArea**
Onion Creek Single Family RES1 1 7 WOOD 224 3 3
Onion Creek Mobile Home RES2 1 7MANUFHO
USING71 3 2
Onion Creek Duplex RES3A 2 7 WOOD 311 3 4
Onion Creek Large Lot SF RES1 1 7 WOOD 335 3 5
Onion Creek Quadplex RES3B 2 7 WOOD 735 3 6
Onion Creek Apartment/Condo RES3D 3 7 WOOD 2,271 3 19
Onion Creek Large Format Retail COM1 1 7 STEEL 3,248 3 29
Onion Creek Low Rise Office COM4 1 7 STEEL 16,693 3 71
Onion Creek Industrial IND2 1 7 STEEL 6,464 3 60
Onion Creek Civic and Education GOV1 1 7 MASONRY 16,457 3 88
Whisper Valley SFD-Low RES1 2 7 WOOD 222 3 3
Whisper Valley SFD-Med RES1 1 7 WOOD 162 3 2
Whisper Valley SFD-High RES1 2 7 WOOD 149 3 2
Whisper Valley Townhomes RES3D 2 7 WOOD 1,470 3 15
Whisper Valley Apartments RES3D 2 7 WOOD 2,852 3 24
Lifestyle Retail COM1 1 7 WOOD 2,672 3 18
T4MS Main Street COM1 3 7 WOOD 3,312 3 19
Low Rise Office COM4 1 7 WOOD 4,856 3 21
Office 3:1 FAR COM4 5 7 STEEL 17,293 3 111
Retail 2:1 FAR COM1 3 7 WOOD 6,764 3 39
Elevated SFD-Med RES1 2 1 10 WOOD 341 3 5Elevated SFD-High RES1 2 1 10 WOOD 192 3 3Elevated Townhomes RES3C 2 1 10 WOOD 1,437 3 18Elevated Apartments RES3D 2 1 10 STEEL 2,871 3 32
*replacement cost in
thousands
**Sq Ft in thousand
s
Results
Onion Creek:‘As Built’ Baseline Scenario
Onion Creek:Green Infrastructure Network Scenario
Onion Creek:Flood Impacts
Indicator As BuiltStructural Mitigation
Riparian Conservation
GI Network
Total Buildings 14,309 +4% -11% -22%
Buildings Damaged 2,140 -31% -78% -96%
Average Building Damage % 60% -33% -31% -57%
Average Content Damage % 63% -47% -27% -51%
Total Building Loss $344M -38% -85% -92%
Total Content Loss $241M -51% -86% -93%
Total Inventory Loss $27M -35% -68% -94%
Total Losses $613M -42% -85% -92%
Onion Creek:SelectSustainability Outcomes
Indicator As BuiltStructural Mitigation
Riparian Conservation
GI Network
Parkland & Open Space Acres per 1,000 residents
69 - +95% +191%
New Impervious Acres 3,194 -1% -14% -29%Average Owner Size (SqFt) 2,518 -5% -12% -28%Annual Household Income Needed to Afford Housing
$62,500 +4% -3% -11%
Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 0.91 -1% +1% +4%Improvement Value per SqFt $98 +5% +8% +38%Property Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre
$3,680 +6% +23% +34%
Sales Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre $1,050 +3% +108% +81%Parking Spaces 106,820 +2% -9% -9%Parking Cost $600M +27% -9% -15%
New Road Cost $793M -2% -18% -43%
Building Carbon Emissions (Tons/Yr) 17 -1% -6% -14%
Landscaping Water Use (G/Day) 241 -8% -22% -52%Per Housing Unit Residential VMT 24 +0.1% -3% -6%
GillelandCreek:‘As Planned’ Baseline Scenario
Gilleland Creek:Green Infrastructure Network Scenario
Gilleland Creek:Flood Impacts
Indicator As PlannedStructural Mitigation
Riparian Conservation
GI Network
100-year Flood
Total Buildings 7,996 - +5% -23%
Buildings Damaged 21 -67% -86% -100%
Average Building Damage % 17.7% +2% -14% -100%
Average Content Damage % 21.4% +6% -14% -100%
Total Building Loss $2.1M -25% -96% -100%
Total Content Loss $2.6M -12% -98% -100%
Total Losses $4.7M -18% -97% -100%
500-year Flood
Total Buildings 7,996 - +5% -23%
Buildings Damaged 32 -63% -91% -100%
Average Building Damage % 18.0% -1% +37% -100%
Average Content Damage % 22.1% -2% +27% -100%
Total Building Loss $3.2M -24% -96% -100%
Total Content Loss $4.0M -12% -98% -100%
Total Losses $7.2M -17% -97% -100%
Gilleland Creek:Select Sustainability Outcomes
IndicatorAs
PlannedStructural Mitigation
Riparian Conservation
GI Network
Parkland & Open Space Acres per 1,000 residents
111 -1% 39% 102%
New Impervious Acres 1,361 - -6% -22%Average Owner Size (SqFt) 1,788 -1% -4% -16%Annual Household Income Needed to Afford Housing
$58,440 - -3% -7%
Jobs-to-Housing Ratio 0.68 -1% - -1%Improvement Value per SqFt $122 - 1% 7%Property Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre
$7,810 1% 8% 36%
Sales Tax Revenue ($/year) per acre $5,960 - 12% 43%
Parking Spaces 53,550 1% - -4%
Parking Cost $400M 5% -1% -
New Road Cost $295M - -10% -27%
Building Carbon Emissions (Tons/Yr) 14 - - -10%
Landscaping Water Use (G/Day) 91 -1% -10% -31%
Per Housing Unit Residential VMT 22 - 1% -4%
Contributions
Methodological Innovation: First analysis of its kind to integrate disaster loss estimation into community planning at building-level resolution
Research provides a roadmap for programming a streamlined tool for participatory applications
Theoretical contribution: A new application of historical counterfactual and exploratory scenarios in community planning
Practical contribution: An opportunity to make connections between green infrastructure and resilience interests within local community planning, with potential participatory and policy applications
Future Research
Next step: In-depth follow up interviews with stakeholders to discuss further strengths and limitations of the information and how it is presented in a participatory setting
Partnership with a programmer to streamline and automate the ET-Hazus crosswalk
Incorporate hurricane wind and storm surge models to expand the possible applications
Big picture: Lays the groundwork for a comprehensive green infrastructure planning tool
Thank you!