Moving Forward with (Coastal) Design and Management

1. Moving Forward with (Coastal) Design and Management J. W. Kamphuis Queen’s University Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 kamphuis@civil.queensu.ca 2009 CSCE-ASCE-ICE Triennial Conference, St John’s Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

2. Conference Statement International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world’s organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought. Royal Society, London, UK Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

3. ☺ Some Compelling Evidence Thank you Susan Torrence, Quilter Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

4. ☺ Communicative Intermission We'll rant and we'll roar like true Newfoundlanders We'll rant and we'll roar on deck and below Until we strikes bottom inside the two sunkers When straight through the channel to Toslow we'll go Courtesy Great Big Sea Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

5. ☺ We Face • Very Largechanges in design conditions (sea levels, global weather patterns, higher population concentrations) • Very Largechanges in design concepts (failure, living with failure, resilience) • Very largechanges in social context (decision making – participatory democracy) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

6. But… • With some careful thought • Discarding some “Accepted” Values • With some innovation We can move forward Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

7. Companion Paper Moving forward with (Coastal) Practice and Education J. W. Kamphuis Queen’s University Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 kamphuis@civil.queensu.ca CSCE Meeting St John’s, May 2009 Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

8. Outline of this Presentation • The System • Contemporary Decision Making • Failure • Resilience • Introducing Resilience • Moving Forward • Addenda are not presented; the complete presentation will be on www.civil.queensu.ca NEW ! ? Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

9. 1. The System (As we should design it) (Details in Addendum 1) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

10. Hi-Ya ! Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

11. The System Loading - Water Levels, Waves Resistance - Structures + Environment (PES) Base of Support -Governments, Economy, Stakeholders(SES) PES – Physico-Environmental Subsystem SES – Socio-Economic Subsystem Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

12. The System • The system = PES + SES • Not just any combination of PES and SES; SES must form the Base of Support for the PES PES PES + SES SES PES – Physico-Environmental Subsystem SES – Socio-Economic Subsystem Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

13. 2. ContemporaryDecision Making Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

14. Contemporary Decision Making • Contemporary:Based on Democratic Principles; relevant to countries with democratic governance, e.g. Canada, US, EU. There are still many jurisdictions with different (often simpler) rules and processes, based on their particular cultures. • Decision Making:Can refer to projects that are basicallynon-engineering(e.g. studies, policy formulation, ICM strategies) or toengineeringprojects, involving design of works. Emphasis in this presentation will be on the more difficult and controversial engineering design projects. Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

15. Coastal Issue Decision Makers Coastal Engineers Project Formulation Coastal Scientists Project Design Implementation Early Decision Making (Used Ad hoc) All early projects were essentially design projects Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

16. Contemporary Decision Making Regulation ????? Government Coastal Project Management Coastal Issue Law Coastal Engineers Decision Makers Knowledge Physics Coastal Scientists Problem Formulation Chemistry Theoretical and Empirical Relationships Biology Alternatives Geology Others Modelling (uncertainties) Approvals Public Input Implementation Judgment Governments Non-Gov’t Orgs Monitoring Solution Interest Groups Socio-Economic Input from Stakeholders Citizens Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

17. Contemporary Decision Making SES Government Stakeholders Public Resilience Knowledge PES System Design Definitions Requirements Opportunities Design Concepts Engineering Projects Design Pre-Design - Decision Timeline Communication Decision Makers (often Government) Resilient System Resilient System Difficult Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

18. Contemporary Decision Making SES Government Stakeholders Public Project Completion Project Initiation Project Development Policy Formulation, ICM, etc. - Decision Timeline Communication Decision Makers (often Government) Resilient System Resilient System Still Difficult Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

19. Contemporary Decision Making Notes on Coastal Project Management (CPM) • Coastal Project Management iscentral to success of a project • Communication skills arevital. • Coastal Engineers arenot well trained in communication and usually not very much involved in social issues; therefore they are not properly prepared to take on the whole CPM portfolio. • Coastal Managers also arenot trained to manage the whole CPM portfolio, particularly technical aspects. • So ??? Let’s get this right ! Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

20. 3. Failure Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

21. Failure Here is What Happen can, does, may be predicted to ??? Failure Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

22. Failure Loading Resistance (PES) Base of Support (SES) Typical Engineering Solution What to Do ? Increase the Strength of the PES (Structures) (Mitigation) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

23. Failure Loading Resistance (PES) Base of Support (SES) What Else ? • Rethink “Failure” • Livewith Failure. This means building Resilience into the System(PES + SES) (Adaptation) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

24. Failure Rethinking Failure • We have traditionally defined failure in a narrow probabilistic sense by the limit state equation (as for the structures). • When the loading exceeds the structural resistance (strength) we have Failure • Design Criterion: Probability of Failure (PF) as low as possible Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

25. Failure Rethinking Failure • New Definitions: • R≤S is not Failure • Call R≤S“PES Failure” • (Real) Failure is when SES cannot bear the consequences (damage, $, deaths, etc) • Designing for real failure involves the concept of “Living with(PES) Failure” Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

26. Failure Living with PES Failure • InvolvesResilience • Simpledefinition: What is the potential of the system (PES + SES) for recovery from damage after PES Failure? • Inpractical contextresilience is difficult to define. It is regularly definedincorrectly • More in Section 4 “Resilience” Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

27. Failure Risk • Along with probability of failure PF , we must now consider the consequence of PES failure • This has introduced a new design criterion:Minimum Risk. • Definition: • R = ∑ PF * C • R = Risk, • C= Consequence of PES Failure Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

28. Risk Caveats on Risk • The methodology of designing for minimum risk for a system (consisting of PES + SES), was simply andwithout much thoughttransferred from structural design. • It is useful for design of structures where PF and C refer to the same (limited scope) structures. Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

29. Risk Caveats • But there are Problems using Risk as a design criterion for a complete system (PES+SES) ; for example: • How do you combine $ damage with lives lost? • PFis bydesign; C is mostly by historical evolutione.g. development and population growth inurban areas, often in flood prone areas. Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

30. Risk Caveats • PFconcernsindividuals for whom the consequence of a PES failure is fairly fixed - they want lowest PF; C (and R) concerns the collective (governments, communities). They want the minimum total cost. These are opposing expectations Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

31. Resilience Caveats on PF We assume we know all about PF, but do we? • PF is a statistical quantity that must be based on anappropriatedata base. • There is nodata base for direct hits by large cyclones and tsunamis at a location. • Basing PF for major disasters (but also for regular designable projects) on 100 years of (quiet) records iswrong– the wrong data base Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

32. Resilience More caveats on PF • Basing PF for major disasters on a synthesized data base can bedangerous with inappropriate and largely unverifieddata. • Using an inappropriate PF makes any design or risk analysis meaningless. • What is PF for “non-standard” design projects, such as nature reserves, designs involving impact of projects on fauna, etc? Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

33. Minimum Total Cost (Details of minimum total cost calculations are found in Addendum 2) • Since the collective (community, government) normally ends up paying for the protection and any disasters, itexpects to be able to minimize its TOTAL COST = (PES + R) • The following points stand out. Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

34. Minimum Total Cost • When risk (consequence of PES failure) is high (e.g. urban areas), the minimum total cost solution yields a low value of PF. • When risk is small (e.g. rural areas), the minimum total cost solution yields a higher value of PF • For mixed urban/rural areas, minizing the cost of PES failure unfortunately implies lower design values of PF for urban areas and higher values of PF for rural areas. • This results in very difficult stakeholder meetings, long discussions about resilience, compensation, etc. – why should one group suffer more ? Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

35. 4. Resilience Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

36. Resilience • Hot Topic • Indian Ocean Tsunami, New Orleans, Bangladesh and Burma Cyclones • Simple Definition*: Potential (of the system) to recover from damage • Opposite of fragility: little or no recovery * Diamond (2005) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

37. Resilience Why Sudden Interest? • Traditionally components of coastal systems have been designed for “suitably low PF” • But PF is often based on dubious or inappropriate statistics • Low PF may not be affordable • Thus, as recent disasters show, failure, even for low design PF, does happen. Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

38. Resilience Other Concerns re Resilience • There are othermajorconcerns: • “Secondary” Processes (“negligible” processes such as climate change, sea level rise, subsidence, “low probability” tsunami and storm surge) • Infrastructure Concerns • Rampant and Unsafe Development • More detail inAddendum 3 Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

39. 5. Introducing Resilience Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

40. Introducing Resilience • There areThree Stagesof resilience design • Stage 1: Design of a resilient PES • Stage 2: Design of resilient government interface (explained below) • Stage 3: Design of a resilient Base of Support (SES) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

41. Introducing Resilience Difficulty Stage 1 << Stage 2 << Stage 3 Usually the only stage considered Usually not considered – thought to be too difficult Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

42. Introducing Resilience Loading Resistance (PES) Base of Support (SES) Resilience, like Rubber Stage 1: Resilient PES Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

43. Introducing Resilience Translation • Structure does not collapse and can be repaired • Ecosystem recovers from impacts • Usually the discussion on resilience stops here; resilience is mostly thought of as a technical problem ! Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

44. Stage 1 Stage 1: Design of ResilientPES • Traditionally in design of structures the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) was maximized • This criterion is no longer valid, since environmental impacts (EI) must be minimized • Instead of designing structures we must now design PES (structures + impacts) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

45. Stage 1 Design of PES • In the design of (PES), BCR and EI areequally important • Unfavorable BCR is rejected by the client • Unfavorable EI is rejected by the regulators, the public and stakeholders. Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

46. Stage 1 Design of PES • Designing a PES instead of just structures isa paradigm shiftin design philosophy. • Incorporating Resilience in the PES is: • Asecond,necessaryshift in design philosophy • Results in more costly structures • Carries large additional socio-economic costs Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

47. Example:Resilient PES for New Orleans(Presented inAddendum 4) Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

48. Introducing Resilience But We Can Do (Much) Better • Introduce resiliencethroughout the complete system (PES + SES) • Within the SES, we must consider Governments- their powers and provisions – separately from the individuals and the public: • Governments are collective; the public consists of individuals • Governments have a different focus from the rest of BOS (e.g. minimum total cost vs low PF). Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

49. Introducing Resilience • We will think of Government and its services as an interface between the PES and the (rest of) the SES Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis

50. Introducing Resilience Loading Resistance (PES) Base of Support (SES) Resilience, e.g. Rubber Stage 2: Resilient Government Interface Government Provisions Moving Forward (2) J. W. Kamphuis