Tiered Approach to Resilience Assessment.

Regulatory agencies have long adopted a three-tier framework for risk assessment. We build on this structure to propose a tiered approach for resilience assessment that can be integrated into the existing regulatory processes. Comprehensive approaches to assessing resilience at appropriate and operational scales, reconciling analytical complexity as needed with stakeholder needs and resources available, and ultimately creating actionable recommendations to enhance resilience are still lacking. Our proposed framework consists of tiers by which analysts can select resilience assessment and decision support tools to inform associated management actions relative to the scope and urgency of the risk and the capacity of resource managers to improve system resilience. The resilience management framework proposed is not intended to supplant either risk management or the many existing efforts of resilience quantification method development, but instead provide a guide to selecting tools that are appropriate for the given analytic need. The goal of this tiered approach is to intentionally parallel the tiered approach used in regulatory contexts so that resilience assessment might be more easily and quickly integrated into existing structures and with existing policies.

Decision making for independent municipal action.

Municipalities and cities face myriad challenges with regard to planning; decisions that will have long-standing consequences need to be made in the context of pressing present concerns, constrained budgets, and uncertainty about the future under climate changes. Compounding the challenge may be a lack of clear signals from the state and federal leadership on investment priorities. This paper contends that existing strategies from decision science can prove useful for local governments as they seek actions that are robust despite uncertain futures and broadly beneficial across sectors and time horizons. An illustrative example of decision making with scenario analysis demonstrates how a city can prioritize funding and elevate the baseline functionality of its infrastructure and the well-being of its residents, regardless of when and how climate hazards occur. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:194-197. Published 2017. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters.

Due to persistent and serious threats from natural disasters around the globe, many have turned to resilience and vulnerability research to guide disaster preparation, recovery, and adaptation decisions. In response, scholars and practitioners have put forth a variety of disaster indices, based on quantifiable metrics, to gauge levels of resilience and vulnerability. However, few indices are empirically validated using observed disaster impacts and, as a result, it is often unclear which index should be preferred for each decision at hand. Thus, we compare and empirically validate five of the top U.S. disaster indices, including three resilience indices and two vulnerability indices. We use observed disaster losses, fatalities, and disaster declarations from the southeastern United States to empirically validate each index. We find that disaster indices, though thoughtfully substantiated by literature and theoretically persuasive, are not all created equal. While four of the five indices perform as predicted in explaining damages, only three explain fatalities and only two explain disaster declarations as expected by theory. These results highlight the need for disaster indices to clearly state index objectives and structure underlying metrics to support validation of the results based on these goals. Further, policymakers should use index results carefully when developing regional policy or investing in resilience and vulnerability improvement projects.

Can Carbon Nanomaterials Improve CZTS Photovoltaic Devices? Evaluation of Performance and Impacts Using Integrated Life-Cycle Assessment and Decision Analysis.

In emergent photovoltaics, nanoscale materials hold promise for optimizing device characteristics; however, the related impacts remain uncertain, resulting in challenges to decisions on strategic investment in technology innovation. We integrate multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and life-cycle assessment (LCA) results (LCA-MCDA) as a method of incorporating values of a hypothetical federal acquisition manager into the assessment of risks and benefits of emerging photovoltaic materials. Specifically, we compare adoption of copper zinc tin sulfide (CZTS) devices with molybdenum back contacts to alternative devices employing graphite or graphene instead of molybdenum. LCA impact results are interpreted alongside benefits of substitution including cost reductions and performance improvements through application of multi-attribute utility theory. To assess the role of uncertainty we apply Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis. We find that graphene or graphite back contacts outperform molybdenum under most scenarios and assumptions. The use of decision analysis clarifies potential advantages of adopting graphite as a back contact while emphasizing the importance of mitigating conventional impacts of graphene production processes if graphene is used in emerging CZTS devices. Our research further demonstrates that a combination of LCA and MCDA increases the usability of LCA in assessing product sustainability. In particular, this approach identifies the most influential assumptions and data gaps in the analysis and the areas in which either engineering controls or further data collection may be necessary.

Life cycle assessment for dredged sediment placement strategies.

Dredging to maintain navigable waterways is important for supporting trade and economic sustainability. Dredged sediments are removed from the waterways and then must be managed in a way that meets regulatory standards and properly balances management costs and risks. Selection of a best management alternative often results in stakeholder conflict regarding tradeoffs between local environmental impacts associated with less expensive alternatives (e.g., open water placement), more expensive measures that require sediment disposal in constructed facilities far away (e.g., landfills), or beneficial uses that may be perceived as risky (e.g., beach nourishment or island creation). Current sediment-placement decisions often focus on local and immediate environmental effects from the sediment itself, ignoring a variety of distributed and long-term effects from transportation and placement activities. These extended effects have implications for climate change, resource consumption, and environmental and human health, which may be meaningful topics for many stakeholders not currently considered. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides a systematic and quantitative method for accounting for this wider range of impacts and benefits across all sediment management project stages and time horizons. This paper applies a cradle-to-use LCA to dredged-sediment placement through a comparative analysis of potential upland, open water, and containment-island placement alternatives in the Long Island Sound region of NY/CT. Results suggest that, in cases dealing with uncontaminated sediments, upland placement may be the most environmentally burdensome alternative, per ton-kilometer of placed material, due to the emissions associated with diesel fuel combustion and electricity production and consumption required for the extra handling and transportation. These results can be traded-off with the ecosystem impacts of the sediments themselves in a decision-making framework.