Working Group on Local and Spatial Considerations Packet
Table of Contents
Working Group on Local and Spatial Considerations Packet .............................................................1
Framework for SAGE Conference Working Group Discussion on Local and Spatial Considerations ....1
SAGE 2014 Workshop – Overall Working Group Protocol.................................................................3
Figure 1. Graphical framework for setting working group priorities/action items4/28/14 .............4
Working Group Members: Local and Spatial Considerations ...........................................................5
Framework for SAGE Conference Working Group Discussion on Regional/State/National Level Policy
and Governance ........................................................................................................................... 11
Framework for Physical Infrastructure Choices Working Group ..................................................... 12
Framework for SAGE Conference Working Group Discussion on Local and Spatial
Considerations
The overall goal of our network is to put forward a shared framework for better informing resilient
coastal infrastructure decisions based on physical, natural, and societal conditions. In our grant proposal
we anticipated that this resilient infrastructure framework would include understanding communities as
existing and evolving within adaptive gradients, addressing spill-over and equity effects of infrastructure
decisions, using evidence regarding the impacts of fast-onset disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tsunamis) to
improve practices and policies for chronic, slow-onset phenomena (e.g. sea level rise), and tying the
application of our theory to increasingly available indicators of climate change and local conditions. As
the project develops there will certainly be other considerations that emerge from our process.
According to the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE): "Coastal risk reduction can be achieved through a
variety of approaches, including natural or nature- based features (e.g., wetlands and dunes),
nonstructural interventions (e.g., policies, building codes and emergency response such as early warning
and evacuation plans), and structural interventions (e.g., seawalls and breakwaters)." For the purpose
of this working group, discussion about early warning or evacuation planning and similar emergency
response is beyond our scope, but local policies and building codes etc. are part of our considerations.
The particular focus of this working group this year is on understanding what factors currently underlie
the decisions that get made at the local level, as well as what in our opinion ought to be included but
perhaps tends to be ignored. Obvious examples include cost to local government, historical efficacy,
etc. Less obvious examples might be local culture and power differentials among local actors. In future
years, we will then have a base for identifying how to provide the data, work across disciplines, and
better inform decision-making to improve local choices.
1
The Infrastructure Working Group will identify ranges of infrastructure; the Policy group will work on
questions similar to ours but at the national level. In this and future years, the Spatial/Local group will
be particularly tasked with considering the equity implications of those choices particularly as they
relate to the spatial decision factors identified above.
We will use this discussion as a means of exploring the benefits and drawbacks to and interrelationships
among green, gray, and social/cultural infrastructure. We would like to determine what possible
improvements could be made for the future to help bridge the gap between professionals in the
industry regarding general awareness, technological knowledge, and design implementation.
Consider the following questions:
1) What local/spatial/community characteristics determine the kind of intervention that is selected at
the local level? In other words, what are the input parameters/variables that would go into a model for
local decision-making between different sorts of infrastructure?
1a) Which variables weigh most heavily in your particular region?.
2) We'll select five representative infrastructure actions (e.g., a sea wall, mangrove preservation, etc).
Answer the following for each of these:
2a) What aspects of community culture support or discourage that choice?
2b) What are the equity/spill-over issues that ought to be considered for that choice?
3) Does the local government have different information and expertise needs for green versus grey
versus non-structural solutions? What information is currently lacking which could aid in planning and
designing infrastructure (green or gray or non-structural)?
4) How do the local actors involved in the process of governance (state, civil society, private sector)
engage with each other to set priorities for local development and risk reduction - and what are the
implications of this for understanding and reducing risk?
5) What regulatory or other policy incentives or barriers exist that may incentivize or prevent adoption
of resilient coastal adaptation options?
6) What opportunities exist for research in this area?
7) Are there additional outside professionals or academics currently studying these issues whom we
should bring into the discussion? What are the other relevant networks on these issues for these
regions?
2
SAGE 2014 Workshop – Overall Working Group Protocol
The overall goals of the project are to establish a strongly connected Research and practice Learning
Community (RLC) of US and Caribbean engineers, geologists, ecologists, social scientists, planners and
policymakers with experience in analyzing, planning for and responding to chronic or catastrophic
events, and ultimately expand the network regionally and worldwide. The RLC will:
a. Develop a framework for resilient infrastructure policy making: The multidisciplinary
collaboration among the RLC members will identify the key policy-relevant data needed for
resilient infrastructure selection and use that information to develop the SAGE framework;
b. Organize existing data and coordinate future data collection: The development of the
framework will provide an organizing scheme for future collection of data.
c. Build a web of connections: SAGE activities will build new capacity connecting: existing
collaborative networks; researchers and policy-makers; disciplines, NGOs, universities, and
government bodies; geographic regions; all to facilitate policy-relevant research and the uptake
of research findings into NGO and State policies.
d. Identify future research themes: Working through the framework will allow us to develop the
relationships and shared understandings as well as policy insight needed to identify next-phase
research to enable resilient, sustainable coastal policy and infrastructure.
The workshop will use a working group model that will result in tangible, prioritized items for both nearterm and longer-range action by SAGE members. The implementation group will be identified after the
workshop, and may include some or all members of each working group. In the process of working
group debriefings, the workshop will also provide cross-disciplinary orientation to attendees.
Specific outcomes from this year’s workshop working groups are expected to include the following:
- Preliminary identification of the most important input data parameters for infrastructure
selection across a range of situations;
- Identify current gaps in data to characterize those parameters and allow correlations among
them;
- Initial development of key characteristics of SAGE framework;
- Publication and dissemination of workshop proceedings which set the agenda for the remaining
four years of the grant, and serve as a focal point to direct future research and action item in
this area. Anticipated title: “A Framework for Coastal Resilience: Sustainable Adaptive
Gradients and Shades of Infrastructure;”
- Work plans for the year which will result in new partnerships for future research collaboration,
development of follow-on proposals for funding, and approaches to policy diffusion and uptake.
For this year, we will organize working groups along disciplinary/interest lines. The working groups are:
- Physical infrastructure choices
- National/state level policy and governance
- Local and spatial considerations
The working groups will be asked to summarize their findings from each question in their abstract and
present these briefly to the group.
3
The working groups will use Figure 1 (below) to graphically summarize their planned initiatives/action
items. Each item should be organized by the feasibility of achieving that objective or completing that
action item (horizontal access) versus the importance or impact that that objective/item would have on
the project goal. For example, if the working group decides that a particular action item is highly
achievable in a particular timeframe, and it has high importance or impact in moving the working
group’s focus forward, that item would be placed toward the upper right of the framework in Figure 1.
Examples of action items might include “Develop an online resource library” or “Write a proposal to
World Bank program on Coastal Sustainability.”
Figure 1. Graphical framework for setting working group priorities/action items2/9/16
Manageability /Achievability
Medium
High
V high
Low
Action item
or initiative
#1
Medium
Action item
or initiative
#2
Low
Importance
High
Action item
or initiative
#3
V High
4
Working Group Members: Local and Spatial Considerations
Group Leader: David Dodman
David Dodman is a Senior Researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED) where he is team leader for institutional objectives on 'Cities and Climate Change' and 'Research
Quality'. He holds a B.Sc. in Environmental Biology and Geography from the University of St Andrews,
and a D.Phil. in Geography from the University of Oxford. Prior to joining IIED he was a Lecturer in
Geography at the University of the West Indies (Mona, Jamaica). He is the author of more than thirty
journal articles and book chapters, and the co-editor of 'Global Change and Caribbean Vulnerability:
Environment, Economy and Society at Risk' (Kingston, UWI Press) and 'Adapting Cities to Climate
Change: understanding and addressing the development challenge' (London, Earthscan). He is a College
Teaching Fellow at University College London, and a Lead Author on the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Radley Horton
Dr. Radley Horton is an Associate Research Scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at
Columbia University. Radley is a Convening Lead Author for the Third National Climate Assessment,
Northeast Chapter. He is also Deputy Lead for NASA’s Climate Adaptation Science Investigator Working
Group, charged with linking NASA’s science to its institutional stewardship. He served as the Climate
Science Lead for the New York City Panel on Climate Change, and is a a Co-Lead for the NOAA-funded
Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast. Radley is also the Columbia University lead for the
Department of Interior-funded Northeast Climate Science Center. Radley has also been a Co-leader in
the development of a global research agenda in support of the United Nations Environmental Program’s
Programme on Vulnerability, Impacts, and Adaptation (PROVIA) initiative. Radley is also a Co-PI on an
NSF funded Climate Change Education Partnership Project. Radley also teaches in Columbia University’s
Sustainable Development department.
Lorna Inniss
Lorna Inniss holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology with honors from the University of the West Indies
(UWI), a Master of Science degree in Environmental Planning and Management, as well as a Doctorate
in Oceanography and Coastal Sciences from Louisiana State University, USA. In order to facilitate her
post graduate studies, she was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship and a Fellowship from the Organisation
of American States. The Louisiana Board of Regents presented her with a Tuition Award for pursuit of
her doctorate. She also holds an honors post-graduate Diploma in Business Management from UWI.
Dr Inniss is the Acting Director of the Coastal Zone Management Unit in Barbados for the past two years,
and was the Deputy Director for the 10 years prior. She has previously held the posts of Marine Biologist
and Coastal Planner with the Unit. Her research interests include innovative coastal conservation
measures, submarine groundwater discharge in wetlands, as well as guiding risk and vulnerability
assessment activities in respect of coastal hazards.
Dr Inniss has responsibility for guiding the technical work of the Unit and developing programmes in
5
concert with Government and international donors that promote responsible ocean and coastal
stewardship. She is Chair of the Natural Sciences Committee of the Barbados National Commission for
UNESCO, and of the National Standing Committee on Coastal Hazards.
She is Barbados’s focal point to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO,
and helps to negotiate Barbados’s position with respect to global ocean and coastal management within
the United Nations system. She served as the elected Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Coordination
Group for the Caribbean Tsunamis and Coastal Hazards Warning System from 2008-2012, and is the
Joint Coordinator of a Group of Experts established by the United Nations General Assembly to deliver
the first ever Integrated Global Marine Assessment. Ongoing regional projects in which she has
participated include the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem, the Harmful Algal Blooms programme in
the Caribbean, the Caribbean component of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), the Global
Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS) and the Caribbean Marine Atlas. She is one 15 experts
chosen by UNESCO to develop guidelines for Member States to address coastal hazards in the context of
Integrated Coastal Area Management. She is currently assisting the Grenada Government in the
development of its Coastal Zone Management Policy.
Elisabeth Hamin
Elisabeth Hamin is a Professor of Regional Planning and Head of the Department of Landscape
Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts (2012-present; associate
professor 2007 – 2012; assistant professor 2001-2006). She taught at Iowa State University (1995-2001),
and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania (1997) and a Master of Management from the J.L.
Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University (1986). From 1986 - 1991 she
worked in real estate consulting and finance building and renovating office buildings and retail centers in
cities across the U.S.
Hamin’s teaching and research centers on land use and municipal and regional planning processes.
Since 2007, much of her work has been on climate change, and particularly adaptation and local
planning with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. Recent articles examine ways to build
flexibility into the adaptation implementation process; barriers to adaptation among smaller cities and
towns; and routes for overcoming those barriers. She authored the UN Habitat Climate Change Academy
module on Planning for Climate Change, and has lead students in writing local and regional climate
change plans. She was a visiting research fellow at the University of Sydney in 2007, and is on the board
of the Journal of the American Planning Association, the Urban Planning and Environment conference,
and Journal of Architecture and Planning Research. Other research is on collaboration at the regional
level for conservation of working landscapes. She wrote one and co-edited another book published by
leading academic presses. Current research is on resilient coastal infrastructure, with an NSF grant
(2014-2019) to form a Collaborative Learning Network with U.S. Northeast and Caribbean partners. She
is lead policy-thrust co-PI on an NSF IGERT grant to better understand the interface between design,
policy, and engineering in off-shore wind energy.
6
Greg Lewis
Greg Lewis is a candidate for a Masters of Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst and an intern at DevelopSpringfield, a nonprofit focused on economic development
and revitalization. As a Research Assistant for Dr. Elisabeth Hamin, he contributed to a National
Science Foundation grant application, which resulted in funding for the Sustainable Adaptive
Gradients in the coastal Environment (SAGE) Research Coordination Network (RCN). His
academic interests are based on housing and climate-influenced U.S. migration. Before
pursuing an advanced degree, Greg established a background in finding solutions to social and
environmental justice problems. While working for a major New York City law firm, he
managed class actions against racial discrimination, predatory lending, and securities fraud
totaling more than one billion dollars in settlement awards for harmed plaintiffs. Greg also
worked for the Bureau of Environmental Services in Portland, Oregon, where he organized
community efforts to prevent millions of gallons of annual combined sewer overflows from
reaching the Willamette River. When not stuck in the library or glued to the computer, Greg
prefers to spend time with his family, tackle never-ending renovation projects in their historic
Northampton home, or get outside as much as possible. Upon graduation, he intends to enter
the real estate development field with a special focus on zero net energy performance. Greg
holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Film and Video Animation from Hampshire College.
Marielos Arlen Marin
Fulbright Scholar and PhD Student on Regional Planning from University of Massachusetts
Amherst. Masters in Urban Planning and Land Management from Raphael Landivar University,
Guatemala. Bachelor in Architecture from Central American University “Jose Simeon Cañas”, El
Salvador. She is first year PhD student after eight years of experience working as
undergraduate teacher and researcher in Central American University “Jose Simeon Cañas,” her
focus was history of architecture, affordable housing, and more recently cities and climate
change, and the impacts in Central America. She also had worked for the Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, in the Latin American and the Caribbean Program as online teacher, researcher and
course assistant for several courses around Latin America.
Juan Camilo Osorio
Juan Camilo Osorio is NYC-EJA’s Director of Research, where he designs and conducts research and
policy analysis on all aspects of NYC-EJA’s advocacy agenda -- including climate adaptation and pollution
prevention strategies for industrial waterfront neighborhoods as part of the Waterfront Justice Project,
and various other issues disproportionately affecting low-income groups and communities of color in
new York City. He is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Pratt Institute’s Graduate Programs for
Sustainable Planning and Development (PSPD), introducing graduate students to qualitative and
quantitative urban planning research. Before joining NYC-EJA, he was a Senior Planner and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) Analyst at The Municipal Art Society Planning Center, where he used spatial
information to support research and advocacy on community-based planning, urban design and historic
preservation. Before moving to New York, he worked with the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, a
7
non-profit agency based in Holyoke, Massachusetts, using GIS to study systematic and procedural
impediments to fair housing in the central and western regions of that State. He received a master’s
degree in regional planning from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a professional degree in
architecture from the National University of Colombia, Bogotá.
Tim Randhir
Timothy O. Randhir is an Associate Professor with the Department of Environmental Conservation,
University of Massachusetts- Amherst, USA.
He is a Ph.D. from Purdue University and specializes in climate change, watershed systems, complex
modeling, and ecological economics. His work spans interdisciplinary areas in the field of climate
change, watershed management, water quality policy, water resources management, ecological
economics, dynamic modeling and optimization, spatial analysis and simulation, Institutional economics,
GIS-Internet-Simulation interfacing, systems modeling, climate change, land use policy, international
trade and development, common pool resource management, nonpoint source pollution, and natural
resources policy and management. He has published in top journals in ecological economics, climate
change, hydrology, watershed science, and modeling. He is author of a book in watershed management.
He serves as an editor to three international journals: earth systems and climate change, ecological
economics and statistics, and computational environmental sciences. MA State director of Southern
New England Chapter of Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Bill Solecki
William Duncan Solecki is Director of the CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities at Hunter College,
Department of Geography, City University of New York–Hunter College, New York, NY. In 2013 Dr.
Solecki was appointed Interim Director of the Science and Resilience Institute @ Jamaica Bay, 9
Institution. Dr. Solecki holds degrees in Geography from Columbia University (BA) and Rutgers
University (MA, PhD). Dr. Solecki’s research focuses on urban environmental change and urban land
use and urbanization. He currently is a member of the International Geographical Union (IGU) Megacity
Study Group and the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP), Urbanization and Global
Environmental Change Scientific Steering Committee. He has served on several U.S. National Research
Council committees including the Special Committee on Problems in the Environment (SCOPE) and he is
a co-leader of several climate impacts and land use studies in the New York metropolitan region. He is
currently a lead author of the IPCC, Working Group II, Urban Areas chapter (chapter 8).
Jamie Stein
Jaime Stein is an Academic, Sustainability Consultant and Urban Researcher with a proven and
successful record of community engagement, sustainability planning and environmental policy
analysis. Currently, Ms. Stein directs the Sustainable Environmental Systems program at Pratt Institute’s
Graduate school of Architecture, a master of science in sustainability studies with a curriculum at the
nexus of environmental design, science and policy.
8
Ulric Trotz
Dr. Ulric Trotz – Deputy Director &Science Adviser, Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, Belize
A Scientist by training, Dr. Trotz commenced his University education in Edinburgh, and attained his
Doctorate in Organic Chemistry in Toronto, Canada. His career experiences and achievements are wide
and varied. He has worked as Director, Science & Technology Division, Commonwealth Secretariat,
1993 to 1997; as Secretary, Commonwealth Science Council and Science Adviser to the Commonwealth
SecretaryGeneral, 1991-1997; Secretary-General, National Science Research Council (NSRC), Guyana, 1979-1991;
Dean, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Guyana 1976- 1979; Director, Institute of Applied
Sciences and Technology in Guyana, 1980-1991.
Since 1997, Dr Trotz, in his capacity as Manager for the GEF-funded CPACC and MACC projects, and the
CIDA-funded ACCC project, has been giving direction to the region’s efforts to build capacity for climate
change adaptation. Dr Trotz was a review Editor for Chapter 16 on SIDS in the Fourth Assessment Report
of the IPCC. He has presented several papers/lectures at a range of regional and international fora on
climate change issues. Dr Trotz now holds the post of Deputy Director &Science Adviser in the recently
established Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre.
Rae Zimmerman
Rae Zimmerman is Professor of Planning and Public Administration at New York University's Robert F.
Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and since 1998, Director of the Institute for Civil
Infrastructure Systems (ICIS), initially National Science Foundation (NSF) funded. She directed Wagner’s
Urban Planning Program five times. Teaching and research encompasses environmental quality and
impact assessment, environmental health risk management, urban infrastructure, city adaptation to
energy, transportation and water innovations, and extreme events. She currently leads research grants
on Hurricane Sandy impacts on infrastructure and transportation connectivity funded by NSF, the U.S.
DOT Region 2 Urban Transportation Research Center, and NYS (as a member of NYS Resiliency Institute
for Storms & Emergencies). She directed research funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (through three university research
centers), and state and local agencies, and works with NYU-Poly on NSF-funded infrastructure-related
cyber security. She authored Transport, the Environment and Security: Making the Connection (Edward
Elgar), Governmental Management of Chemical Risk (Lewis/CRC), co-produced Beyond September
11th (University of Colorado Boulder), co-edited Digital Infrastructures (Routledge) and Sustaining
Urban Networks (Routledge), and authored numerous publications in climate change, security, and risk
communication. She is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and past
president and Fellow of the international Society for Risk Analysis. Advisory committee appointments
include TRB’s ABE40 critical infrastructure committee, and formerly U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board
Homeland Security Advisory Committee, the New York City Panel on Climate Change (2010), and the
NAS Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment. She serves on Editorial Advisory Boards
of Risk Analysis; the Journal of Risk Research; the Journal of Urban Technology; and others.
9
Education: B.A., Chemistry, University of California (Berkeley); Master of City Planning, University of
Pennsylvania; and Ph.D., Planning, Columbia University.
10
Abstract for SAGE Conference Working Group Discussion on Regional/State/National Level
Policy and Governance
The overall goal of our network is to put forward a shared framework for better informing resilient
coastal infrastructure decisions based on physical, natural, and societal conditions. In our grant proposal
we anticipated that this resilient infrastructure framework would include understanding communities as
existing and evolving within adaptive gradients, addressing spill-over and equity effects of infrastructure
decisions, using evidence regarding the impacts of fast-onset disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tsunamis) to
improve practices and policies for chronic, slow-onset phenomena (e.g. sea level rise), and tying the
application of our theory to increasingly available indicators of climate change and local conditions. As
the project develops there will certainly be other considerations that emerge from our process.
According to the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE): "Coastal risk reduction can be achieved through a
variety of approaches, including natural or nature- based features (e.g., wetlands and dunes),
nonstructural interventions (e.g., policies, building codes and emergency response such as early warning
and evacuation plans), and structural interventions (e.g., seawalls and breakwaters)." For the purpose
of this working group, discussion about early warning or evacuation planning and similar emergency
response is beyond our scope, but local policies and building codes etc. are part of our considerations.
The particular focus of the Policy and Governance Working Group is understanding what factors
currently underlie the decisions that get made at the regional, state, and national levels, as well as the
scientific information that ought to be included in decisions, but may need to be properly presented or
translated to be useful. One of the roles of this team will be to assess the state of decision support for
infrastructure decisions, compare and contrast regional information, policies, and governance structures
for infrastructure decision-making, and opportunities for and the nature of improved decision support
to support regional/state/national level infrastructure decision-making.
The RCN includes 3 Working Groups: The Infrastructure Working Group will identify ranges of
infrastructure. The Local and Spatial Working Group will work on questions similar to ours but at the
local level, with an additional emphasis on equity questions.
We will use this discussion as a means of exploring the benefits and drawbacks to and interrelationships
among green, gray, and social/cultural infrastructure. We would like to determine what possible
improvements could be made for the future to help support a broader consideration and assessment of
green, grey, and cultural infrastructure approaches to increase resilience.
Consider the following questions:
11
1) What governance characteristics currently determine the kinds of intervention that are
selected at regional/state/national levels?
1a) What are the strengths and weaknesses of current governance arrangements for
making decisions about coastal infrastructure?
1b) How does this vary across the political jurisdictions and especially within and between
the Northeast and Caribbean regions?
2) What information is currently lacking or not appropriately translated which could aid in
planning and designing infrastructure (green or gray or non-structural) or understanding the
governance opportunities or impediments?
2a) What form should that information take to be most useful to regional/state/national
decision-making?
3) How do your regions/states/nations make infrastructure (grey and green) decisions currently?
3a) How is scientific information included in the process?
4) What regulatory or other policy incentives or barriers exist that may incentivize or prevent
adoption of resilient coastal adaptation options?
5) What opportunities exist for research in this area?
6) Are there additional outside professionals or academics currently studying these issues whom
we should bring into the discussion?
6a) What are the other relevant networks on these issues for these regions?
Framework for Physical Infrastructure Choices Working Group
The overall goal of our network is to put forward a shared framework for better informing
resilient coastal infrastructure decisions based on physical, natural, and societal conditions. In
our grant proposal we anticipated that this resilient infrastructure framework would include
understanding communities as existing and evolving within adaptive gradients, addressing spillover and equity effects of infrastructure decisions, using evidence regarding the impacts of fastonset disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tsunamis) to improve practices and policies for chronic, slowonset phenomena (e.g. sea level rise), and tying the application of our theory to increasingly
available indicators of climate change and local conditions. As the project develops there will
certainly be other considerations that emerge from our process.
12
According to the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE): "Coastal risk reduction can be achieved
through a variety of approaches, including natural or nature- based features (e.g., wetlands and
dunes), nonstructural interventions (e.g., policies, building codes and emergency response such
as early warning and evacuation plans), and structural interventions (e.g., seawalls and
breakwaters)."
For the purpose of this workshop, we will limit our discussion to natural and natural-based
features ("green" infrastructure) and engineered structural interventions ("gray"
infrastructure). Civil engineers traditionally have more experience, and likewise are generally
more comfortable, designing and constructing gray infrastructure. However, there are some
regional and cultural precedents for adopting green infrastructure (e.g., use of mango tree
groves in tropical zones for storm surge buffering), and in other areas there is an increased
public interest to include (or at least consider) green infrastructure solutions in resilient design
in order to minimize coastal risk during natural disasters. We will use this discussion as a means
of exploring the benefits and drawbacks to both green and gray infrastructure. We would like
to determine what possible improvements could be made for the future to help bridge the gap
between professionals in the industry regarding general awareness, technological knowledge,
and design implementation.
Consider the following questions:
1) What gray infrastructure techniques are currently available?
2) What green infrastructure techniques are currently available?
3) Classify the infrastructure techniques from Questions 1 and 2 as "standard of practice"
versus "cutting edge" or those that are less common but could be adapted for wider use.
4) What are some of the benefits and limitations associated with each of the techniques?
5) What information is currently lacking which could aid in planning and
designing infrastructure (green or gray)?
5a) What opportunities exist for research and development of green and gray
infrastructure?
5b) Are there additional outside professionals or academics currently studying these
technologies whom we should bring into the discussion?
6) What barriers exist to adapting green infrastructure into civil engineering and coastal land
use planning design? How might these be overcome?
13
7) What regulatory or other policy barriers exist that may prevent wider adoption of green vs.
gray infrastructure solutions to coastal adaptation challenges?
We will use this discussion as a means of exploring the benefits and drawbacks to and
interrelationships among green, gray, and social/cultural infrastructure. We would like to
determine what possible improvements could be made for the future to help support a broader
consideration and assessment of green, grey, and cultural infrastructure approaches to increase
resilience.
14