Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/35196Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | McIntosh, R. Duncan. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Mclean, Elizabeth L. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Becker, Austin. | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-01-16T19:25:39Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-01-16T19:25:39Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-11 | - |
| dc.identifier.govdoc | ERDC/CHL CR-19-2 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11681/35196 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/35196 | - |
| dc.description | Contract Report | - |
| dc.description.abstract | This research identified vulnerability indicators from open-data sources that represent the three components of vulnerability, as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. With input from experts knowledgeable in port operations, planning, policy, and data, researchers refined a set of high-level vulnerability indicators to answer the following key questions: (1) how sufficient is the current state of U.S. seaport sector data for developing expert-supported vulnerability indicators for a regional sample of ports and (2) how can indicators be used to measure the relative vulnerability (i.e., exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) of multiple ports? Using open-data sources, this study developed an Indicator-Based Vulnerability Assessment methodology that integrates multiple vulnerability indicators for ports in the North Atlantic region. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, a technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions using pairwise comparisons, was used to develop a ranking that matched 3 of the top-4 most vulnerable ports that were subjectively identified by port experts. This demonstrates strong promise for this methodological approach to measure seaport vulnerability to climate and extreme weather events. Indices of seaport relative vulnerability to climate and extreme weather can advance goals for a resilient Marine Transportation System by informing efforts and plans to prioritize and allocate limited resources. | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Navigation Systems Research Program (U.S.) | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | University of Rhode Island. Marine Affairs Program. | - |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... ii Figures and Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... v Preface ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. x Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... xi 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 1.1 Report organization and research design ................................ ................................ .... 2 1.21.2 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 1.2.1 Vulnerability of seaports ............................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Terminology ................................................................................................................. 6 1.2.3 Vulnerability assessments .......................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 Single vs. multi-seaport assessments...................................................................... 10 2 Identification of Cand idate Indicators of Seaport Vulnerability to Climate and Extreme Weather ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 12 2.1 IntroductionIntroduction................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 2.1.1 Indicator-based assessments .................................................................................. 12 2.1.2 Expert elicitation ....................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 14 2.2.1 Step 1: Literature review to compile candidate indicators ..................................... 17 2.2.2 Step 2: Vetting for data availability .......................................................................... 18 2.2.3 Step 3: Mind mapping© exercise to refine the set of candidate indicators 19 2.3 2.2.3 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 24 3 Expert Evaluation of Seaport Climate and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Indicators ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 25 3.1 IntroductiIntroduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 25 3.2 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 25 3.2.1 Selection of experts for Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) survey ................................. 26 3.2.2 Online expert elicitation VAS survey......................................................................... 27 3.3 Results of VAS survey ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 29 3.4 Seven additional indicators suggested by port experts ................................ ............ 33 3.5 Discussion of VAS results ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 3.5.1 Low expert-perceived correlation with adaptive capacity ....................................... 35 3.5.2 Expert preference for place-based indicators ......................................................... 35 3.5.3 Variation of results for different expert-affiliation groups ....................................... 36 3.5.4 Limitations and next steps ....................................................................................... 36 3.6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 37 4 Weighting Indicators via Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) ................................ ...................... 39 4.1 Introduction................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 39 4.2 AHP ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 4.3 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 40 4.3.1 Expert selection ......................................................................................................... 40 4.3.2 AHP webinars with 37 port experts .......................................................................... 41 4.4 Results of AHP AHP-generated weights ................................ ................................ ............. 47 4.5 DiscussionDiscussion................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 49 4.6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 50 5 Trialing a Prototype Composite Index of Seaport Climate Vulnerability ................................ .. 51 5.1 IntroductionIntroduction................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 51 5.2 Methodology: Aggregating weighted indicators ................................ ......................... 51 5.3 Results of Weighted Sum Model (WSM): Composite indices of CENAD ports ......... 52 5.4 DiscussionDiscussion................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 57 5.4.1 Adaptive capacity considered highly important ...................................................... 58 5.4.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 58 5.5 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 60 6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 61 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 63 Appendix A: Terminology Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 71 Appendix B: Mind maps © from Expert Group ................................ ................................ ........................ 72 Appendix C: Databases for Candidate Vulnerability Indicators Indicators................................ ......................... 75 Appendix D: Other Identified Datasets ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 80 Appendix E: List of Databases Used and Brief DescriptionsDescriptions................................ .............................. 82 Appendix F: Additional Candidate Indicators Suggested by Experts ................................ ............... 98 Appendix G: Summary 48 Vulnerability Indicators Indicators................................ ................................ ........... 101 Appendix H: Climate and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Indicators Identified by Web and Literature Se arch ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 121 Appendix I: Visual Analogue Scale Selection Online Survey Instrument ................................ ..... 126 Appendix J: Expert Elicitation Results; Indicator Evaluation ................................ .......................... 165 Appendix K: Webinar Slides for the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Selection ............................... 168 Appendix L: Radar Plots for the 22 Ports Studied ................................ ................................ ............ 177 Appendix M: Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................ ................................ ......................... 189 Unit Conversion Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 190 Report Documentation Page | - |
| dc.format.extent | 206 pages / 7.515 Mb | - |
| dc.format.medium | PDF/A | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.) | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.) | - |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Contract Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC/CHL CR-19-2 | - |
| dc.rights | Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited | - |
| dc.source | This Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat | - |
| dc.subject | Climatic changes--Risk assessment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Harbors | en_US |
| dc.subject | Inland navigation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Navigable waters | en_US |
| dc.subject | Navigation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Waterways | en_US |
| dc.title | Measuring climate and extreme weather vulnerability to inform resilience, report 1 : a pilot study for North Atlantic medium- and high-use maritime freight | en_US |
| dc.type | Report | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Contract Report | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERDC-CHL CR-19-2.pdf | 7.7 MB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |