PLANNING FOR OUR COASTAL FUTURE
Meeting #1-Vulnerabilty Analysis
4-14-15
Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Interactive audience poll
3. Vulnerability analysis
4. Probabilities discussion
5. Vulnerability analysis continued
6. Community risk survey
7. Short- and long-term adaptation strategies
8. Questions, next steps
WHO WE ARE
Initial Involvement




FEMA seeking a partner for local recovery effort
FEMA/Merck Foundation request to create LRPM position
FEMA noted lack of local capacity in disaster response
NJ Recovery Fund provided additional funding
The Program
Screening Criteria
1. Considerable storm damage
2. Limited or no in-house planning capabilities
3. Primarily full-time residents
Who We Work With
VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS
Why Do A Vulnerability Analysis?
Purpose:


Evaluate vulnerability to likely hazards;
Prioritize those actions that most effectively reduce or
avoid future loss.
“If I had an hour to solve a problem
I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about
the problem and 5 minutes thinking
about solutions.”
-Albert Einstein
3 Step Process
1. Inundation Extent
2. Inundation Depth
3. Estimation of Exposure
NOTE: SLR projections from Rutgers University
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
RESULTS
Little Egg Harbor Township – Current
Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR
Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR Scenario, Parcels
# of Lots # of Acres
Exposed Exposed
176
232
711
130
1
6
Property Class (Class Code)
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Farm (3A)
Farm (3B)
Commercial (4A)
Industrial (4B)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
13
34
128
8,679
3
1,032
5
9,085
The Bottom Line
▪
▪
▪
▪
Total Exposed Lots: 1,032
% of Total Lots: 8%
Total Exposed Acres: 9,085
% of Total Acres: 31%
Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR Scenario, Value
Property Class
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Farm (3A)
Farm (3B)
Commercial (4A)
Industrial (4B)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
Net Taxable
Total Exposed Value
$14,063,025
$205,212,850
$35,800
$0
$18,198,200
$0
$0
$0
$20,977,100
$0
$1,480,300
$259,967,275
$237,509,875
The Bottom Line
% of Total
Value
11%
8%
13%
0%
13%
0%
0%
0%
19%
0%
4%
9%
8%
▪ Exposed Net Taxable Value: $237.5 million
▪ % of Total Value: 8%
Tuckerton Borough - Current
Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR
Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR Scenario, Parcels
Property Class
(Class Code)
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Commercial (4A)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Cemeteries/Graveyards (15E)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
# of Exposed Exposed
Lots
Acres
140
524
398
374
17
92
1
59
5
61
979
2
12
13
1
3
620
2,059
The Bottom Line




Total Exposed Lots: 620
% of Total Lots: 28%
Total Exposed Acres: 1,131
% of Total Acres: 55%
Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR Scenario, Value
Property Class
(Class Code)
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Commercial (4A)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Cemeteries/Graveyards (15E)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
Net Taxable Value
Total exposed
value
$15,217,470
$99,780,638
$9,915,200
$10,500,000
$0
$8,623,100
$6,159,500
$0
$193,000
$150,388,908
$135,413,308
% of Total
Improvement Value
38%
29%
24%
56%
0%
38%
59%
0%
10%
31%
30%
The Bottom Line
 Exposed Net Taxable Value: $135.4 million
 % of Total Value: 30%
RESULTS CONTINUED
Little Egg Harbor Township – Current
Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR
Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm
Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm, Parcels
# of Lots # of Acres
Exposed Exposed
366
348
4,083
686
1
6
0
0
54
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
8,795
5
4
22
7
4,711
9,909
Property Class (Class Code)
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Farm (3A)
Farm (3B)
Commercial (4A)
Industrial (4B)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
The Bottom Line
▪
▪
▪
▪
Total Exposed Lots: 4,711
% of Total Lots: 36%
Total Exposed Acres: 9,909
% of Total Acres: 34%
Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm, Value
Property Class
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Farm (3A)
Farm (3B)
Commercial (4A)
Industrial (4B)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
Net Taxable
Total Exposed Value
$35,336,605
$822,161,915
$35,800
$0
$27,200,103
$0
$0
$0
$30,158,550
$1,408,502
$4,750,100
$921,051,575
$884,734,423
The Bottom Line
% of Total
Value
28%
32%
13%
0%
19%
0%
0%
0%
28%
9%
14%
31%
32%
▪ Exposed Net Taxable Value: $884.7 million
▪ % of Total Value: 32%
Tuckerton Borough - Current
Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR
Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR/1% Storm
Tuckerton Borough - 2050 SLR /1% Flood Scenario, Parcels
Property Class
(Class Code)
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Commercial (4A)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Cemeteries/Graveyards (15E)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
# of Exposed Exposed
Lots
Acres
204
276
881
125
34
27
1
30
0
0
92
895
4
3
0
0
3
1
1,219
1,357
The Bottom Line




Total Exposed Lots: 1,219
% of Total Lots: 55%
Total Exposed Acres: 1,357
% of Total Acres: 66%
Tuckerton Borough - 2050 SLR /1% Flood Scenario, Value
Property Class
(Class Code)
Vacant (1)
Residential (2)
Commercial (4A)
Apartment (4C)
Public School Property (15A)
Public Property (15C)
Church/Charitable (15D)
Cemeteries/Graveyards (15E)
Other Exempt (15F)
Total
Net Taxable Value
Total exposed
value
$29,202,761
$172,148,012
$12,576,926
$10,500,000
$0
$13,779,575
$6,607,074
$0
$564,009
$245,378,356
$224,427,699
% of Total
Improvement Value
73%
50%
31%
56%
0%
60%
63%
0%
29%
50%
50%
The Bottom Line
 Exposed Net Taxable Value: $224.4 million
 % of Total Value: 50%
Time for a new approach
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results
COMMUNITY SURVEY
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Preparing For Risk
Create behaviorally realistic communications to
help people meet the threat of sea level rise
What are views on the risk and preparing for that risk?
Gabrielle Wong-Parodi1, Baruch Fischhoff1, & Ben Strauss2
Carnegie Mellon University1
Climate Central2
Preparing For Risk

Open-ended interviews – capture views about risk, preparation

Local surveys – informed by interviews, identify prevalence of
beliefs and practices

Representative surveys – informed by interviews/local surveys,
identify prevalence of beliefs and practices
Views on the risk
and preparing for
that risk
Interviews
Spring 2014
Local Surveys
Summer 2014
Representative
Surveys
Summer 2015
Preparing For Risk


14 open-ended interviews in Little Egg, Tuckerton, Sea Bright, Highlands
Participants




All full-time residents (20+ years)
Average age 62.4 years
69.2% with at least a college degree
41.6% female
Views on the risk
and preparing for
that risk
Interviews Spring
2014
Local Surveys
Summer 2014
Representative
Surveys
Summer 2015
Preparing For Risk

What do people think about the risk?
“What is causing it? I can’t really say. It could be just a natural cycle. It could be
contributed to global – ice melting or whatever. But either way, it is
happening…something is different in the last 52 years in this area” (participant 8)
“…you live in a coastal town, so it’s kind of expected that if you can afford to live
near the ocean you have to know that there’s certain risks” (participant 3)

Risk increasing (drawing from own experience); sense of responsibility
for meeting threat
Views on the risk
and preparing for
that risk
Interviews Spring
2014
Local Surveys
Summer 2014
Representative
Surveys
Summer 2015
Preparing For Risk

225 participants in Little Egg, Tuckerton, Sea Bright, Highlands

Participants







55.2% long-time residents (at least 15 years)
Average age 57.1 years (SD=11.6 years)
51.0% with at least a college degree
49.2% female
50.5% with an annual income of at least $76k
33.9% Independent, 31.2% Republican, 15.6% Democrat, 2.7% Other,
16.7% prefer not to answer
63.4% think climate change is happening, 19.6% don’t know, 17.0% think
it’s not happening
Views on the risk
and preparing for
that risk
Interviews
Interviews
Spring
Spring
2014
2014
Local Surveys
Summer 2014
Representative
Surveys
Summer 2015
Preparing For Risk

How does flooding experience affect preparation?
3
3
Mitigating risk actions
2.5
2.5
Type of action
2
2
1.5
Mean type of mitigating risk action
(1=none, 2=short, 3=long)
Average number of mitigating risk actions
3.5
1.5
1
1
before Sandy
Views on the risk
and preparing for
that risk
Interviews Spring
2014
after Sandy
Local Surveys
Summer 2014
Representative
Surveys
Summer 2015
Preparing For Risk

1,150 participants high-risk communities in NJ, NY and CT

Participants


Probabilistic sample
Statistically representative of high-risk communities across
demographics (age, sex, employment, marital status, access to
internet, income, ethnicity, faith)
Views on the risk
and preparing for
that risk
Interviews Spring
2014
Local Surveys
Summer 2014
Representative
Surveys
Summer 2015
Preparing For Risk
Section 1
Experience and
exposure to Sandy
“I was there when Sandy hit,” “I was on
the East Coast but was not directly
exposed,” etc…
Section 2
Any before/after
Sandy preparation?
“Are there any actions you wish you
had taken, or had been able to do?”
Section 3
Chances of major
flooding
Section 4
Drivers of changing
chance
“What do you think the chances are of
major flooding happening here in the
next 30 years?”
“The frequency of storms,” “Coastal
development,” etc…
Preparing For Risk
Please send comments, questions, requests for copies
of papers to…
Gabrielle Wong-Parodi
gwongpar@cmu.edu
PREPARATION
Resilience

Resilience: “Resilience refers to the capability to prevent or
protect against significant multi-hazard threats and incidents and
to expeditiously recover and reconstitute critical services with
minimum damage to public safety and health, the economy, and
national security.” (American Society of Civil Engineers, Critical
Infrastructure Definitions, 2006)
Intermediate Solutions

Social: Networks help increase resiliency

Economic: Strong economies are more resilient both on an
individual and a community basis

Environmental: Both grey and green infrastructure can be
employed to reduce flooding threats
Increasing Social Resiliency

Make a plan for communicating during a disaster

Public Education

Communication

Access to information

Strengthening Social networks

Build a Disaster Kit
Increasing Economic Resiliency

Focus on growing economic centers outside of flood prone areas

Plan for bringing businesses back on line quickly after a disaster

Participate in programs such as CRS to reduce flood insurance
rates and increase individual economic resiliency

Support initiatives to grow the economy
Increasing Environmental Resiliency

Enforce strict building codes to withstand storm events

Develop protective infrastructure such as bulkheads/seawalls

Raise homes, utilities, roads above flood levels

Build natural storm buffers

Improve drainage
National Fish and Wildlife Funded Project

Enforce strict building codes to withstand storm events

$2.13 million received

Grant covers Tuckerton and Little Egg Harbor

Includes:

Dredging

Thin Layer Deposition

Living Shoreline construction

Beach replenishment

Filling of low lying marsh areas
Questions?
Leah Yasenchak: lyasenchak@njfuture.org
David Kutner: dkutner@njfuture.org
www.njfuture.org
PLANNING FOR OUR COASTAL FUTURE
Meeting #1-Vulnerabilty Analysis
4-14-15