A flood damage allowance framework for coastal protection with deep uncertainty in sea-level rise
Future projections of Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) mass loss remain characterized by deep uncertainty (i.e., behavior is not well understood or widely agreed upon by experts). This complicates decisions on long-lived projects involving the height of coastal flood protection strategies that seek to redu...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
arXiv
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1908.02844 https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02844 |
| Summary: | Future projections of Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) mass loss remain characterized by deep uncertainty (i.e., behavior is not well understood or widely agreed upon by experts). This complicates decisions on long-lived projects involving the height of coastal flood protection strategies that seek to reduce damages from rising sea levels. If a prescribed margin of safety does not properly account for sea-level rise and its uncertainties, the effectiveness of flood protection will decrease over time, potentially putting lives and property at greater risk. We develop a flood damage allowance framework for calculating the height of a flood protection strategy needed to ensure that a given level of financial risk is maintained (i.e., the average flood damage in a given year). The damage allowance framework considers decision-maker preferences such as planning horizons, preferred protection strategies (storm surge barrier, levee, elevation, and coastal retreat), and subjective views of AIS stability. We use Manhattan (New York City)\textemdash with the distribution of buildings, populations, and infrastructure fixed in time\textemdash as an example to show how our framework could be used to calculate a range of damage allowances based on multiple plausible AIS outcomes. Assumptions regarding future AIS stability more strongly influence damage allowances under high greenhouse gas emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 8.5) compared to those that assume strong emissions reductions (RCP2.6). Design tools that specify financial risk targets, such as the average flood damage in a given year, allow for the calculation of avoided flood damages (i.e., benefits) that can be combined with estimates of construction cost and then integrated into existing financial decision-making tools, like benefit-cost or cost-effectiveness analyses. |
|---|