Content uploaded by Blair Ryan Tormey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Blair Ryan Tormey on Jun 15, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments in the
National Park Service
An integrated review for infrastructure, natural resources,
and cultural resources.
Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2022/2404
Contents (continued)
Page
Contents (continued)
Page
ON
THIS PAGE
Raven/Shark Totem Pole, Sitka National
Historical Park
©PROGRAM
FOR THE STUDY OF DEVELOPED SHORELINES, WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
ON THE COVER
Bo
die Island Lighthouse, Cape Hatteras National Seashore
©PROGRAM
FOR THE STUDY OF DEVELOPED SHORELINES, WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments in the
National Park Service
An integrated review for infrastructure, natural resources,
and cultural resources.
Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2022/2404
Editors: Katie McDowell Peek1, Blair R. Tormey1, Holli L. Thompson1, Alan C. Ellsworth2, and Cat
Hawkins Hoffman2
1Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, NC 28723
2U.S. National Park Service
Climate Change Response Program
Fort Collins, CO 80525
June
2022
U.S.
Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science
Fort Collins, Colorado
ii
The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins,
Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of
interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural
resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the
public.
The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis
about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of
the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy
results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations.
All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the
information is scientifically credible and technically accurate.
Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily
reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by
the U.S. Government.
This report is available in digital format from the Natural Resource Publications Management
website. If you have difficulty accessing information in this publication, particularly if using assistive
technology, please email irma@nps.gov.
Please cite this publication as:
Peek, K.M., B. R. Tormey, H.L. Thompson, A. C. Ellsworth, and C.H. Hoffman (editors). 2022.
Climate change vulnerability assessments in the National Park Service: An integrated review for
infrastructure, natural resources, and cultural resources. Natural Resource Report
NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2022/2404. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr-2293650.
NPS 999/181593, June 2022
iii
Contents
Page
Figures .................................................................................................................................................viii
Tables .................................................................................................................................................... ix
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. x
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. xi
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... xii
Glossary References .................................................................................................................... xvi
Chapter 1: Overview and Synthesis of National Park Service Vulnerability Assessments ................... 1
1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 NPS Region and Unit Codes .................................................................................................... 2
Region Codes ............................................................................................................................ 2
Park Unit Codes ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Vulnerability Assessments and NPS Needs ............................................................................. 3
1.5 Useful Vulnerability Assessments ............................................................................................ 5
Context and Background of Vulnerability Assessment Frameworks and Methods .................. 6
Climate Futures, Scenarios, and Range of Climate Projections .............................................. 10
1.6 Chapter Scope and Limitations .............................................................................................. 11
1.7 Chapter Summaries ................................................................................................................ 13
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 13
Natural Resources .................................................................................................................... 13
Cultural Resources................................................................................................................... 13
1.8 Vulnerability Assessment Review and Comparison .............................................................. 13
Scale, Scope, and Resolution ................................................................................................... 13
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Combined Vulnerability Assessments .................................... 14
1.9 Geographic Coverage ............................................................................................................. 14
iv
Contents (continued)
Page
1.10 Challenges and Lessons Learned .......................................................................................... 16
Park Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments ........................................................................ 16
Consistent Vulnerability Assessment Terminology and Protocols ......................................... 17
Communication and Vulnerability Assessment Archiving ..................................................... 17
Considering Trade-Offs in Scope and Detail .......................................................................... 17
Aligning Vulnerability Assessments to Park Needs ................................................................ 18
1.11 Recommendations and Best Practices .................................................................................. 18
Ensure the Vulnerability Assessment Matches Needs ............................................................ 18
Clearly Define Vulnerability Assessment Study Parameters .................................................. 18
Prioritize Resources to be Thoroughly Assessed .................................................................... 18
Evaluate All Components of Vulnerability ............................................................................. 19
Address Uncertainty ................................................................................................................ 19
Identify Key Vulnerabilities .................................................................................................... 19
Archive Vulnerability Assessment Products in NPS IRMA ................................................... 19
Embrace Partnerships .............................................................................................................. 20
1.12 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................ 20
1.13 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 2: A Review of Vulnerability Assessments for National Park Service
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................ 26
2.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 27
2.1 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 29
2.2 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 29
2.3 NPS Region and Unit Codes .................................................................................................. 30
Region Codes .......................................................................................................................... 30
Park Unit Codes ....................................................................................................................... 30
2.4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 30
v
Contents (continued)
Page
Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................... 31
2.5 Results .................................................................................................................................... 33
Exposure Assessments............................................................................................................. 33
Scenario Planning Studies ....................................................................................................... 35
Risk Assessments .................................................................................................................... 36
Indicator-Based Vulnerability Assessments ............................................................................ 36
2.6 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 42
Common Approach Themes .................................................................................................... 42
Considerations and Challenges ................................................................................................ 45
2.7 Best Practices and Recommendations .................................................................................... 49
Clarify Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic ............................................................................................ 49
Address Criticality ................................................................................................................... 50
Complete a Detailed Exposure Assessment ............................................................................ 50
Evaluate Sensitivity ................................................................................................................. 50
Evaluate Probability and Potential Scenarios .......................................................................... 51
Evaluate and Prioritize Adaptation Strategies ......................................................................... 51
2.8 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 3: A Review of Vulnerability Assessments for Natural Resources of the National
Park Service ......................................................................................................................................... 63
3.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 64
3.1 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 66
3.2 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 66
3.3 NPS Unit Codes ...................................................................................................................... 66
3.4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 66
3.5 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 67
3.6 Results .................................................................................................................................... 68
vi
Contents (continued)
Page
Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessment Types ............................................................... 69
Spatial Distribution of Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessments ................................... 73
Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessment Targets............................................................. 76
Components of Vulnerability .................................................................................................. 77
Common Models & Assessment Tools ................................................................................... 79
Uncertainty .............................................................................................................................. 80
3.7 Best Practices.......................................................................................................................... 80
3.8 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 86
Chapter 4: A Review of Vulnerability Assessments for Cultural Resources of the
National Park Service .......................................................................................................................... 94
4.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 95
4.1 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 96
4.2 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 96
4.3 NPS Region and Unit Codes .................................................................................................. 97
Region Codes .......................................................................................................................... 97
Park Unit Codes ....................................................................................................................... 97
4.4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 97
Cultural Resources Vulnerability Assessments ....................................................................... 99
4.5 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 103
4.6 Data and Results ................................................................................................................... 103
Objectives and Goals of Cultural Resources Vulnerability Assessments ............................. 104
Key Vulnerability Terms ....................................................................................................... 107
Combining Methodologies .................................................................................................... 115
Combined Methodologies as a Prioritization Tool ................................................................ 116
4.7 Discussion: Outcomes, Gaps, and Opportunities ................................................................. 122
Illustrative Case Studies for NP Adapt and Other Sharing ................................................... 126
vii
Contents (continued)
Page
Near-Term Recommendations for Future Efforts ................................................................. 127
4.8 Conclusion: The State of the Art in Assessing Vulnerability ............................................... 128
4.9 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 129
viii
Figures
Page
Figure 1-1. Vulnerability assessments need to be designed and conducted to support
planning processes and management decisions. .................................................................................... 7
Figure 1-2. Commonly used framework for assessing climate vulnerability showing that
climate impacts (negative or positive) result from exposure and sensitivity. ........................................ 8
Figure 1-3. Geographic distribution of detailed NPS-specific studies included in all VA
review chapters, within the contiguous U.S. ........................................................................................ 15
Figure 1-4. Geographic distribution of detailed NPS-specific studies included in all VA
review chapters, within Alaska, Hawaii (inset A), and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
(inset B). ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2-1. A) Geographic distribution (by state) of evaluated IVAs in the U.S. .............................. 32
Figure 2-2. Example of common spatial (A-C) and infrastructure scales (D-F) within the
studies evaluated. ................................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 3-1. Map of the number of explicit or implicit climate change NRVAs (excluding
broad-scale assessments) conducted for each I&M national park unit (n = 289 park units). .............. 74
Figure 3-2. Percentage of parks in each geographic region with at least one existing
explicit and/or implicit NRVA by type. ............................................................................................... 75
Figure 3-3. Conceptual diagram of NRVA types illustrating trade-offs between
conceptual scope and spatial scale and how different types of NRVAs relate to one
another. ................................................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 4-1. Map of NPS climate change CRVAs included in this review, as of April
2018. ................................................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 4-2. Map distribution of climate change CRVAs by NPS region, as of April 2018. ............. 103
Figure 4-3. Vulnerability equation illustrating separate nature of cultural resources
adaptive capacity (Ricci et al. 2019b). ............................................................................................... 115
ix
Tables
Page
Table 1-1. Summary of VA review chapters. ........................................................................................ 4
Table 2-1. Summary and common characteristics of IVA approaches. .............................................. 33
Table 2-2. Summary and key characteristics of select indicator-based VA studies. ........................... 38
Table 3-1. Number of assessments in each climate change NRVA type and within each
type, for single or multiple (regional, coastal, or national) parks. ....................................................... 70
Table 3-2. Number and percentage of I&M parks with each NRVA type .......................................... 74
Table 3-3. Vulnerability targets addressed in the NRVAs. ................................................................. 76
Table 3-4. Examples of sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity approaches. ............................. 78
Table 3-5. Number and percent of NRVAs that explicitly use the terms sensitivity,
exposure, and/or adaptive capacity in a vulnerability context. ............................................................ 78
Table 3-6. Models used to project potential climate impacts as part of NPS NRVAs. ....................... 79
Table 3-7. Vulnerability assessment tools and indices used in NPS climate change
NRVAs. ................................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 4-1. NPS CRVA reports reviewed as of April 2018. .............................................................. 100
Table 4-2. NPS CRVA report characteristics. ................................................................................... 102
Table 4-3. Abbreviated management objectives and goals of NPS CRVA reports. ......................... 104
Table 4-4. Summarized exposure definitions from NPS CRVA reports........................................... 108
Table 4-5. Summarized sensitivity definitions from NPS CRVA reports. ....................................... 110
Table 4-6. NPS CRVA reports vulnerability definitions and methodologies. .................................. 112
Table 4-7. Strengths and challenges of modelled versus site specific assessments.
Adapted from Anderson, 2016. .......................................................................................................... 116
Table 4-8. An example using an index to prioritize sites for treatment, as adapted from
Anderson, 2016. ................................................................................................................................. 117
Table 4-9. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative methodologies using three CRVA
case studies. ........................................................................................................................................ 119
Table 4-10. NPS CRVA report recommendations. ........................................................................... 119
Table 4-11. Outcomes of NPS CRVA reports. ................................................................................. 123
Table 4-12. NPS CRVA reports as illustrative case studies. ............................................................. 126
x
Appendices
Page
Appendix A: Evaluated Exposure Assessments ................................................................................ 133
Appendix B: Evaluated Scenario Planning Studies ........................................................................... 136
Appendix C: Evaluated Risk Assessments ........................................................................................ 141
Appendix D: Evaluated Indicator-Based Vulnerability Assessments ................................................ 147
Appendix E: Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessment Citations ............................................... 177
Appendix F: Evaluation Rubric, National Park Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessments for Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 188
Appendix G: National Park Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments for Cultural
Resources: Summary of Resource- and Unit-Specific Recommendations from Reports. ................. 190
xi
Executive Summary
Climate changes are affecting virtually all National Park Service units and resources, and an
assessment of climate vulnerabilities is important for developing proactive management plans to
respond appropriately to these changes and threats. Vulnerability assessments typically evaluate
exposure and sensitivity of the assessment targets and evaluate adaptive capacity for living resources.
Chapters in this report review and evaluate climate vulnerability assessments of National Park
Service units and resources including infrastructure, natural resources, and cultural resources.
Striking results were the diversity of approaches to conducting vulnerability assessments, the small
number of vulnerability assessments for National Park Service cultural resources, and the large
differences in the “state of the science” of conducting assessments among the three resource groups.
Vulnerability assessment methodologies are well established for evaluating infrastructure and natural
resources, albeit with very different techniques, but far less is known or available for designing
and/or conducting cultural resources assessments.
Challenges consistently identified in the vulnerability assessments, or the chapters were:
• Limited capacity of park staff to fully engage in the design and/or execution of the
vulnerability assessments. Most park staff are fully engaged in on-going duties.
• Inconsistent use of terms, definitions, and protocols, sometimes resulting in confusion or
inefficiencies.
• Discovering and acquiring National Park Service vulnerability assessments because results
were inconsistently archived.
• Aligning results with park needs due to differences in level of detail, scope, and/or resolution,
or format(s) for reporting results.
Best practices and recommendations identified in multiple chapters were:
• Ensure that vulnerability assessments are designed to match parks’ needs, and that results are
reported in ways that inform identified management decisions.
• Prioritize resources to be thoroughly assessed so effort is directed to the most important
threats and resources.
• Evaluate all components of vulnerability (not just exposure).
• Explicitly and systematically address uncertainty, recognizing the range of climate
projections and our understanding of potential responses.
• Identify and, where possible, focus on key vulnerabilities that most threaten conservation or
management goals.
• Embrace partnerships and engage others with necessary expertise. Good vulnerability
assessments usually require expertise in a broad range of subject areas.
xii
Glossary
Adaptation (Infrastructure Chapter): anticipating the effects of climate change (or natural
hazards) and taking steps to avoid or minimize damage.
Adaptation strategy (Infrastructure Chapter): A strategy/action taken to reduce or manage an
asset’s vulnerability (exposure/sensitivity) to natural hazard or climate change impacts.
Adaptive capacity:
• IPCC 2014: The ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to
potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences.
• Infrastructure and Natural Resources Chapters: The ability of a species or system to
adjust to, moderate, or cope with climate change (or natural hazards).
• Cultural Resources Chapter: The ability of human managers and systems to adjust the use
and management of a given resource.
Asset (Infrastructure Chapter): Specific infrastructure or facility owned by an agency (e.g., a road,
building, or parking lot), often used when discussing facility databases. This term is sometimes
employed for museum property and other cultural resource types.
Climate change (US GCRP 2019): Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple
decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well
as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to
other features of the climate system.
Climate change adaptation (IPCC 2014): The process of adjustment to actual or expected climate
and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial
opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected
climate and its effects.
Climate model (IPCC 2014): A numerical representation of the climate system based on the
physical, chemical, and biological properties of its components, their interactions, and feedback
processes, and accounting for some of its known properties. The climate system can be represented
by models of varying complexity.
Climate projections (IPCC 2014): The simulated response of the climate system to a scenario of
future emission or concentration of greenhouse gases and aerosols, generally derived using climate
models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions by their dependence on the
emission/concentration/radiative-forcing scenario used, which is in turn based on assumptions
concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not
be realized.
xiii
Climate Scenarios (Natural Resources Chapter): The use of a range of projected climate
conditions which result from selecting different global climate models and/or emissions
scenarios/pathways.
Criticality (Infrastructure Chapter): The importance or significance of an asset (functional,
historical, financial, etc.).
Cultural resources (NPS 2006): These include archeological resources, cultural landscapes,
ethnographic resources, historic and prehistoric structures, and museum collections.
Explicit NRVA (Natural): Studies that specifically claim to be evaluating “climate vulnerability”,
“climate exposure”, or “climate sensitivity” and use at least one of those terms.
Exposure:
1. Gross et al. 2014: A measure of the character, magnitude, and rate of climatic changes a
target species or system may experience. This includes exposure to changes in direct climatic
variables (e.g., temperature, precipitation, solar radiation) as well as changes in related
factors (e.g., sea-level rise, water temperatures, drought intensity, ocean acidification).
2. Infrastructure Chapter: Whether the resource of interest is located in an area that
experiences the hazard or impacts of climate change.
3. Natural Resources Chapter: The extent to which climate change or a climate-driven change
in environment is likely to be experienced by a species or system (Dawson et al. 2011).
4. Cultural Resources Chapter: The degree to which a given resource is expected to be
affected by a stressor, threat, or hazard.
Extrinsic adaptive capacity (Natural Resources Chapter): Factors external to the organism or
system that affect its ability to adapt.
Hazard (IPCC 2014): The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced event, trend, or
impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to
property, infrastructure, livelihoods, provision of services, ecosystems, and environmental resources.
Impact (Infrastructure Chapter): The severity or consequence of a natural hazard or climate
change stressor. Commonly used in risk assessments.
Implicit NRVA (Natural Resources Chapter): Studies that never use the term “vulnerability” in a
climate change context, but their purpose is to evaluate potential future changes in one or more park
natural resources due to climate change. These may use the terms climate disruption, climate
impacts, or climate assessment to describe their efforts. Implicit climate change vulnerability
assessments do not frame climate impacts in terms of exposure, sensitivity, or adaptive capacity,
though they implicitly address one or more of these.
xiv
Indicator based vulnerability assessments (Tonmoy et al. 2014): An assessment based on
attributes or characteristics of a system, rather than on direct impacts. Most often used for social
systems or infrastructure, where e.g., economics or maintenance history may relate to vulnerability.
Indicators (Infrastructure Chapter): Factors or data used to represent and evaluate vulnerability
(exposure or sensitivity).
Infrastructure: Buildings, roads, utilities, equipment and other structures or facilities.
Intrinsic adaptive capacity (Natural Resources Chapter): The inherent ability of a species or
system to adapt to climate change.
Likelihood: The chance of a specific outcome occurring, which may be estimated probabilistically.
Mitigation (IPCC 2014): A human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of
greenhouse gases.
Phenology (IPCC 2014): The relationship between biological phenomena that recur periodically
(e.g., development stages, migration) and climate and seasonal changes.
Phenotypic plasticity (US GCRP 2019): The ability of an organism to change its behavior,
physiology, or physical characteristics in response to its environment. This change occurs within an
organism’s lifetime and therefore does not require genetic change.
Proactive sensitivity (Cultural Resources Chapter): The potential of a resource to be harmed by a
stressor, based on active measures undertaken by human stewards.
Probability (Infrastructure Chapter): The likelihood or frequency of an event, hazard, or stressor.
Commonly used in risk assessments.
Quantitative vulnerability assessment approaches (Cultural Resources Chapter): Large-scale
measurement of impacts using a spatially based approach of overlay or intersection methods to
determine exposure of individual resources.
Qualitative vulnerability assessment approaches (Cultural Resources Chapter): High-resolution
assessment of unique characteristics of stressors, exposure, and sensitivity. Usually informed by site-
and resource-specific knowledge.
Reactive sensitivity (Cultural Resources Chapter): Inherent properties that affect the potential to
be harmed by a stressor.
Resilience:
1. IPCC 2014: The capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a
hazardous event or trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain
their essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for
adaptation, learning, and transformation.
xv
2. Infrastructure Chapter: The ability of a system to absorb or adapt to climate change or
natural hazard stress; term is often used interchangeable with vulnerability.
Resource Stewardship Strategy (RSS) (Synthesis Chapter): An RSS (which has replaced
Resource Management Plans) is a comprehensive strategy to guide and provide improved
accountability for the park's multi-year cumulative monetary investment in resource stewardship.
Benchmark target values (synonymous with attaining desired conditions) for an RSS's measurable
indicators provide park management with assessment measures for current resource condition
relative to desired condition, and the effectiveness of management actions towards achieving or
maintaining a desired condition.
Risk:
1. US GCRP 2019: Threats to life, health and safety, the environment, economic well-being,
and other things of value. Risks are often evaluated in terms of how likely they are to occur
(probability) and the damages that would result if they did happen (consequences).
2. Infrastructure Chapter: The probability (likelihood, frequency) and impact (severity,
consequence) of a natural hazard or climate change stressor.
Risk assessment (Jones 2001): The process of identifying the magnitude or consequences of an
adverse event or impact occurring as well as the probability that the event or impact will occur.
Scale: Geographic extent of the study; the scope or study area.
Scale (Infrastructure Chapter): The amount of detail or specificity in the analysis; the level or
resolution at which the analysis is performed. Infrastructure vulnerability assessments commonly
include either 1) spatial scale (e.g., asset-site, community, regional, national), and/or 2) infrastructure
scale (e.g., component, asset, systems).
Scenario (Gross et al. 2016): A coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a
possible future state of a system. Similarly, an emissions scenario is a possible storyline regarding
future emissions of greenhouse gases. Scenarios are used to investigate the potential impacts of
climate change: emissions scenarios serve as inputs to climate models; climate scenarios serve as
inputs to impact assessments.
Scenario planning (Infrastructure and Natural Resources Chapters): A formal planning process
that seeks to develop a series of alternative plausible futures that differ depending on one or more
critical uncertainties.
Sensitivity:
1. IPCC 2014: The degree to which a system or species is affected, either adversely or
beneficially, by climate variability or change. The effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop
yield in response to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temperature) or indirect
(e.g., damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-level
rise).
xvi
2. Infrastructure Chapter: How a resource will fare when exposed to a natural hazard or
climate change stressor.
3. Cultural Resources Chapter: Measures a resource’s susceptibility to harm from an
exposure type.
4. Natural Resources Chapter: The degree to which the survival, functioning, or performance
of a system or species is likely to be impacted by a given change in climate.
Stressor (IPCC 2014): Events and trends, often not climate-related, that have an important effect on
the system exposed and can increase vulnerability to climate related risk.
Vulnerability:
1. IPCC 2007: Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope
with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which
a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.
2. IPCC 2014: The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected [by climate change].
Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or
susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt.
3. Natural Resources Chapter: The degree to which a system or a component of that system is
likely to be harmed by a particular hazard and is often described as being a function of three
distinct elements—exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
4. Infrastructure and Cultural Resources Chapter: The sum of exposure and sensitivity.
Glossary References
Gross, J.E., K. Johnson, P. Glick, and K. Hall. 2014. Understanding climate change impacts and
vulnerability. Pages 87-107 in B.A. Stein, P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt, editors. Climate-
smart conservation: Putting adaptation principles into action. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C.
Gross, J.E., S. Woodley, L.A. Welling, and J.E.M. Watson. 2016. Adapting to climate change:
Guidance for protected area managers and planners. Best Practice Protected Area Guidance
Series No. 24. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, New
York.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Annex II: Glossary [Agard, J., E.L.F.
Schipper, J. Birkmann, M. Campos, C. Dubeux, Y. Nojiri, L. Olsson, B. Osman-Elasha, M.
Pelling, M.J. Prather, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, O.C. Ruppel, A. Sallenger, K.R. Smith, A.L. St Clair,
K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, and T.E. Bilir (eds.)].in V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken,
M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B.
Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White, editors.
xvii
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, New York.
Jones, R.N. 2001. An Environmental Risk Assessment/Management Framework for Climate Change
Impact Assessments. Natural Hazards 23:197-230.
NPS. 2006. Management policies. Available at
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/MP_2006.pdf (accessed March 18, 2022).
Tonmoy, F.N., A. El-Zein, and J. Hinkel. 2014. Assessment of vulnerability to climate change using
indicators: a meta-analysis of the literature. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
5:775–792.
US Global Change Research Program (US GCRP). 2019. US GCRP Glossary. Available at:
https://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/glossary (accessed April 9, 2019)
1
Chapter 1: Overview and Synthesis of National Park Service
Vulnerability Assessments
John E. Gross1, Blair R. Tormey2, Katie McDowell Peek2, Holli L. Thompson2, Julia L. Michalak3,
and Robert S. Young2
1U.S. National Park Service
Climate Change Response Program
Fort Collins, CO 80525
2Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, NC 28723
3School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Lighthouse at Acadia National Park. (©PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF DEVELOPED SHORELINES,
WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY)
Please cite this chapter as:
Gross, J.E., B.R. Tormey, K.M. Peek, H.L. Thompson, J.L. Michalak, and R.S. Young. 2022.
Chapter 1: Overview and Synthesis of NPS Vulnerability Assessments. Pages 1-25 in Peek, K.M., B.
R. Tormey, H.L. Thompson, A. C. Ellsworth, and C.H. Hoffman (editors). 2022. Climate change
vulnerability assessments in the National Park Service: An integrated review for infrastructure,
natural resources, and cultural resources. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—
2022/2404. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr- 2293650.
2
1.0 Executive Summary
Vulnerability assessments of National Park Service units and resources including infrastructure,
natural resources, and cultural resources were evaluated to better understand the “state of the
science” among these resource groups. While approaches are diverse, methods for evaluating
infrastructure and natural resource vulnerability assessments were found to be more well established
than what is known or available for design and development of cultural resources assessments.
Consistent challenges were identified along with best practices and recommendations based on this
literature review.
1.1 Acknowledgments
This chapter was substantially improved by the contributions of many people. M. Rockman, R.L.
Beavers, and C. Hawkins-Hoffman were instrumental to initiating this project and they provided
guidance and leadership throughout the life of the project. P.L. Yu and J.J. Lawler contributed
information about their chapters, and A.C. Ellsworth shepherded the documents through the review
and publication process. This chapter was substantially improved by thoughtful and incisive reviews
from G.W. Schuurman, M. Hilton, and S. Norton. We thank all these people and others that made
this study possible.
This document was funded and developed by the National Park Service Park Climate Change
Response Program, in partnership with Western Carolina University, through a Task Agreement
(P16AC01773) with the Southern Appalachian Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (Cooperative
Agreement P14AC00882).
1.2 Acronyms
CCRP: Climate Change Response Program (NPS)
CRVA: Cultural Resources Vulnerability Assessment
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRMA: Integrated Resource Management Applications (NPS)
IVA: Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment
NPS: National Park Service
NRVA: Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessment
SLR: Sea-Level Rise
VA: Vulnerability Assessment
1.3 NPS Region and Unit Codes
Region Codes
AKR: Alaska Region
IMR: Intermountain Region
MWR: Midwest Region
NCR: National Capital Region
3
NER: Northeast Region
PWR: Pacific West Region
SER: Southeast Region
Park Unit Codes
CAHA: Cape Hatteras National Seashore
CALO: Cape Lookout National Seashore
COLO: Colonial National Historical Park
FIIS: Fire Island National Seashore
GWMP: George Washington Memorial Parkway
1.4 Vulnerability Assessments and NPS Needs
Climate change impacts are apparent across the National Park System, and climate model projections
portend increasing impacts in the future (USGCRP 2017). Proactive management of parks requires
understanding how and where climate changes pose threats and hazards, and developing plans to
mitigate or respond to forthcoming changes. Vulnerability assessments (VAs) help parks respond to
climate changes by identifying what is at risk and why.
The National Park Service (NPS) manages a diverse array of resources and assets, including
outstanding cultural and natural resources, buildings, transportation networks, recreational facilities,
water and sewer infrastructure, and a broad range of visitor experiences. These resources and assets
are differentially affected by climate, and there is no single method or approach to assessing climate
vulnerability that can be uniformly applied across the vast geography and values that the NPS
manages. In addition, practices to assess climate vulnerability and to implement climate change
adaptation are developing rapidly. The difficulty of conducting assessments varies tremendously, as
do the assessment targets. While VAs of natural resources and infrastructure are common (e.g.,
Johnson 2014), the authors of this study found few VAs relevant for cultural resources (Table 1-1).
Box 1-1 provides relevant definitions of climate vulnerability and climate change adaptation.
The NPS has undertaken multiple efforts to identify and understand climate change hazards and the
vulnerability of park resources and infrastructure, ranging from rapid, broad-scale (extent) desktop
assessments, to multi-disciplinary, park-specific vulnerability and adaptation planning efforts.
Vulnerability is being examined at all levels of the NPS, and across all disciplines and directorates.
Resulting VA products were stored in a variety of different locations that often made these products
difficult to discover and acquire. This created challenges for park managers and researchers to locate
relevant VAs and to use the information they contained. Although there has been coordination
between some VAs, others have proceeded without benefitting from insights and lessons previously
learned. A more coordinated approach to assessing climate vulnerability could result in a range of
benefits: improved efficiency in designing studies, more consistency in deliverables, and a greater
likelihood that the VAs meet the most important information needs of parks.
4
Table 1-1. Summary of VA review chapters.
ChapterA
# StudiesB
Stressors
Target
Classification Scheme
2: IVA
91
Natural hazards &
climate change
NPS & other
agencies
Exposure assessments, scenario
planning studies, risk assessment, &
indicator-based VAs
3: NRVA
71
Climate change
NPS (I&M units)
General assessments, broad-scale
screens, systematic multi-target
evaluations, & single resource or process
assessments
4: CRVA
14
Climate change
NPS
Assessment of exposure, sensitivity, &
vulnerability
A Chapter number and VA type within this document. IVA = infrastructure vulnerability assessment. NRVA =
natural resources vulnerability assessment. CRVA = cultural resources vulnerability assessment.
B The number of VA studies evaluated in each chapter.
Box 1-1: What is climate “vulnerability” and what is climate change “adaptation”?
Vulnerability has been defined and calculated in many ways. A widely used definition is: “The
degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character,
magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its
adaptive capacity” (IPCC 2007). More recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC 2014) modified the definition of vulnerability to place it more centrally within a hazards
assessment framework, broadening the definition to “The propensity or predisposition to be
adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including
sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt.” The NPS Climate
Change Response Program has adopted the U.S. Global Change Research Program definition:
“The degree to which physical, biological, and socio-economic systems are susceptible to and
unable to cope with adverse impacts of climate change” (USGCRP 2018).
Climate change VAs are an important, early step towards planning for and implementing climate
change adaptation.
Climate change adaptation is an intentional management response to observed climate changes
or plausible future changes that involves identifying, preparing for (e.g., developing strategy and
specific actions), and responding to (e.g., implementing actions) those changes. The desired
outcome from the management response is to retain current conditions, recover from climate
variations (perhaps to an altered state), or adjust to changing conditions that may include major
transformation in practices or state. Adaptation may seek to “moderate harm or exploit beneficial
opportunities” (IPCC 2014).
5
The NPS commissioned a multi-disciplinary team of researchers to identify, review, and evaluate
VAs that specifically addressed NPS units and resources in an effort to improve the agency’s ability
to learn from previous VAs, to distill “lessons learned”, and identify best practices for designing and
conducting VAs. Researchers compiled and evaluated VAs produced through spring 2018, with
primary goals to:
• provide an inventory and comprehensive review of the VAs conducted on infrastructure,
natural resources, and cultural resources, within and relevant to the NPS,
• evaluate and articulate lessons learned from this collection of VAs, including best practices,
and
• provide a central location for discovery and access to this report and the VAs used in the
synthesis.
This document presents results from this review of VAs in four chapters:
5. Overview and Synthesis of National Park Service Vulnerability Assessments (this chapter),
6. A Review of Vulnerability Assessments for National Park Service INFRASTRUCTURE,
7. A Review of Vulnerability Assessments for NATURAL RESOURCES of the National Park
Service, and
8. A Review of Vulnerability Assessments for CULTURAL RESOURCES of the National Park
Service.
Each of the discipline-specific chapters were funded and completed independently and therefore the
approach and VA selection criteria varied. All chapters represent the best available information and
knowledge of the authors at the time they were written.
1.5 Useful Vulnerability Assessments
For NPS purposes, VAs need to provide actionable information that improves park management by
supporting climate change adaptation. Vulnerability assessments vary in spatial scale and scope,
from sites to landscapes to a global extent, and from evaluating a single species to comprehensively
evaluating all park resources. Definitions of what constitutes a VA are similarly diverse. However,
the highest-quality VAs consistently include:
• evaluation of exposure to explicit climate hazards or threats,
• an assessment of how climate hazards/threats affect the target(s) of the VA,
• for living resources, an evaluation of their adaptive capacity,
• observed (historical) trends and climate projections,
• spatial information (Where are values threatened? Do climate refugia exist?), and
• an explicit evaluation of uncertainty.
A VA does not need to include all possible elements to be useful to park managers, and many VAs
have addressed only one or two elements of vulnerability (Thompson et al. 2015). Climate exposure,
6
often evaluated from changes in temperature and precipitation, is the most easily and commonly
evaluated component. Exposure is also the component of vulnerability that is most applicable across
disciplines or sectors. The level of effort expended to assess climate factors needs to be scaled to the
information needs for decisions, and to the capacity of the people who will use the information. An
appropriate VA may only require a day or two of effort for a subject matter expert or may require
months of work by a team of park staff and collaborators.
Vulnerability assessment results can be communicated in a wide variety of products, including tables,
graphs, maps, and reports, or a combination of these elements. Results may be ranks, numerical
scores, narratives, or profiles. The VAs included in this report cover a spectrum of formats; the utility
of many VAs could be improved through use of minimal standards. For example, maps should be
delivered in a graphic format (e.g., png) and a format that retains geographical information (e.g.,
geodatabase, raster, geoTIFF, geoPDF); and numerical tables should be provided in a printable
format (e.g., pdf) and a machine-readable format suitable for further analysis (e.g., csv). Metadata is
essential. The NPS has only recently employed these standards for products from VAs.
Context and Background of Vulnerability Assessment Frameworks and Methods
The most effective VAs are designed to contribute to and inform a planning process. Ideally, the
management decision that the VA is to inform will determine the most appropriate planning process,
but the design of the VA can be highly dependent on the quality and availability of data and the
expertise of those who design and conduct the assessment. Figure 1-1 is a simplification of the
broader context of NPS decision-making and how VAs can fit into this. Expert elicitation, structured
decision making, and scenario-based planning are common—but by no means exclusive—processes
used to integrate VAs into decision-making (Hoffman et al. 2014). Vulnerability assessments may be
based on one or more existing frameworks, and one or more methods could be used to assess the
individual components of a VA (Figure 1-1). Methods for conducting VAs are rapidly evolving
(particularly for cultural resources), and many VAs use multiple methods or approaches to make the
most effective use of information.
7
Figure 1-1. Vulnerability assessments need to be designed and conducted to support planning processes
and management decisions. This figure illustrates a few of the many potential VA frameworks and
methods.
The most widely used conceptual framework to assess climate vulnerability consists of climate
exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Figure 1-2; see Box 1-2). Climate impact is determined
by exposure and sensitivity, and adaptive capacity moderates potential impacts (Figure 1-2). All three
reviews (Chapters 2-4) stress the importance of evaluating these components of vulnerability. This
three-component VA framework is readily applied to living resources and adaptive capacity is the
response by the assessment target. The NPS Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) considers
the concept of adaptive capacity to apply only to living resources, which have the capability to
respond to a changing climate, and not to non-living resources such as buildings and infrastructure.
The concept of adaptive capacity has been handled in many ways, resulting in substantial confusion.
Particularly for communities or built systems, assessment of adaptive capacity has often included
management responses, or the capacity of people or communities to respond to climate impacts
(Turner et al. 2003). Furthermore, in practice it can be difficult to assign traits or characteristics to
either sensitivity or adaptive capacity, with the result that adaptive capacity and sensitivity are
sometimes lumped together (e.g., Williams et al. 2008; Young et al. 2015). Nonetheless, adaptive
8
capacity addresses an essential component of vulnerability, and it focuses on characteristics of
organisms that can be foundational to assessing vulnerability and to developing successful adaptation
strategies (Thurman et al. 2020, 2022). Adaptation strategies and actions seek to reduce climate
change exposure or sensitivity, or enhance adaptive capacity (of living resources) and thereby reduce
impacts and vulnerability.
Figure 1-2. Commonly used framework for assessing climate vulnerability showing that climate impacts
(negative or positive) result from exposure and sensitivity. For living resources, the impacts may be
ameliorated by the adaptive capacity of the organism. See Box 1-2 for definition of terms.
9
Box 1-2. Components of vulnerability
Climate vulnerability is frequently evaluated by assessing the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive
capacity, as illustrated in Figure 1-2, with the components defined as:
Exposure: A measure of the character, magnitude, and rate of changes a target may experience. In
the climate change context, this includes changes in climate drivers (e.g., temperature,
precipitation, solar radiation) as well as changes in related factors (e.g., sea level, water
temperatures, drought intensity, ocean acidification) (Gross et al. 2014).
Sensitivity: The degree to which a system or species is affected, either adversely or beneficially,
by climate variability or change. The effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop yield in response
to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temperature) or indirect (e.g., damages caused by
an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-level rise) (IPCC 2014).
Adaptive Capacity: The ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other organisms to adjust to
potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences (IPCC 2014).
For institutions, the term applies to both the ability of the institution to adapt so as to persist in its
own right and to foster adaptation among other systems, humans, or organisms.
These three terms were defined independently by the chapter authors, and the similar, but
alternative, definitions used in the chapters are provided in the Glossary.
While the framework illustrated in Figure 1-2 has become a de facto standard, particularly for natural
resources, many other approaches and frameworks for conducting VAs are in use. Fortini and
Schubert’s (2017) VA framework focused on four responses to climate change (migrate, exploit
micro-refugia, tolerate, or evolve) to assess Hawaiian plants and birds (Fortini et al. 2015), including
species highly important to parks. Other approaches focus on ecosystem change and resilience
(Prober et al. 2012), or species/system traits (Young et al. 2015). This diversity in VA frameworks
reflects the breadth in resource characteristics and differing states of knowledge and management.
Vulnerability Assessment Methods
Within each framework, a variety of methods are available to evaluate the components of
vulnerability. For example, climate sensitivity of a species could be inferred by assessing the range
(breadth) of climate characteristics where the species occurs, or it could be determined from
extensive laboratory and field manipulations that carefully document physiological responses to a
changing environment. Similarly, a building’s sensitivity could be evaluated from a historical
maintenance schedule and expert opinion, or from experimental applications of rainfall with
measurements of the weathering of paints and wall claddings.
10
The VA methods in the following chapters can be roughly categorized as mechanistic, trait- or
indicator-based, or correlational.
Mechanistic assessments are based on a functional understanding of processes and relationships
between the VA target, climate, and other important factors that permit the investigator to predict,
often quantitatively, responses to climate change. Outside of NPS, mechanistic approaches have
often been used for infrastructure VAs (Chapter 2), where engineering and structural principles are
well established and can be applied to assess the ability of built systems to withstand projected
changes in climate exposure. Mechanistic assessments of species or habitats typically require detailed
physiological, demographic, and other data that are often not available.
Trait- or Indicator-based VAs use attributes (traits, characteristics) to assess sensitivity and, where
applicable, adaptive capacity of VA targets. When designed to use existing databases, indicator-
based VAs can often be completed quickly and for a large number of VA targets (e.g., Pacifici et al.
2018).
Correlative assessments rely on statistical relationships between climate, other covariates, and one or
more important measure(s) of the conservation target. For species, the most common measure is
occurrence, and correlations between climate and occurrence are the basis for climate envelope and
many species distribution models. Most correlative assessments are relatively fast and require little
data. The data are often available in readily accessible databases, and an initial model may be
constructed very quickly and inexpensively for many conservation targets such as species (Wu et al.
2018).
Each method has strengths and weaknesses, and a frontier in vulnerability science is developing
hybrid methods that integrate or combine features to improve both the efficiency and the accuracy of
forecasts. For example, Iverson et al. (2019) combined climate envelope models, a correlational
method, with a trait-based assessment of climate change adaptation potential to assess climate
vulnerability of 125 eastern U.S. tree species, improving evaluations over each method used
independently.
Climate Futures, Scenarios, and Range of Climate Projections
Most VAs include an assessment of climate change, usually with an evaluation of both historical
(observed) trends and future (projected) trends. All climate projections are associated with a range of
variation. Variation in climate projections results from factors such as how climate models
mathematically describe processes (e.g., cloud formation), human decisions (e.g., greenhouse gas
emissions, land use), inherent system randomness (e.g., how complex wind and temperature
gradients interact), and what is or is not included in the climate model (e.g., societal decisions,
11
changes in land cover, deep ocean processes). More robust VAs explicitly address the range of
variation or uncertainty1 in climate projections.
The use of climate futures and scenarios is an increasingly common approach to address the range of
variation among climate projections and the impact of climate changes on resources and values of
interest (NPS 2021a). In the context of VAs, climate futures describe divergent climates that could
plausibly occur at a specific place and time, and that capture the range of variation among projections
(Lawrence et al. 2021). Climate futures are foundational to creating full scenarios. Scenarios
incorporate climate futures to assess implications that are consequential to resources and values that
are important to managers and the broader community. Although the infrastructure vulnerability
assessment (IVA) chapter considers scenarios as a distinct approach to conducting VAs, climate
futures and scenarios can be integrated into and support a broad range of VA approaches (NPS
2021a; Lawrence et al. 2021). The NPS recently produced guidance (NPS 2021a) describing how
scenario planning can be integrated into established NPS planning processes and the Climate-Smart
adaptation cycle (Stein et al. 2014).
1.6 Chapter Scope and Limitations
Authors of each chapter started with similar goals, but the availability and breadth of relevant VAs
varied considerably between chapters. Table 1-1 summarizes the number and key attributes of VAs
included in the analyses in each chapter. Differences in the number of studies carefully examined in
each chapter were striking, ranging from 14 (CRVAs) to 91 IVAs. These numbers are broadly
indicative of the maturity of VA methods for these sectors, and they particularly emphasize the
dearth of VAs for cultural resources. Although the number of VAs evaluated in Chapters 2 and 3
were roughly similar, the authors of Chapter 2 (IVAs) reached well beyond NPS-focused studies to
make their evaluation more inclusive and meaningful to the NPS. The infrastructure chapter included
VAs conducted by local, state, federal, and international government agencies, and included other
natural hazards (in addition to climate change). Vulnerability assessments from these non-NPS
organizations were included because of the limited quantity and variety of NPS-specific climate
change-based VAs for infrastructure. In contrast, the abundance of natural resources vulnerability
assessments (NRVAs) meant that the authors of Chapter 3 (NRVAs) had to impose strict criteria to
subset the available VAs to a manageable number.
Each of the chapters used different criteria for selecting the VAs that were included in their detailed
analyses. The IVA and CRVA chapters focused solely on VAs that explicitly stated they were
evaluating climate-change vulnerability, threats, or risks to infrastructure or cultural resources. The
IVA chapter reviewed both assessments conducted for national parks and assessments from other
government entities such as cities, states, and the Federal Highway Administration. The NRVA
chapter included publicly available VAs for named national parks. In addition, the NRVA chapter
1 Here, “uncertainty” describes the statistical properties of the range of variation such as the standard deviation, and
how variation can be attributed to different sources such as greenhouse gas emissions. It is not a measure of “how
much we know”, but closer to “how sensitive model results are to factors we know about.”
12
also included documents that did not explicitly claim to evaluate vulnerability but did evaluate
projected future changes in one or more park natural resources due to climate change. Beyond these,
many studies described potential climate-change impacts to species, habitats, and ecosystems that are
relevant to park resource decisions, but these studies did not explicitly identify a park or the NPS
system. Given the large number of these types of assessments and studies, the NRVA chapter
restricted its evaluation to those documents that explicitly stated they were evaluating the National
Park System or specific named parks.
Relatively few climate change VAs evaluated in this report addressed all components of
vulnerability. The evaluated VAs also lack a consistent definition or minimal threshold for what
qualifies as a climate change VA (versus a consideration of a potential climate impact). This is
particularly evident for studies that only assessed exposure, or even a small subset of the potentially
important climate exposure variables (e.g., Monahan and Fisichelli 2014; Hansen et al. 2014; Peek et
al. 2015). This lack of distinction does not affect the utility of the information in a study, but it does
complicate comparisons of studies and can affect need-based prioritizations that assume all studies
are equally comprehensive.
A key challenge for all investigators was locating and acquiring VAs specifically focused on NPS
resources. Ensuring that all NPS-commissioned VA are archived in NPS Integrated Resource
Management Applications (IRMA) would significantly improve the ability of all to discover and
obtain products from VAs.
There are no established ways to categorize VAs, particularly across the broad range of NPS
resources. Here, each chapter was developed independently, and classification schemes are therefore
unique to each chapter (Table 1-1). With reference to Figure 1-1, the non-exclusive classification in
the IVA chapter (Chapter 2) includes a higher-level planning process, two categories best described
as VA frameworks, and an assessment method. The NRVA chapter (Chapter 3) categorized VAs by
scale, scope, and “general” VAs that covered a range of resources in one or more parks. The CRVA
review (Chapter 4) includes a conceptual diagram of tradeoffs between spatial scale and focus
(scope), illustrating the use of broader-scale (but less detailed VAs) to identify priorities that would
need to be addressed via more detailed (finer spatial scale) VAs. Since there were only 14 cultural
resource VA studies evaluated in detail, Chapter 4 did not explicitly categorize the studies, but the
authors evaluated how each study assessed exposure and sensitivity, the use of qualitative and
quantitative methods, and success in meeting the stated goals of the study.
Although the use of independent VA classification schemes facilitated analysis within each chapter
or discipline, it prevented any simple cross-disciplinary comparisons of results. All chapters were
similar in evaluating exposure, but beyond that there was a broad range of approaches and
frameworks. Some studies, particularly of infrastructure assets, focused on hazards and were clearly
influenced by the existing compliance and regulatory requirement. Natural and cultural resource VAs
most frequently followed the framework illustrated in Figure 1-2, but there was still a broad range of
approaches. Should such a study be conducted in the future, it would be informative to develop a
conceptual model such as Figure 1-1 to facilitate evaluation of different methods, frameworks, and
13
planning processes that contribute to climate change adaptation. These could further be subdivided
into studies that are quantitative/qualitative/both, and by scope and scale
1.7 Chapter Summaries
Infrastructure
Chapter 2 reviews VA approaches used to understand potential natural hazard and climate change
impacts to infrastructure within the NPS, as well as other local, state, federal, and international
government agencies. Over 90 documents related to infrastructure vulnerability were reviewed
(Table 1-1). Four approaches characterize these IVAs: 1) exposure assessments, 2) scenario planning
studies, 3) risk assessments, and 4) indicator-based VAs. This chapter also discusses common
approach themes, considerations and challenges, and recommendations for assessing the climate
change and natural hazard vulnerability of infrastructure, emphasizing protocols most appropriate for
the NPS.
Natural Resources
Chapter 3 reviews VA approaches used to understand climate change impacts to natural resources
within the NPS, specific to park units within the Inventory and Monitoring system (Table 1-1). This
chapter identifies 71 studies with either an explicit or implicit goal of evaluating natural resource
climate change vulnerability. From these studies, four NRVA approaches are documented: 1) general
assessments, 2) broad-scale screens, 3) systematic multi-target evaluations, and 4) single resource or
process assessments. This chapter examines the spatial distribution and assessment targets of
NRVAs, as well as the components of vulnerability, common tools and models, and evaluation of
uncertainty. Finally, this chapter recommends best practices for conducting NRVAs for national
parks, and for protected areas in general.
Cultural Resources
Chapter 4 reviews VA approaches used to understand climate change impacts to cultural resources
within the NPS (Table 1-1). This chapter describes and compares the goals, methods, results, and
best practices of 14 CRVAs and identifies major accomplishments and missed opportunities. This
chapter also summarizes the application of the components of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity,
and the unique role of adaptive capacity), identifies common geographic gaps and opportunities
across the studies, and provides near-term recommendations for future efforts.
1.8 Vulnerability Assessment Review and Comparison
There are multiple similarities and differences across IVAs, NRVAs, and CRVAs, as well as in the
approach of each review chapter. The following section describes these common themes, differences
in approach, and use of terminology.
Scale, Scope, and Resolution
The term “scale” has a variety of connotations and uses. In this report, scale was used to refer to both
the geographic extent of and the resolution, or granularity, of the analysis. The natural and cultural
resources chapters typically refer to geographic extent as scale (e.g., fine or broad scale, site or
regional/national scale), while the infrastructure chapter used scale to refer to the granularity of the
data or analysis – what natural resource studies would typically refer to as “resolution.” In this report,
14
resolution in Chapter 2 (infrastructure) refers to assets, whereas in Chapter 4 it refers to the spatial
scale (e.g., grid size) of data. “Scope” more consistently referred to the diversity of resources
considered.
When scale refers to geography, broad-scale VAs are typically screening or coarse-filter studies (see
Noon et al. 2009) that assess a subset of climate factors across multiple park units with a goal to
identify priorities for further action. These coarse-filter studies necessarily rely on generic variables
or indicators, rather than species- or asset-specific characteristics, and the resolution of data rarely
aligns with that needed to design site-specific management actions. Natural resources are the most
common conservation targets for coarse-filter studies, and most of these focus on exposure, which is
sometimes used to drive species distribution models (e.g., Lawler et al. 2010).
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Combined Vulnerability Assessments
All three chapters discussed VA approaches that could be characterized as quantitative, qualitative,
or both. We can identify a few generalizations:
• Broad-scale, coarse-screening studies are usually quantitative, and they use automated
methods that process changes in temperature or other numerical metrics.
• Hazard assessment IVAs are almost by necessity quantitative because they rely on
probabilities and often on engineering analyses.
• Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessments commonly combine quantitative and
qualitative information, sometimes producing a specific numerical score, and sometimes a
categorical ranking.
• Climate exposure is almost always a quantitative input (e.g., change in temperature,
precipitation, or sea-level rise (SLR) determined from computer model), but sensitivity and
adaptive capacity are often based on expert knowledge and are very frequently qualitative
inputs.
1.9 Geographic Coverage
Virtually all NPS units have some information on climate exposure that is relevant to all resources
from the National Climate Assessment (USGCRP 2017; 2018), IPCC reports, and similar sources
(see e.g., https://toolkit.climate.gov/tools/climate-explorer). For many parks, a coarse-filter
assessment of natural resource vulnerabilities based on exposure can be supplemented by regional-
scale or species-focused studies such as the U.S. Forest Service regional VAs (e.g., Halofsky et al.
2018a, b; Hayward et al. 2017; Janowiak et al. 2018; Williams and Friggins 2017) and assessments
of key species, trees, fish, or other taxa (e.g., Bagne et al. 2011; Cole et al. 2011; Iverson et al. 2008;
Isaak et al. 2016). Because such assessments are not focused on park units, they were excluded from
detailed analyses. There are currently (as of 2021) many sources of information, outside of formal
VAs, that parks can use to assess climate vulnerabilities. We discuss these further below, including
challenges to using this information.
Based on the subset of studies used for the analyses in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, approximately 230 NPS
units (more than 50%) have not been the focus of any park-specific, detailed VA (Figure 1-3, and
15
Figure 1-4, “No VA” category). Large-extent, multi-park studies were excluded from the “detailed”
VA category (Peek et al. 2015; Wilson 2014; all NRVA broad-scale screens; Chapter 2 of this
report). The Intermountain Region (IMR), Alaska Region (AKR), and National Capital Region2
(NCR) had the highest percentage of units lacking a detailed VA (approximately two-thirds each,
Figure 1-3, and Figure 1-4). In contrast, roughly two-thirds of the Southeast Region (SER) units have
been the focus of detailed VAs (only one-third of these units lack a detailed VA). Approximately half
of the units within the Pacific West Region (PWR), Midwest Region (MWR), and Northeast Region
(NER) had no detailed VAs at the time of the analyses (2018).
Figure 1-3. Geographic distribution of detailed NPS-specific studies included in all VA review chapters,
within the contiguous U.S. Each VA symbol represents the centroid of any NPS unit included within the
review, regardless of the quantity of VAs within the unit. Parks with all three VA types are labeled in red.
NPS units lacking detailed VAs (within this review) are shown as white dots, and NPS regions are shown
in shades of grey. Broad-scale (extent) studies are not included as detailed VAs.
2 Subsequent to this study, many NCR parks received park-specific, landscape-focused VAs that specifically
evaluated exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of parks (see Smyth et al. 2018).
16
Figure 1-4. Geographic distribution of detailed NPS-specific studies included in all VA review chapters,
within Alaska, Hawaii (inset A), and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (inset B). Vulnerability
assessments conducted in Guam and American Samoa are not shown. Each VA symbol represents the
centroid of any NPS unit included within the review, regardless of the quantity of VAs within unit. NPS
units lacking detailed VAs (within this review) are shown as white dots, and NPS regions are shown in
shades of grey. Broad-scale (extent) studies are not included as detailed VAs.
The most striking result illustrated in Figure 1-3 is the relative absence of CRVA and IVAs across
the entire NPS system. Through 2018 there were 169 NPS units with at least one detailed NRVA, 29
with IVAs, and approximately 20 with CRVAs (Figure 1-3, and Figure1-4). Only five NPS units at
the time of this study were the focus of all three types of VAs (detailed IVA, NRVA, and CRVA).
This includes two in the SER (CALO and CAHA), two in the NER (COLO and FIIS), and one in the
NCR (GWMP). Several parks were the focus of more than one detailed IVA, NRVA, and/or CRVA
(see review chapters for further information).
Most IVAs and CRVAs focus on coastal units, while the NRVAs are more evenly distributed across
the NPS system (Figures 1-3, and 1-4). The concentration of VAs in the coastal parks is attributed to
the current and anticipated impacts of SLR and storms associated with changing climate. In addition,
compared to other climate change stressors (e.g., temperature and precipitation), SLR is relatively
well understood and mapped, making vulnerability easier, quicker, and less expensive to assess.
Other multi-hazard assessments have been challenged by lack of data.
1.10 Challenges and Lessons Learned
Park Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments
Only a very small portion of the park VAs evaluated in this volume include an NPS author, and even
fewer were conducted or led by park staff. This low representation of NPS staff emphasizes the
limited capacity of park staff to design, conduct, contract, and in some cases even participate in a
VA. Parks rarely have the time or expertise needed to independently direct a VA, in part due to the
17
huge variation in the focus, scale, scope, and resolution of VAs, and the myriad approaches and
methods (Figure 1-1). Most parks need assistance identifying appropriate goals for a park-specific
VA and most will benefit from outside advice on the design and conduct of a VA that best fits their
resources, needs, and impending decisions.
Consistent Vulnerability Assessment Terminology and Protocols
A variety of terms are used inconsistently in this volume; chapter-specific definitions of common
terms are included in the Glossary. Some terms have well-established, but different, discipline-
specific definitions. During the conduct of this study, the NPS CCRP finalized a glossary (NPS
2021b) that addresses many issues of terminology and will contribute to more consistent use of
terms.
Developing common protocols to achieve efficiencies will remain a challenging issue due to huge
variations in park size, resources, capacities, priorities, and settings. The NPS developed a protocol
and funded a series of SLR climate vulnerability studies that employ a consistent methodology,
thereby achieving significant efficiencies (WCU and NPS 2016; see IVA chapter description). Other
ongoing projects are focused on developing repeatable, efficient VA methods for cultural resources
in western parks (CREVAT – Cultural Resources Environmental Assessment Tool; Hartfield et al.
2019) and in eastern park settings (Seekamp et al. 2019; Xiao et al. 2019). Similarly, opportunities
exist to evaluate high-impact climate stressors, such as SLR and fire. However, the range of NPS
resources, park settings, and unique situations ensures that a diversity of approaches will be
necessary to meet NPS system-wide needs for VAs. Michalak et al. (2021) comprehensively
evaluated priority needs for VAs and a broad range of potential strategies to efficiently meet high-
priority needs.
Communication and Vulnerability Assessment Archiving
All collaborators reported difficulties identifying and acquiring park-specific VAs. A clear
recommendation (see above) is to develop basic standards for VAs, including archiving all major VA
products in NPS IRMA.
Considering Trade-Offs in Scope and Detail
A consistent trade-off across all disciplines is that of scope versus detail (Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3).
General, or screening, assessments rarely provide the resource- or asset-specific data needed to
support site-specific decisions or treatments, but they are useful for identifying potential hazards or
vulnerabilities across a broad spatial extent. These broader studies are an important way for park
managers to quickly obtain vulnerability information that can help target high priority resources or
develop more park-specific assessments. Each chapter in this document includes examples of these
broad-scale (extent) VAs (e.g., IVAs – Peek et al. 2015; NRVAs – Young et al. 2015; CRVAs –
Wilson 2014), which calculate vulnerability metrics across multiple parks. However, general studies
are rarely able to include potentially important local and regional information on either impacts or
specific resources. Vulnerability assessments with a narrower focus can incorporate park- and site-
specific data that inform park-level management decisions, but results may not be easily adapted or
applicable elsewhere. Some parks have successfully undertaken park-wide, detailed VAs (e.g.,
Schuurman et al. 2019; Runyon et al. 2021). These require a sustained effort by park staff and
18
partners, but have substantial advantages in their ability to help integrate responses across the diverse
resources that every park needs to manage simultaneously.
Aligning Vulnerability Assessments to Park Needs
Vulnerability assessments are most effective when the results can directly inform an identified park
need (e.g., vegetation or wildlife management; facilities maintenance or development plan), or the
VA is an integral part of a broader park adaptation effort (e.g., scenario planning; Star et al. 2016;
NPS 2021a). As a prerequisite, determining the specific purpose of the analysis and need for the
results will prevent products from “sitting on a shelf,” effectively wasting the investment in the work.
To inform decisions, the level of detail and effort directed to a VA needs to match the information
needs and capacity of park staff and decision-makers. In this review, the most useful VAs employed
straightforward, understandable methods, and presented vulnerability results and supporting
information in formats that could be easily incorporated into routine resource- or facility-specific
management plans and documents.
1.11 Recommendations and Best Practices
Each review chapter identified best practices and/or recommendations specific to infrastructure,
natural, or cultural resources. Below we highlight attributes that characterize the best VAs.
Ensure the Vulnerability Assessment Matches Needs
At the earliest stages of a VA design, consider the resources, spatial scale, and resolution that is
needed to support park management needs. These needs may be more vaguely defined information
goals for routine management plans (fire, vegetation, transportation, operations) or specific
rehabilitation or development projects. The design of a VA should include the overarching
framework (Figure 1-1), how the study will be implemented, and the eventual products. While
adaptation options are not technically a part of VAs, obvious actions in response to vulnerabilities
should be included in a final report and included in discussions between the study investigators and
park staff. Vulnerability assessments are most effective when park staff are involved throughout the
study, and when results are designed to support specific management decisions.
Clearly Define Vulnerability Assessment Study Parameters
Following from the previous recommendation, once decisions are confirmed on study design, these
decisions should be clearly articulated. Vulnerability assessment documentation should define the
scope (e.g., range of resources, assets, values considered), geographic scale, and resolution of data
and results that will constitute the VA. The NPS can avoid confusion by clearly defining terms
commonly used in VAs, recognizing that well-established, discipline-specific, and contradictory
definitions will remain in use (the NPS CCRP Glossary directly addresses this need; NPS 2021b).
Prioritize Resources to be Thoroughly Assessed
Financial and staffing resources are often unavailable to conduct a comprehensive, park-wide
detailed VA. An initial, relatively quick and inexpensive coarse filter VA may efficiently identify
vulnerable resources that merit more immediate actions or detailed VAs. The experience of
conducting a screening VA will also enhance the park staff’s ability to understand climate threats,
VAs, and climate change adaptation.
19
Evaluate All Components of Vulnerability
The most robust VAs identify and evaluate all relevant components of vulnerability. For those VAs
that use the traditional framework (Figure 1-2), this will include exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive
capacity for living resources. For adaptive capacity, assessments can often benefit by explicitly
considering intrinsic and extrinsic elements (e.g., physical species traits versus landscape changes
caused by humans; Beever et al. 2015). For IVAs and CRVAs focused on non-living resources,
vulnerability is a function of exposure and sensitivity.
Address Uncertainty
All climate change-based VAs make assumptions about physical processes, societal actions and
greenhouse gas emissions, and the consequences of climate changes. This uncertainty, or range of
possibilities, will be explicitly addressed in robust VAs. Hoffman et al. (2014) summarize a variety
of ways to address uncertainty in the context of VAs and climate change adaptation. NPS (2021a) has
advocated the use of climate futures in climate change adaptation. Climate futures are projections of
consequential climate variables for a specific place and time. These climate futures represent the
range of plausible climate projections and are a basis for developing more detailed assessments of the
consequences of climate changes (Star et al. 2016; Runyon et al. 2020; Lawrence et al. 2021).
Vulnerability assessments that adopt a hazard-risk framework usually estimate the probability, or
likelihood, of a critical climate event and the resulting impacts or consequences. Probability can be
difficult or impossible to quantify and many VAs have used expert elicitation to assess it
qualitatively. Hazard assessments are typically focused on “pulse” or acute events, such as fire or
flood, and they are usually designed to support actions that reduce risks from a specific hazard. Most
climate change-based VAs, in contrast, are designed to inform and support climate change adaptation
pathways that may encompass long periods and respond to gradual or “press” stresses (Romieu et al.
2010).
Identify Key Vulnerabilities
Key vulnerabilities are those that most threaten park conservation and management goals (Gross et
al. 2014). The concept of key vulnerabilities includes knowing which resources or assets are of
greatest concern due to their relative vulnerability, and how important those resources are to
achieving agreed-upon park management goals. Criteria used to identify key vulnerabilities will vary
and may include implications for multiple conservation goals, magnitude and timing of likely
impacts, reversibility of impacts, and societal consequences.
Archive Vulnerability Assessment Products in NPS IRMA
Chapter authors consistently reported challenges locating NPS VAs and acquiring VA products.
Results of VAs would be consistently discoverable by ensuring that final products of all NPS-
commissioned studies are submitted and archived in the NPS IRMA Portal
(https://irma.nps.gov/Portal/) and by using consistent keywords and other information management
practices to facilitate discovery and bundling of VA products.
20
Embrace Partnerships
Most VAs require personnel to evaluate historical climate observations and future projections,
evaluate park resources, identify climate threats, and lead a collaborative project. Relevant expertise
may best be acquired from local resource experts, national programs fluent in evaluation of large
climate datasets, and park staff that best understand a park’s context, needs, priorities, and
limitations. Many sources of information relevant to a VA originate and are managed outside of the
NPS, emphasizing the benefit of working with partners familiar with sources of information and the
skills to process it. Some planning approaches, such as “deep dive” scenario planning (Runyon et al.
2020), require considerable expertise in the planning process itself, and participants with sufficient
knowledge of the resources and their relationships to climate drivers.
1.12 Concluding Remarks
A notable result of these studies is the relative lack of CRVAs or IVAs across the national park
system. Although the NPS is actively working to address needs for VAs, methods to conduct CRVAs
are now being actively developed, and considerable research is needed. In contrast, there are many
established methods, and a diversity of approaches, for conducting NRVAs and IVAs.
Among the VAs examined, IVAs are most likely to be quantitative and conducted within a hazard-
risk framework; quantitative assessments of probabilities (where possible) are often important, and in
many cases necessary to meet engineering and/or regulatory requirements. Probabilities are
particularly difficult to assign to many aspects of VAs of living resources because species
interactions and adaptive responses are important (Ockendon et al. 2014) and difficult to forecast.
Vulnerability assessments of parks and park resources span a range of geographic scales, scope
(breath of resources considered), and climate factors considered. The NPS has needs for a broad
range of VAs, from relatively quick and inexpensive “coarse filter” studies that increase a park
staff’s understanding of climate changes and vulnerabilities, to comprehensive VAs that require
teams with expertise in planning, park resources, and the methodology used to conduct the
assessment. Results from this study will help the NPS design, conduct, and use VAs to address and
adapt to challenges posed by climate change.
1.13 Literature Cited
Bagne, K.E., M.M. Friggens, and D.M. Finch. 2011. A system for assessing vulnerability of species
(SAVS) to climate change. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-257. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Beever, E.A., J. O'Leary, C. Mengelt, J.M. West, S. Julius, N. Green, D. Magness, L. Petes, B. Stein,
A.B. Nicotra, J.J. Hellmann, A.L. Robertson, M.D. Staudinger, A.A. Rosenberg, E. Babij, J.
Brennan, G.W. Schuurman, and G.E. Hofmann. 2015. Improving conservation outcomes with a
new paradigm for understanding species’ fundamental and realized adaptive capacity.
Conservation Letters 9:131–137.
21
Cole, K.L., K. Ironside, J. Eischeid, G. Garfin, P.B. Duffy, and C. Toney. 2011. Past and ongoing
shifts in Joshua tree distribution support future modeled range contraction. Ecological
Applications 21:137-149.
Fortini, L.B., A.E. Vorsino, F.A. Amidon, E.H. Paxton, and J.D. Jacobi. 2015. Large-Scale Range
Collapse of Hawaiian Forest Birds under Climate Change and the Need 21st Century
Conservation Options. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0140389.
Fortini, L. and O. Schubert. 2017. Beyond exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity: A response
based ecological framework to assess species climate change vulnerability. Climate Change
Responses 4:2.
Gross, J.E., K. Johnson, P. Glick, and K. Hall. 2014. Understanding climate change impacts and
vulnerability. In B.A. Stein, P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt, editors. Climate-smart
conservation: Putting adaptation principles into action. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C., pp. 87-107.
Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.J. Little, and L.A. Joyce. 2018a. Climate change
vulnerability and adaptation in the intermountain region [part 1]. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station., Fort Collins, Colorado. pp. 1-198.
Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.J. Little, and L.A. Joyce. 2018b. Climate change
vulnerability and adaptation in the intermountain region [part 2]. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 199-513.
Hansen, A.J., N.B. Piekielek, C. Davis, J.R. Haas, D.M. Theobald, J.E. Gross, W.B. Monahan, T.
Olliff, and S.W. Running. 2014. Exposure of US National Parks to land use and climate change
1900-2100. Ecological Applications 24:484-502.
Hartfield, K., S.R. LeRoy, J. Weiss, B. Jeffery, W van Leeuwen, F. Garfin, H. Hartmann, L. Meyer,
R. Adler, and P. Benjamin. 2019. Developing a framework for assessing vulnerability of western
cultural heritage. In: 15th Biennial Conference of Science and Management on the Colorado
Plateau and Southwest Region, Flagstaff, AZ.
Hayward, G.H., S. Colt, M.L. McTeague, and T.N. Hollingsworth. 2017. Climate change
vulnerability assessment for the Chugach National Forest and the Kenai Peninsula. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-950. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.
Hoffman, J., E. Rowland, C. Hawkins Hoffman, J. West, S. Sherrod-Julius, and M. Hayes M. 2014.
Managing under uncertainty. Pages 177–187 in B. Stein, P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt,
editors. Climate-smart conservation: Putting adaptation principles into practice. National Wildlife
Federation, Washington, D.C.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report
22
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof,
P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and
New York, New York.
IPCC. 2014. Annex II: Glossary in Agard, J., E.L.F. Schipper, J. Birkmann, M. Campos, C. Dubeux,
Y. Nojiri, et al., editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B:
Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, New York.
Isaak, D.J., M.K. Young, C.H. Luce, S.W. Hostetler, S.J. Wenger, E.E. Peterson, J.M. Ver Hoef,
M.C. Groce, D.L. Horan, and D.E. Nagel. 2016. Slow climate velocities of mountain streams
portend their role as refugia for cold-water biodiversity. Proceedings National Academy
Sciences, USA 113:4374–4379.
Iverson, L.R., A.M. Prasad, S.N. Matthews, and M. Peters. 2008. Estimating potential habitat for 134
eastern U.S. tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management 254:390-
406.
Iverson, L.R., A.M. Prasad, M.P. Peters, and S.N. Matthews. 2019. Facilitating Adaptive Forest
Management under Climate Change: A Spatially Specific Synthesis of 125 Species for Habitat
Changes and Assisted Migration over the Eastern United States. Forests 10:989.
Janowiak, M.K., A.W. D'Amato, C.W. Swanston, L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson III, and W.D. Dijak.
2018. New England and northern New York forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and
synthesis: A report from the New England climate change response framework project. General
Technical Report NRS-173. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
Johnson, K.A. 2014. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Natural Resources Management:
Toolbox of Methods with Case Studies, Version 2. Science Applications, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arlington, Virginia.
Lawler, J.J., S.L. Shafer, and A.R. Blaustein. 2010. Projected climate impacts for the amphibians of
the western hemisphere. Conservation Biology 24:38-50.
Lawrence, D.J., A.N. Runyon, J.E. Gross, G.W. Schuurman, and B.W. Miller. 2021. Divergent,
plausible, and relevant climate futures for near- and long-term resource planning. Climatic
Change 167:38.
Michalak, J.L., J.J. Lawler, C.E. Littlefield, and J.E. Gross. 2021. A strategic analysis of climate
vulnerability of national park resources and values. Natural Resource Report NPS/CCRP/NRR-
2021. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Monahan, W.B., and N.A. Fisichelli. 2014. Climate exposure of U.S. national parks in a new era of
change. PLoS One 9: e101302.
23
Noon, B.R., K.S. McKelvey, and B.G. Dickson. 2009. Multispecies conservation planning on U.S.
Federal lands. In: J.J. Millspaugh, and F.R. Thompson III, editors. Models for planning wildlife
conservation in large landscapes. Elsevier Science, San Diego, California. pp. 51-84.
National Park Service (NPS). 2021a. Planning for a changing climate: Climate-smart planning and
management in the National Park Service. NPS Climate Change Response Program, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
NPS. 2021b. Coming to terms with climate change: Working definitions. Version 1.0. NPS Climate
Change Response Program, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ockendon, M., D.J. Baker, J.A. Carr, E.C. White, R.E.A. Almond, T. Amano, E. Bertram, R.B.
Bradbury, C. Bradley, S.H.M. Butchart, N. Doswald, W. Foden, D.J.C. Gill, R.E. Green, W.J.
Sutherland, E.V.J. Tanner, and J.W. Pearce-Higgins. 2014. Mechanisms underpinning climatic
impacts on natural populations: Altered species interactions are more important than direct
effects. Global Change Biology 20:2221-2229.
Pacifici, M., P. Visconti, and C. Rondinini. 2018. A framework for the identification of hotspots of
climate change risk for mammals. Global Change Biology 24:1626-1636.
Peek, K.M., R.S. Young, R.L. Beavers, C.H. Hoffman, B.T. Diethorn, and S. Norton. 2015. Adapting
to climate change in coastal national parks: Estimating the exposure of park assets to 1m of sea-
level rise. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR-2015/961. National Park Service,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Prober, S.M., K.R. Thiele, P.W. Rundel, C.J. Yates, S.L. Berry, M. Byrne, L. Christidis, C.R.
Gosper, P.F. Grierson, K. Lemson, T. Lyons, C. Macfarlane, M.H. O'Connor, J.K. Scott, R.J.
Standish, W.D. Stock, E.J.B. van Etten, G.W. Wardell-Johnson, and A. Watson. 2012.
Facilitating adaptation of biodiversity to climate change: A conceptual framework applied to the
world's largest Mediterranean-climate woodland. Climatic Change 110:227-248.
Romieu, E., T. Welle, S. Schneiderbauer, M. Pelling, and C. Vinchon. 2010. Vulnerability
assessment within climate change and natural hazard contexts: Revealing gaps and synergies
through coastal applications. Sustainability Science 5:159-170.
Runyon, A.N., G.W. Schuurman, B.W. Miller, A.J. Symstad, and A.R. Hardy. 2021. Climate change
scenario planning for resource stewardship at Wind Cave National Park: Climate change scenario
planning summary. Natural Resource Report. NPS/NRSS/NRR—2021/2274. National Park
Service. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Runyon, A.N., A.R. Carlson, J.E. Gross, D.J. Lawrence, and G.W. Schuurman. 2020. Repeatable
approaches to work with scientific uncertainty and advance climate change adaptation in US
National Parks. Parks Stewardship Forum 36:98-104.
Schuurman, G.W., A. Symstad, B.W. Miller, A.N. Runyon, and R. Ohms. 2019. Climate change
scenario planning for resource stewardship: Applying a novel approach in Devils Tower National
24
Monument. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR 2019/2052, U.S. National Park
Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Seekamp, E., M. Post van der Burg, S. Fatorić, M.J. Eaton, X. Xiao, and A. McCreary. 2019.
Optimizing historical preservation under climate change – an overview of the optimal
preservation model and pilot testing at Cape Lookout National Seashore. Open-File Report 2018-
1180. United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Smyth, R., J. Teague, S. Auer, and H. Hamilton. 2018. Climate change vulnerability of terrestrial
areas of the National Capital Region. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Unpublished Resource Brief, Washington, D.C.
Star, J., E.L. Rowland, M.E. Black, C.A.F. Enquist, G. Garfin, C.H. Hoffman, H. Hartmann, K.L.
Jacobs, R.H. Moss, and A.M. Waple. 2016. Supporting adaptation decisions through scenario
planning: Enabling the effective use of multiple methods. Climate Risk Management 13:88-94.
Stein, B.A., P. Glick, N. Edelson, and S. Staudt, editors. 2014. Climate-smart conservation: Putting
adaptation principles into practice. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, L.M., M. Staudinger, and S.L. Carter. 2015. Summarizing components of U.S.
Department of the Interior vulnerability assessments to focus climate adaptation planning. United
States Geological Survey, Open File Report 2015-1110.
Thurman, L.L., B.A. Stein, E.A. Beever, W. Foden, S.R. Geange, N. Green, J.E. Gross, D.J.
Lawrence, O. LeDee, J.D. Olden JD, L.M. Thompson, and B.E. Young. 2020. Persist in place or
shift in space? Evaluating the adaptive capacity of species to climate change. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment: 10.1002/fee.2253.
Thurman, L.L., J.E. Gross, C. Mengelt, E.A. Beever, L.L. Thompson, G.S. Schuurman, C. Hoving,
and J.D. Olden. 2022. Applying assessments of adaptive capacity to inform conservation
planning in a changing climate. Conservation Letters (online:
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13838).
Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N.
Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller.
2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 100:8074–8079.
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth
National Climate Assessment, Volume I. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington,
D.C.
USGCRP. 2018. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate
assessment, volume II. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C.
25
Western Carolina University (WCU) and National Park Service (NPS). 2016. Coastal hazards and
climate change asset vulnerability protocol: project description and methodology. NPS
999/132623. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Williams, M.I., and M. Friggens. 2017. Vulnerability assessment of sagebrush ecosystems: Four
corners and upper Rio Grande regions of the southern Rockies landscape conservation
cooperative. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Williams, S.E., L.P. Shoo, J.L. Isaac, A.A. Hoffmann, and G. Langham. 2008. Towards an integrated
framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLoS Biology 6:2621-
2626.
Wilson, R. 2014. Assessment of National Park Service Museum Facilities’ Vulnerability to Climate
Change. General Technical Report, National Park Service Museum Management Program,
Washington D.C.
Wu, J.X., C.B. Wilsey, L. Taylor, and G.W. Schuurman. 2018. Projected avifaunal responses to
climate change across the U.S. National Park System. PLoS ONE 13:e0190557.
Xiao, X., E. Seekamp, M.P. van der Burg, M. Eaton, S. Fatorić, A. McCreary. 2019. Optimizing
historic preservation under climate change: Decision support for cultural resource adaptation
planning in national parks. Land Use Policy 83:379–389.
Young, B.E., E. Byers, G. Hammerson, A. Frances, L. Oliver, and A. Treher. 2015. Guidelines for
using the NatureServe climate change vulnerability index release 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington,
Virginia.
26
Chapter 2: A Review of Vulnerability Assessments for
National Park Service Infrastructure
Blair R. Tormey, Katie McDowell Peek, Holli L. Thompson, and Robert S. Young
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723
Johnson Beach Road, Gulf Islands National Seashore. (©Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines,
Western Carolina University)
Please cite this chapter as:
Tormey, B.R., K.M., Peek, H.L. Thompson, and R.S. Young. 2022. Chapter 2: A review of
vulnerability assessments for NPS infrastructure. Pages 26-62 in Peek, K.M., B. R. Tormey, H.L.
Thompson, A. C. Ellsworth, and C.H. Hoffman (editors). 2022. Climate change vulnerability
assessments in the National Park Service: An integrated review for infrastructure, natural resources,
and cultural resources. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/CCRP/NRR—2022/2404. National Park
Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.36967/nrr- 2293650.
27
2.0 Executive Summary
This chapter review investigates vulnerability assessment approaches used to understand potential
natural hazard and climate change impacts to infrastructure within the National Park Service, as well
as other local, state, federal, and international government agencies. Common natural hazard and
climate change factors evaluated within the various assessment studies include temperature,
precipitation, sea-level rise, storm surge, flooding, landslides, wildfire, and extreme weather. This
chapter summarizes a review of over 90 documents related to infrastructure vulnerability and
discusses several of the most relevant analyses in more detail. It also provides recommendations
emphasizing protocols and best practices most appropriate for the National Park Service.
In the documents reviewed, four approaches characterize infrastructure vulnerability assessments: 1)
exposure assessments, 2) scenario planning studies, 3) risk assessments, and 4) indicator-based
vulnerability assessments. These approaches represent the range of common evaluation methods.
Exposure assessments typically involve modeling and/or mapping of natural hazards (or climate
change stressors) relative to the physical location of assets. Many studies conflate exposure analyses
with vulnerability or risk, while others more accurately recognize that exposure is only one
component of vulnerability. Although it is not equivalent to vulnerability, exposure may highlight
potential vulnerability or risk, particularly when evaluating infrastructure on a larger scale (extent or
resolution), or when no appropriate sensitivity data exist.
Scenario planning workshops and studies assist managers by informing decisions related to climate
projections and scenarios of local change. As a tool to inform decisions under uncertain and
uncontrollable conditions, scenario planning often includes an exposure assessment or an evaluation
of probability.
Risk assessments commonly include an evaluation of both probability (likelihood or frequency) and
impact (severity or consequence). These assessments differ from other vulnerability methods by
factoring in the probability of the event, hazard, or stressor, and are often engineering-based. While
hazard exposure mapping might be incorporated, risk assessments tend to be more quantitative than
qualitative.
Indicator-based vulnerability assessments use a set of indicators to represent and evaluate
vulnerability. In many cases, indicators are determined for three components of vulnerability:
exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Exposure is often evaluated by comparing the extent of a
hazard or stressor to the location of a specific asset. Sensitivity (how the resource will fare when
exposed) is also evaluated in a variety of different ways, including the use of expert opinion, and
using indicators such as historical information, condition, design, materials, engineering, and access.
Related to the adaptive capacity (ability to adjust or cope) of non-living assets such as infrastructure,
there are inconsistencies in how organizations consider this third component of vulnerability. Some
organizations define adaptive capacity for infrastructure as design features that affect the ability of
the managing organization to protect the infrastructure (e.g., a structure designed to be moved). The
National Park Service considers adaptive capacity to be an inherent trait of living resources, and that
non-living assets (such as infrastructure) have no inherent adaptive capacity. Thus, within the
28
National Park Service, management actions and design features that protect infrastructure (such as
moving a building) are considered part of climate change adaptation.
Developing and evaluating potential adaptation strategies after the completion of an infrastructure
vulnerability assessment is common, and many studies suggest that adaptation is the desired outcome
of any assessment of vulnerability (not just for infrastructure). Adaptation strategies for infrastructure
can be proactive or reactive following an event that causes damage and can be implemented at a wide
variety of scales (resolutions). The level of detail in evaluating adaptation strategies may range from
general, qualitative analyses to asset-specific cost-benefit analyses, or model-based engineering
assessments.
Scale plays a major role in determining the infrastructure vulnerability assessment approach and the
specific methodologies used. The scale (resolution) of an infrastructure vulnerability assessment can
be categorized in two ways: spatial scale and infrastructure scale. Spatial scale (e.g., site-specific,
community, regional, park, or state level) is related to hazard-specific vulnerability and risk metrics
including exposure and probability. Infrastructure scale (e.g., component, asset, or system level) is
related to asset-specific vulnerability and risk metrics including sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and
impact.
Some assessments evaluate the physical vulnerability of infrastructure, while others address
vulnerability from a functional or economic perspective (particularly for sensitivity and adaptive
capacity). Transportation assessments often address functionality, given the integrated dependencies
of transportation networks. Economic factors (e.g., replacement value) are most often included as
indicators for adaptive capacity.
There are a wide variety of vulnerability scoring methods within the infrastructure vulnerability
assessments evaluated. Many studies are qualitative and do not assign a score, but instead include a
general discussion of the hazards and impacts. Others score vulnerability semi-quantitatively, ranking
assets on a simple low-moderate-high (or similar) scale. Quantitative studies often incorporate
additional factors, such as probability, weighting of indicators, computer models, or engineering
analyses.
The following is a set of best practices for conducting infrastructure vulnerability assessments for
national parks:
• Assess Criticality – It is effective to score criticality (how essential the asset is) separately
from the physical vulnerability of assets, either to narrow the quantity of assets to be
evaluated, or to help prioritize adaptation strategies. A hybrid approach is recommended,
where criticality is determined using quantitative (e.g., traffic data) and qualitative (e.g.,
stakeholder/expert opinion) data. When possible, discussions of criticality should include a
range of park personnel, partners, and experts, particularly those with institutional knowledge
of assets.
• Complete a Detailed Exposure Assessment – Exposure is the foundation of any infrastructure
vulnerability assessment and thus should be based on the most accurate datasets available. If
29
an asset is not exposed to a natural hazard or climate change stressor, it is not meaningful to
evaluate its sensitivity to (or potential impact from) that hazard.
• Evaluate Sensitivity – Sensitivity analyses often rely on indicators that represent or
characterize how the asset will fare when exposed. For infrastructure, indicators related to the
physical attributes of the asset (e.g., condition, construction/materials) are most useful. When
quantitative sensitivity data is lacking, subject matter experts can evaluate and score each
sensitivity indicator.
• Evaluate Probability and Identify Potential Scenarios – Including probability provides
managers with the likelihood of an event, hazard, or stressor. Probability is not always easy
to quantify, and therefore, it may be useful to assess it qualitatively, using expert opinion,
workshops, or surveys. Analyzing multiple future scenarios, together with probability, can
provide more informed adaptation strategies.
• Evaluate and Prioritize Adaptation Strategies – Considering adaptation strategies in park
planning and decisions is a primary purpose of assessing infrastructure vulnerability. A
thorough examination of management capacity (e.g., funding, policy, feasibility) to
implement protective actions can help inform the selection of appropriate adaptation
strategies. A best management practice is to evaluate these strategies in a team or workshop
format, in collaboration with internal and external parties (e.g., park staff, partners, and
subject matter experts).
2.1 Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the following people: H. Wang, R.L. Beavers, A.C. Ellsworth, C.
Hawkins-Hoffman, P.L. Yu, M. Rockman, J. Michalak, J.J. Lawler, S. Norton, and J. Gross. This
work was funded and developed by the National Park Service Park Climate Change Response
Program, in partnership with Western Carolina University, through a Task Agreement
(P16AC01773) with the Southern Appalachian Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (Cooperative
Agreement P14AC00882).
2.2 Acronyms
DOT: Department of Transportation
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration (DOT)
FMSS: Facilities Management Systems Software (NPS)
FWS: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IVA: Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS: National Park Service
30
SLR: Sea-Level Rise
VA: Vulnerability Assessment
VAST: Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool (FHWA)
2.3 NPS Region and Unit Codes
Region Codes
AKR: Alaska Region
IMR: Intermountain Region
MWR: Midwest Region
NCR: National Capital Region
NER: Northeast Region
PWR: Pacific West Region
SER: Southeast Region
Park Unit Codes
ASIS: Assateague Island National Seashore
CACO: Cape Cod National Seashore
CALO: Cape Lookout National Seashore
COLO: Colonial National Historical Park
DENA: Denali National Park & Preserve
PUHO: Pu`uhonua O Hōnaunau National Historic Park
YELL: Yellowstone National Park
2.4 Introduction
Preparing for, and adapting to, the impacts of natural hazards and climate change is a critical
management issue for the National Park Service (NPS). Developing adaptation strategies and hazard
preparedness plans requires an understanding of the vulnerability of park resources and assets. Thus,
completion of a natural hazards and climate change vulnerability assessment (VA) is important for
both short- and long-term planning in national parks. This is true for natural and cultural resources,
as well as for the infrastructure (e.g., roads, parking lots, visitor centers) that provides access to these
resources.
The concept of vulnerability applies to a variety of disciplines (e.g., health and safety,
socioeconomics, natural resources), and therefore is defined and calculated in many ways. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a commonly cited definition for
climate change vulnerability: “Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or
unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a
system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (IPCC 2007).
31
Numerous entities and institutions (Asam et al. 2015; FHWA 2012; Filosa et al. 2018; IPCC 2007;
NOAA 2010) use this three-component definition of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and
adaptive capacity), as also discussed in detail within a multi-agency guidance document (Glick et al.
2011). Generally, exposure refers to the extent or degree to which a resource experiences climate
change or natural hazards; sensitivity is how the resource will fare when exposed; and adaptive
capacity is the ability of the resource to adjust or cope with the hazard or climate change impacts.
Many research sectors, including natural resources, cities and populations, and socio-economic
systems, calculate vulnerability by evaluating exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (e.g.,
Balica et al. 2009; 2012; Frazier et al. 2014; Füssel and Klein 2006; Handayani et al. 2017; Havko et
al. 2017; Jurgilevich et al. 2017; Metzger et al. 2005; Polsky et al. 2007; Tapia et al. 2017; Yoo et al.
2011). However, this approach is less common in the built environment, and few infrastructure-
specific studies calculate vulnerability explicitly using these three components/metrics. This is
especially true within the NPS (described later in this chapter).
The NPS manages over 75,000 infrastructure assets (NPS 2017b); natural hazards and climate
change already affect many of these assets. Understanding the vulnerability and risk to these assets is
fundamental for prioritizing adaptation options and mitigating future damage to infrastructure and
resources, as well as limiting disruptions in park operations.
Purpose and Scope
This review investigates different VA approaches for understanding potential natural hazard and
climate change impacts to infrastructure. These studies include infrastructure vulnerability
assessment (IVA) approaches used within the NPS, as well as other local, state, federal, and
international government agencies. Common natural hazard and climate change factors evaluated
within these IVA studies include temperature, precipitation, sea-level rise (SLR), storm surge,
flooding, landslides, wildfire, and extreme weather. This report discusses a selection of the most
relevant (i.e., focused on the physical vulnerability of infrastructure) of the over 90 infrastructure-
related vulnerability documents reviewed (Appendix A). Figure 2-1 shows the geographic
distribution of all reviewed IVAs within the U.S., as well as the distribution and quantity of NPS-
specific IVAs.
This report summarizes and compares the four IVA approaches, highlights examples, and provides
recommendations for best practices in assessing the climate change and natural hazards vulnerability
of infrastructure, with an emphasis on protocols most appropriate for the NPS.
32
Figure 2-1. A) Geographic distribution (by state) of evaluated IVAs in the U.S. The red number indicates
the specific number of IVAs from each state. The total number of IVAs in this figure does not equal the
number of evaluated documents, as each document does not necessarily describe a single IVA. B)
Geographic distribution and quantity of NPS-specific IVAs. Each dot represents the centroid of the NPS
unit. One nationwide NPS assessment (that did not focus specifically on infrastructure) was not mapped
(Monahan and Fisichelli 2014). International studies and those from Guam and American Samoa are not
shown.
33
2.5 Results
In this chapter review, the term vulnerability encompasses efforts to characterize the impact of
hazards and climate change on infrastructure. Four approaches characterize these infrastructure
IVAs: 1) exposure assessments, 2) scenario planning studies, 3) risk assessments, and 4) indicator-
based VAs. Not all studies fit neatly into a category. Instead, these categories represent the range of
approaches (evident in the literature) to evaluate the vulnerability of infrastructure to natural hazards
or climate change (Table 2-1). The following sections describe each of these approaches.
Table 2-1. Summary and common characteristics of IVA approaches.
IVA Approach
Method
Characteristics
Exposure
Assessments
Involves modeling or mapping of
hazards/stressors
Mapped hazard/stressor often compared to location of
assets.
Commonly first step of any IVA approach.
Scenario
Planning
Involves examining & planning
for a variety of futures (including
climate projections)
Commonly includes an exposure assessment of hazards.
More of a planning exercise, but includes elements of an
IVA.
Risk
Assessments
Involves evaluation of
probability (likelihood) & impact
(consequence)
Typically, quantitative & engineering- or model-based.
“Impact” includes elements of exposure & sensitivity.
Indicator-based
VAs
Uses a set of indicators to
represent & evaluate
vulnerability
Indicators often determined for metrics of vulnerability
(exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity).
Typically includes more detailed information about
individual assets.
Exposure Assessments
Evaluating exposure is one of the most common approaches used to address natural hazards and
climate change vulnerability for infrastructure. For infrastructure, the term exposure commonly refers
to whether an asset is located in an area that experiences the hazard or impacts of climate change.
Many studies conflate the term by referring to exposure analyses as vulnerability or risk, while
others more accurately recognize that exposure is only one component of vulnerability. In some
cases, however, exposure may highlight potential vulnerability or risk, particularly when evaluating
infrastructure on a larger scale (not-asset specific, lower resolution) or when no appropriate
sensitivity/impact data exists (e.g., MDOT et al. 2014; Winguth et al. 2015).
Exposure assessments typically involve modeling and/or mapping of natural hazards (or climate
change stressors). The mapped hazard or stressor is compared to the physical location of assets,
especially when the resolution of the study is asset specific. For example, many IVAs use
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map road corridors or buildings that may be affected by
natural hazards and climate change (e.g., MassDOT 2016; Peek et al. 2015a; in press; RK&K 2016).
Even studies that utilize different IVA approaches (e.g., scenario planning or indicator-based VAs)
usually include exposure assessments as a basic component (e.g., Jamie Caplan Consulting 2015;
34
NPS 2017a; Place Matters 2011; WCU and NPS 2016), as understanding the exposure of a resource
is inherently the first step in understanding its overall vulnerability.
The NPS has conducted only a few (discoverable) natural hazard or climate change infrastructure
exposure studies. Monahan and Fisichelli (2014) conducted a landscape-scale (resolution) exposure
assessment of climate change stressors in national parks. This study did not evaluate specific
infrastructure, but assessed the exposure of entire parks to changes in climate variables related to
temperature, precipitation, frost and wet day frequencies, etc. The NPS published an exposure study
in 2015, which evaluated the long-term SLR exposure of assets within 40 coastal national parks
(Peek et al. 2015a). While this study is asset-specific, it is still relatively broad and intended only to
provide an overall look at the SLR exposure of the NPS; it is not meant for decision-making at the
unit or asset level.
In 2013, the NPS and University of Rhode Island researchers assessed the SLR and storm surge
exposure of selected natural, cultural, and infrastructure resources within two national seashores
(Murdukhayeva et al. 2013). These hazards were modeled and compared to the location and
elevation of the parks. The probability of inundation was calculated for each model scenario
(exposure) to determine the likelihood of each hazard.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
completed a significant number of studies in recent years on the exposure of transportation assets to
climate change. Most of this work was part of the FHWA’s Climate Change and Extreme Weather
Vulnerability Assessment Framework (FHWA 2012; Filosa et al. 2018) and pilot resilience case
studies (FHWA 2017a). Although this framework fits within the indicator-based VA protocol (see
the indicator-based VA descriptions and discussion), in practice, data limitations forced many of
these pilot projects to focus on exposure only (as opposed to vulnerability).
One of these pilot projects in Michigan (MDOT et al. 2014) evaluated the exposure of transportation
assets (roads, bridges, culverts, and drainage infrastructure) to extreme precipitation and heat. Spatial
analyses (GIS-based) helped to determine the exposure of each asset to various stressors under
different climate projections according to future emissions scenarios. Because this study was part of
the FHWA vulnerability framework (FHWA 2012), the authors acknowledged that vulnerability also
includes sensitivity and adaptive capacity. However, due to the lack of data for these metrics,
exposure was used to represent vulnerability; this was a common approach within the FHWA case
studies (e.g., MassDOT 2016; MDOT et al. 2014; Winguth et al. 2015). The FHWA case study from
Massachusetts used exposure as a proxy for vulnerability and determined that all assets analyzed
(components of a highway system) have very high sensitivities and very low adaptive capacities
(MassDOT 2016).
Municipal-level studies have also examined natural hazards or climate change exposure of
infrastructure. A study in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, evaluated the infrastructure vulnerability
(exposure) to coastal flooding and SLR (RK&K 2016). Three flooding conditions were mapped
(2050 SLR, 2100 SLR, 2050 SLR plus storm surge), and compared to the location of public
infrastructure in the county. The findings of this study were reported as vulnerability (not exposure);
35
however, the authors noted that the results were based on the infrastructure footprint and did not
include information such as the finished floor elevations (which is often part of sensitivity).
Scenario Planning Studies
Scenario planning for infrastructure vulnerability involves examining and planning for a variety of
possible futures (Appendix B—e.g., Andrew et al. 2015; Ecosystem Management 2014a; b; Lee et al.
2015; Place Matters 2011; Rasmussen et al. 2012; 2015; Simmons et al. 2015; U.S. DOT Volpe
Center 2011a; b; 2013). This can involve considering hazards of different magnitudes (e.g., moderate
versus extreme storm surge from a hurricane) or differing rates of change in stressors over time
(emissions, SLR, etc.). In addition, scenario planning for infrastructure may examine the range of
responses that a vulnerable system might have to a single climate change or natural hazard factor
(e.g., population growth, transportation networks, or land use scenarios in response to a 1-foot SLR).
Scenario planning is used to help managers make decisions using climate change projections and
scenarios of local change. It can be a powerful tool when the range of outcomes vary depending on
changing conditions over time or for those climate change stressors where the direction of change
may be uncertain (i.e., will precipitation increase or decrease; Anderson et al. 2015a; b; GHD 2014;
Rasmussen et al. 2015). Scenario planning is not necessarily an IVA protocol, but it often includes an
exposure assessment or an evaluation of probability. It is included here as a separate approach
because many organizations use this process for adaptation planning, which commonly begins with
an assessment of vulnerability.
The U.S. DOT Volpe Center worked with state, regional, and federal stakeholders (including the
FHWA, NPS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA], Department of Defense, Cape Cod Commission, CACO, and Cape Cod Regional Transit
Authority) on a scenario planning project on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, which integrated climate
change into existing and continuing transportation, land use, coastal zone, and hazard mitigation
planning processes (Place Matters 2011; Rasmussen et al. 2012; U.S. DOT Volpe Center 2011a). The
project applied a GIS-based software tool to develop transportation and land use scenarios in areas
vulnerable (exposed) to climate change impacts, such as SLR, erosion, and storm-related events.
In central New Mexico, the Volpe Center again worked with multiple agencies (including the
FHWA, FWS, NPS, Bureau of Land Management, and the Mid-Region Council of Governments) to
assist transportation and land use decision-making in the Albuquerque region through scenario
planning (Andrew et al. 2015; Ecosystem Management 2014a; b; Lee et al. 2015; Rasmussen et al.
2015; Simmons et al. 2015). The scenario planning process considered data related to several climate
change factors (flooding, drought, temperature change, wildfires, and extreme weather). The study
also evaluated how the central New Mexico region could develop in a way that minimizes
greenhouse gas emissions and increases resiliency to climate change (through minimizing the
development footprint, wildfire risk, flood risk, and impacts to crucial wildlife habitat).
36
Risk Assessments
Risk assessments are a common approach for using VA data and thereby addressing climate change
and natural hazards to infrastructure (Appendix C—e.g., Brooks and Clark 2015; Canadian Council
of Professional Engineers 2008; Felio 2015; Genivar Consultants 2010; HES 2017). Risk is most
often evaluated as a combination of probability (likelihood or frequency) and impact (severity or
consequence). Risk differs from vulnerability (as defined in IPCC 2007) through considering the
probability of the event, hazard, or stressor, and for infrastructure, risk assessments are often
engineering-based (e.g., Armstrong et al. 2016; Canadian Council of Professional Engineers 2008).
While hazard mapping (exposure) might be incorporated, risk assessments tend to be more
quantitative than qualitative, largely due to the calculation of probability and the inclusion of
engineering analyses.
In 2016, the NPS worked with the FHWA on a risk assessment for Denali Park Road (in DENA), a
92-mile corridor that provides the only access to the park and preserve (NPS 2016). The risk
assessment included geohazards mapping (distribution, susceptibility, and probability of landslides
and permafrost subsidence), and analyses/recommendations with respect to other risks to the road
(alteration of facility assets/standards, revised vehicle specifications, changes in maintenance,
operations, and park management) for incorporation into the park’s transportation plan. In 2017, this
risk assessment process expanded to all of Alaska as part of the state’s long-range transportation plan
(NPS 2017a). As of the writing of this report, the NPS was also conducting risk assessments at
multiple parks in partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Risk assessments can also apply to historic properties and infrastructure. For example, Historic
Environment Scotland conducted a climate change risk assessment of historic sites, including
infrastructure (HES 2017). The GIS-based spatial analysis focused on the likelihood of fluvial
flooding, pluvial flooding, coastal flooding, coastal erosion, groundwater flooding, and slope
instability. The impact of each hazard was scored using expert opinion regarding the potential
damage to the infrastructure and corresponding site.
Finally, as described in a series of reports (Canadian Council of Professional Engineers 2008; Felio
2015; Genivar Consultants 2010), the Canadian Government conducted an engineering risk
assessment of public infrastructure. The assessment focused on four infrastructure categories:
stormwater and wastewater, water resources, roads and associated structures, and buildings.
Vulnerability (risk) was rated qualitatively using professional judgment. This protocol used a
probability and severity scale to calculate the priority of the effect of climate change factors on each
building component (0 to 7 scale). From these two scales, a total “priority of climate change affect”
was calculated.
Indicator-Based Vulnerability Assessments
Indicator-based VAs use a set of indicators to represent and evaluate vulnerability, often developing
indicators for three components/metrics of vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity
(Appendix D—e.g., Almodovar-Rosario and Dorney 2014; Cambridge Systematics 2015; City of
Carlsbad 2017; DeFlorio et al. 2014; Dorney et al. 2015; Filosa et al. 2018; ICF International 2012a;
b; 2014a; 2017; Maryland State Highway Administration and Santec Consulting Services 2014; San
37
Francisco BCDC and MTC 2011). Indicator-based VAs can be qualitative or quantitative (or both),
although in most cases the resulting vulnerability is reported on a semi-quantitative scale (e.g., low,
moderate, high). These assessments often focus on one or two timeframes (e.g., to the year 2050 or
2100), and use a variety of methods and indicators to evaluate the three components (Table 2-2).
Exposure (whether the resource of interest is in an area that does or will experience the hazard or
impacts of climate change) is often evaluated by comparing the extent of a hazard or stressor (e.g.,
potential SLR flooding) to the location of a specific asset. Regionally downscaled climate data from
global models provide projections of climate stressors, particularly temperature and precipitation
(e.g., Anderson et al. 2015a; b; Armstrong et al. 2016; Choate et al. 2017; ICF International 2013b;
2017; ODOT 2014; Simmons et al. 2015; SSFM International 2011). Sensitivity (how the resource
will fare when exposed) and adaptive capacity (the ability of the resource to adjust or cope with the
hazard or climate change impacts) are also evaluated in a variety of ways, including the use of expert
opinion, and considering indicators such as historical information, condition, design, materials,
engineering, and access.
38
Table 2-2. Summary and key characteristics of select indicator-based VA studies.
Indicator-based VA
Hazards/Stressors
Exposure Indicators
Sensitivity Indicators
Adaptive Capacity Indicators
FHWA San Francisco
Case Study (San
Francisco BCDC & MTC
2011)
SLR & seismicity
Depth of SLR inundation for two time
periods
Level of use, age of facility, seismic retrofit
status, maintenance cost, liquefaction
susceptibility
Availability of a comparable asset (with
similar functionality, redundancy)
NPS Facilities Adaptation
in Coastal Areas (ICF
International 2012b).
Coastal hazards (SLR &
storm‐related coastal
inundation & erosion)
Dune protection, elevation, breach points,
presence of vegetation
From NPS facilities database: facilities
condition index
From NPS facilities database: current
replacement value
FHWA Gulf Coast Study
(ICF International 2014a)
Temperature, precipitation,
SLR, storm surge, & wind
# of days > 95°, 1% annual likelihood rain
event, SLR inundation scenarios, surge
inundation depth, wind threshold
exceedance
Varied by stressor & asset type. For
highways & SLR: past flooding, protective
engineering, approach elevation of bridges
Varied by asset type. For highways:
replacement cost, redundancy, duration of
operational disruption
FHWA Central Texas
Case Study (Cambridge
Systematics 2015)
Flooding, drought, extreme
heat, wildfire, & others
Modeled freeboard, vertical proximity to
floodplain, or past exposure; projected
change soil moisture & dry days/year;
projected change # days ≥ 100° F &
average 7-day max temp
Varied by stressor & asset type. For
highways & extreme heat: pavement
binder & truck traffic volume
Varied by asset type. For railways: asset
criticality & average daily ridership
NPS Coastal Hazard &
SLR Protocol, with WCU
(WCU and NPS 2016)
Coastal hazards & SLR
Flooding potential (100-yr floodplain),
modeled surge & SLR inundation, erosion
potential, historical flooding/erosion
Flood damage potential (elevated), storm
resistance, asset condition, historical
damage, protective engineering
Not evaluated or included in vulnerability
score
City of Carlsbad (2017)
SLR & coastal hazards
Modeled flooding, shoreline change, & bluff
response to 100-yr wave event
Expert opinion on potential damage &
service interruption
Expert opinion on effort needed to
adapt/ability to adapt
FWS Extreme Weather
Infrastructure Study (ICF
International 2017)
Precipitation/flooding,
SLR, wildfire, landslide, &
extreme heat
Flooding potential (500-yr floodplain),
projected land category/SLR inundation,
wildfire potential, landslide hazards,
projected % change in 90th % temp
From FWS facilities database: condition,
remaining service life, & asset material
From FWS facilities database: historic
status, current replacement value; for
roads/trails: class (type of road) & length
39
Federal Highway Administration Studies
The FHWA (U.S. DOT) has conducted numerous indicator-based VA studies. Between 2008 and
2015, the FHWA completed the Gulf Coast Study (Table 2-2), which assessed the vulnerability of
transportation infrastructure to climate change factors such as SLR, storm surge, temperature change,
and wind (CCSP 2008; ICF International 2013b; 2014a; b; ICF International and PB Americas 2011;
Parsons Brinckerhoff and ICF International 2014). This project focused on transportation systems in
Mobile, Alabama, using an indicator-based VA in which vulnerability is calculated as a combination
of the three components (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity). A single exposure indicator
was used for each climate change stressor (independent of the transportation type). For example, the
exposure indicator for SLR examined whether an asset was inundated under specific model
scenarios. The assessment of sensitivity evaluated a variety of indicators specific to the asset type
(roads, bridges, etc.) and stressor (SLR, storm surge, temperature change, etc.). Adaptive capacity
indicators were unique to the transportation asset type but not specific to the stressor. For example,
the ability of managers to quickly repair damage was an adaptive capacity indicator of highways
among all climate change stressors. In addition to calculating vulnerability, evaluating criticality and
potential adaptation measures were key aspects of this study.
In 2010, the FHWA began a series of pilot studies based on a conceptual framework for assessing the
climate change vulnerability and risk of transportation infrastructure (FHWA 2017b). A revised VA
framework resulted from these pilot studies (FHWA 2012) which served as the basis for additional
climate change/extreme weather resilience and vulnerability pilot studies. The 2012 VA framework
was further updated in 2018 (Filosa et al. 2018) and included the following strategies: developing an
inventory of assets, evaluating the significance and priority of assets, identifying and gathering
climate data, assessing vulnerability and considering risk, identifying adaptation options, and
integrating vulnerability into decision making. Like the previous Gulf Coast Study (ICF International
2014a) and the 2010 and 2012 FHWA protocols, the 2018 revised framework emphasized use of an
indicator-based VA in which vulnerability was calculated as a combination of exposure, sensitivity,
and adaptive capacity.
Subsequently, an additional 19 state- and local-level case studies were completed that focused on
climate change and extreme weather vulnerability and adaptation options of transportation systems.
One case study from Hillsborough County, Florida, involved a wide range of partners, stakeholders,
and consultants, including Florida DOT, public works departments, planning councils, and
universities (DeFlorio et al. 2014). This case study had three primary phases, the first of which was
focused on the asset inventory, criticality, and hazard vulnerability/risk. Hazards analyzed included
SLR, storm surge, and inland flooding, evaluated to the year 2040. Models were used to determine
exposure for each hazard, including a Florida-specific SLR model, NOAA’s Sea, Lakes, and
Overland Surges from Hurricanes model (SLOSH; NOAA NHC 2018), and FEMA flood maps
(FEMA 2017). Sensitivity was evaluated qualitatively by determining the approximate number of
weeks that functionality would be lost (no specific scores were given for this metric). Adaptive
capacity was assessed using a planning model that measures reduced systems functionality (using
vehicle miles traveled, delay, and lost trips) when a roadway or transportation asset was disabled.
40
After evaluating these metrics, the planning team also examined potential impacts to regional
mobility and economics, as well as adaptation strategies.
Within an indicator-based VA, exposure indicators usually consist of data from climate change or
hazard models, occasionally including historical data as well. Scoring sensitivity and adaptive
capacity is more challenging. Numerous asset attributes and characteristics could influence
sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which makes it hard to assign indicators for these metrics. To help
with this issue, the FHWA created an Excel-based tool, called the Vulnerability Assessment Scoring
Tool (VAST) to identify potential indicators (FHWA 2018). The VAST includes a large indicator
library for both sensitivity and adaptive capacity that is specific to different climate change factors
and natural hazards. In addition to this library, the VAST guides the user through scoring the
exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of transportation infrastructure.
A FHWA case study from central Texas applied the VAST to calculate the vulnerability of
transportation assets (roadways, bridges, rails) to flooding, drought, extreme heat, wildfire, and
extreme cold to the year 2040 (Cambridge Systematics 2015), scoring exposure, sensitivity, adaptive
capacity, and vulnerability of the 10 most critical assets. Indicators were chosen for each metric and
hazard combination (the VAST only suggests potential indicators, as the user must then decide which
are appropriate). For example, flooding exposure was evaluated as a combination of 1) modeled
available freeboard, 2) vertical proximity to the 100-year floodplain, and 3) past exposure
(anecdotal). Sensitivity indicators for flooding included: 24-hour precipitation design threshold,
scour critical status (for bridges), average inundation velocity associated with rain event, and wildfire
threat. Adaptive capacity was evaluated specific to the asset type (not the hazard); for highways,
adaptive capacity indicators included asset criticality, functional classification, daily traffic, and
detour length. Using asset criticality within the adaptive capacity scores is less common, as it
assumes that if an asset is more critical, it is also less adaptive.
NPS Studies
There have been a limited number of NPS infrastructure-specific climate change or natural hazard
VAs, the majority of which have been indicator-based VAs. In 2012, the NPS began a pilot indicator-
based VA study that focused on two coastal national parks, ASIS (ICF International 2012a; 2013a)
and PUHO (ICF International 2012b). Like the FHWA projects, this study calculated vulnerability as
a combination of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Exposure was calculated by assessing
site-specific characteristics related to the coastal hazards being analyzed (i.e., elevation, vegetation,
soil erosion, dune presence); sensitivity and adaptive capacity were calculated using attributes
obtained directly from the NPS facilities database (Facility Management Software System; FMSS).
The asset’s facilities condition index (which relates to the asset’s deferred maintenance) was used for
sensitivity, and the current replacement value for adaptive capacity (Table 2-2).
Beginning in 2015, the NPS partnered with the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at
Western Carolina University to create a Coastal Hazards and SLR Asset Vulnerability Assessment
Protocol (WCU and NPS 2016). The focus of this indicator-based VA protocol was to assess the
vulnerability of buildings and transportation assets within coastal national parks to the year 2050.
Vulnerability was evaluated as a combination of exposure and sensitivity; adaptive capacity was not
41
evaluated or included in the final vulnerability score (Table 2-2). This protocol standardized the
methodology and data for assessing vulnerability of coastal infrastructure. Exposure indicators for
this coastal hazard protocol included flooding potential, extreme event flooding (e.g., storm surge,
tsunamis), SLR, shoreline change, and historical/reported coastal hazards. Sensitivity indicators in
this protocol were not from an existing database, but instead considered the physical characteristics
of an asset itself, including flood damage potential (e.g., is it elevated), storm resistance, asset
condition, historical damage, and protective engineering. The primary data source for much of the
sensitivity analysis was an asset-specific questionnaire completed by park staff. As of 2018, this
protocol has been applied at approximately 20 coastal parks (e.g., Peek et al. 2015b; c; d; e; 2017a; b;
c; d; e; f; g; h; i; j; k; l; 2018; Tormey et al. 2018a; b; WCU and NPS 2016). Several follow-up
climate change adaptation projects within the NPS used results of this indicator-based VA protocol,
including research conducted by the University of Rhode Island at COLO (Ricci et al. 2019a; b) and
CALO (Fatorić and Seekamp 2017).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study
The Pacific Region Constructed Asset Climate Change Vulnerability Tool was created to help the
FWS screen for infrastructure vulnerability to SLR, inland flooding, extreme heat, wildfire, and
landslides (ICF International 2017). This tool focused on assets within FWS Pacific Region Refuges
and Hatcheries, with more specific workshops at six individual units. This protocol calculated
vulnerability as a combination of all three metrics, and sensitivity and adaptive capacity indicators
were obtained from existing data within the FWS facilities management database (Table 2-2).
Sensitivity was scored using a combination of attributes from the database, including the facilities
condition index (buildings) or pavement condition rating (roads), remaining service life (approximate
years of service life left), and asset material. Adaptive capacity was scored as a combination of
historic status, current replacement value, and road/trail class and length.
Municipal Studies
Municipalities have also used indicator-based VAs for infrastructure (e.g., City of Carlsbad 2017;
City of Everett 2018; Havko et al. 2017). The City of Carlsbad, California completed a coastal hazard
VA for numerous resources and assets, including beaches, public access ways, parcels, critical
infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and environmentally sensitive lands (City of Carlsbad
2017). Coastal hazards were analyzed to the years 2050 and 2100, and included landward beach
migration, bluff erosion, and flood inundation related to change in sea level. Numerical scores were
assigned for exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity for each asset category based on a rating
system and expert opinion; these scores were combined to give an overall vulnerability score. The
authors of this study recognized that the built environment does not adapt naturally, and therefore
inherently has a low adaptive capacity. Potential adaptation strategies were evaluated, including
secondary impacts and trade-offs (i.e., who benefits and who is adversely impacted).
The City of Everett, Washington implemented a slightly different approach that evaluated the
vulnerability of resources to various factors, including earthquakes, severe storms, climate change,
fire, flooding, hazardous materials, landslides, tsunami, and volcanic eruptions (City of Everett
2018). Resources of interest for this study included the general population, property, critical
42
facilities, and infrastructure. This indicator-based VA first calculated exposure by comparing hazard
data with asset locations using GIS. Vulnerability was then evaluated by interpreting potential
weaknesses or problems of the exposed resources. Risk was also determined by describing the most
probable scenario and impact for each hazard.
2.6 Discussion
It was difficult to separate the identified IVA approaches into four distinct categories, as they have
many common characteristics and challenges (Table 2-1). An exposure assessment is the first step to
an indicator-based VA and is often the first step during scenario planning. Similarly, risk assessments
include the impact of a hazard or stressor, which includes elements of evaluating exposure and
sensitivity within an indicator-based VA. The Australian Capital Territory protocol (AECOM 2010;
2012), for instance, is a hybrid of risk analysis and an indicator-based VA, where vulnerability is
defined as a function of risk (exposure, generic sensitivity, and risk-specific sensitivity) and adaptive
capacity (generic and risk specific).
Much of the overlap of the four identified IVA approaches is due to terminology, as the terms
exposure, vulnerability, and risk are often used interchangeably. The term resilience is also widely
used when discussing natural hazards or climate change vulnerability and adaptation. The FHWA
published several reports on assessing the resilience of transportation assets to climate change and
extreme weather (e.g., Choate et al. 2017; ten Sietfhoff et al. 2017). Although these studies use
climate resilience as an overarching theme, vulnerability (and adaptation) remains the primary focus
of each assessment.
Common Approach Themes
Assessing Criticality
The evaluation of criticality (how essential the asset is) is a common process within all four IVA
approaches, particularly within indicator-based VAs (e.g., Cambridge Systematics 2015; DeFlorio et
al. 2014; GHD 2014; Hogan et al. 2014; ICF International and PB Americas 2011; Merrill and Gates
2014; NJTPA 2011; ODOT 2014; WSDOT 2011). Agencies (including the NPS) and municipalities
often have hundreds or thousands of infrastructure assets; assessing the criticality of these assets
prior to an IVA helps prioritize which should be evaluated for maximum efficiency. Criticality can
also be addressed after an assessment is complete, to prioritize adaptation strategies for infrastructure
with high vulnerability. In many IVAs, criticality is part of the vulnerability formula (e.g.,
vulnerability = criticality X potential impact; GHD 2014) or used as one indicator for the adaptive
capacity of an asset (e.g., Cambridge Systematics 2015).
Using quantitative methods to determine criticality can be time- and resource-intensive, therefore
many analyses use qualitative methods (e.g., expert opinion, see Cambridge Systematics 2015).
Many of the FHWA case studies include criticality (e.g., Abkowitz et al. 2015; Cambridge
Systematics 2015; Hogan et al. 2014; ICF International 2011; ICF International and PB Americas
2011; Merrill and Gates 2014; ODOT 2014). The FHWA also released a guidance document (ICF
International 2011) summarizing three approaches for assessing the criticality of transportation
assets: 1) a desk review, which uses quantitative methods and available data sources (e.g., daily
43
traffic, evacuation routes and access to hospitals, functional classification), 2) stakeholder elicitation,
which uses local expert opinion, and 3) a hybrid approach, which uses a combination of the desk
review and the stakeholder elicitation.
Criticality often includes criteria focused on social, operational/functional, and economic importance.
In many cases, criticality focused on the consequences of removing an asset from service. This was
the case in the 2014 FHWA MDOT study, where the criticality of bridges was calculated by the
following factors: traffic volume, functional classification, detour length, cost of replacement, and
economic impact (MDOT et al. 2014). Another FHWA example is from the NJTPA (2011);
criticality was assessed for transportation assets using: the importance of the destination (based on
jobs and population density), the magnitude of connections (based on traffic volume), and emergency
functions of the routes (based primarily on the presence of coastal evacuation routes).
Many agencies (including the NPS) maintain a facilities management database that includes
attributes related to criticality. The NPS database (FMSS) contains an attribute called asset priority
index (NPS 2018), which ranks the significance of each asset in terms of the park mission and
uniqueness (i.e., whether a comparable substitute exists). This type of database can be useful for
quickly evaluating criticality, and/or to filter and manage large quantities of asset data.
In many studies, criticality is included indirectly. These studies focus on only a few critical assets,
chosen with prior knowledge of the significance of the infrastructure (e.g., Canadian Council of
Professional Engineers 2008; Dorney et al. 2015; Havko et al. 2017; Jamie Caplan Consulting 2015;
Murdukhayeva et al. 2013). These studies do not evaluate criticality specifically; instead, criticality is
inherently addressed when defining the project scope (e.g., deciding to only evaluate the highest
priority assets such as interstates within a road network). By choosing to only evaluate the
vulnerability of a limited number of high priority assets, these studies indirectly include criticality in
the analysis.
Assessing Probability
Risk assessments, by definition, evaluate probability (likelihood), as it is part of the overall formula
(Risk = probability X impact). However, it is also common for probability to be included in the other
IVA approaches (e.g., Almodovar-Rosario and Dorney 2014; City of Carlsbad 2017; NJTPA 2011;
San Francisco BCDC and MTC 2011). Many exposure assessments, scenario planning projects, and
indicator-based VAs qualitatively address the likelihood of an event, hazard, or stressor (at least
implicitly, choosing to model a 100-year flood event, for example). Understanding the likelihood of
an event can play a significant role when evaluating potential adaptation options.
Determining the probability of climate or hazard impacts can be problematic due to lack of data,
disagreement between models, and uncertainty regarding the magnitude of change. However, some
hazards/stressors have an abundance of data, which makes it easier to quantify probability. In its VA,
the City of Everett, Washington discussed the probability of occurrence for several hazards.
Earthquake probability was quantified in a detailed manner using probabilistic U.S. Geological
Survey models, while probability of flooding was assessed more qualitatively, projecting a general
increase of intense storms with future climate change (City of Everett 2018). Similarly, the Territory
44
of American Samoa developed a multi-hazard mitigation plan that evaluated the annual probability of
each hazard, using historical data. The historic occurrence of cyclones was well documented, and
therefore, the probability was more readily quantified. However, landslide events (which are known
to be common) are underreported, resulting in a less robust calculation of probability (Jamie Caplan
Consulting 2015).
Choosing a specific climate change or hazard scenario, and a timeframe to evaluate inherently
incorporates probability. Many studies include exposure scenarios derived from storm surge models
(e.g., Murdukhayeva et al. 2013; Peek et al. 2015b; c; d; e; 2017a; b; c; d; e; f; g; h; i; j; k; l; 2018;
RK&K 2016; Tormey et al. 2018a; b); by selecting a particular storm surge category and timeframe
of analysis (e.g., a category 2 storm and the year 2050), an assumption is made that the probability of
the event is high (over the specified time period).
Probability is also inherently addressed when choosing which climate change factors or hazards to
include within an IVA. An inland national park would not assess SLR vulnerability, because the
probability of that stressor occurring is very low, just as a low relief barrier island park would not
evaluate landslides. Therefore, while probability is not specifically calculated, initial assumptions are
made regarding likelihood. This accounts for the wide range of hazards addressed within IVA
approaches, as hazards directly relate to geography.
Evaluating Adaptation Options
Generally, adaptation means anticipating the effects of climate change (or natural hazards) and taking
steps to avoid or minimize damage. Adaptation strategies can be proactive or reactive and can be
implemented at a wide variety of scales. A building may be elevated to avoid future SLR (proactive),
or in response to previous flooding from storm surge (reactive). Many strategies focus on a specific
asset (e.g., elevating a road above flood levels; Roalkvam 2015) and others are on a system of assets
(e.g., reducing future development in hazardous areas; Andrew et al. 2015; Jamie Caplan Consulting
2015). The level of detail in an evaluation may range from a general discussion of adaptation
strategies (e.g., RK&K 2016,) to an asset-specific cost-benefit analysis or model-based engineering
assessment (e.g., Beavers et al. 2016; Parsons Brinckerhoff and ICF International 2014).
Evaluating potential adaptation strategies based on an IVA is common (e.g., Bonham-Carter et al.
2014; Choate et al. 2017; GHD 2014; HES 2017; Jamie Caplan Consulting 2015; ODOT 2014;
Roalkvam 2015; RK&K 2016; SGS Economics and Planning 2010), and most studies suggest that
adaptation is the desired outcome of an any assessment of vulnerability (not just infrastructure).
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland used results from a SLR and storm surge exposure assessment to
analyze potential adaptation strategies for different resources, including infrastructure (RK&K 2016).
This study grouped strategies into six primary categories: 1) avoid, 2) accommodate, 3) protect, 4)
retreat, 5) build adaptive capacity, and 6) no action. Short-, medium-, and long-term adaptation
strategies were assessed for each of the six categories. Finally, the study recommended several
opportunities to incorporate results of the IVA and adaptation strategies analysis into the county
planning processes.
45
Adding an economic component can be a valuable part of an assessment of adaptation strategies
(e.g., Almodovar-Rosario and Dorney 2014; Armstrong et al. 2016; Choate et al. 2017; FHWA 2016;
Nelson et al. 2015; ODOT 2014; Parsons Brinckerhoff and ICF International 2014). This is often in
the form of a cost-benefit analysis, which can prioritize adaptation by determining which strategies
will likely have the highest net benefit (often under a range of possible scenarios). Results of this
type of analysis can provide a comparison of the adaptation options and highlight the value of
avoiding potential climate and hazard impacts. However, a thorough cost-benefit analysis requires
substantial additional information (and time), including data related to the social, economic, and
environmental benefits of potential adaptation strategies.
Completing an in-depth analysis of adaptation strategies and an economic analysis can be time-
consuming, and therefore, studies often focus on a few critical assets or areas of interest. The Gulf
Coast Study (Parsons Brinckerhoff and ICF International 2014) focused on several adaptation case
studies based on the VA results. One of these case studies was on culverts and the response to
flooding on one creek within the study area. Hydraulic analyses conducted on three different
adaptation options (increasing the number of culverts, increasing the size of culverts, and
implementing new drainage patterns) helped to evaluate the potential impacts of a 100-year flood on
the surrounding area. Finally, an economic analysis suggested which of the adaptation options would
likely have the highest overall benefit.
Considerations and Challenges
Scale, Resolution, and Vulnerability Assessment Targets
Scale plays a major role in determining the IVA approach and methodologies. Within this section,
the term “scale” refers strictly to the resolution (granularity) of the analysis (not the geographic
extent or scope of the study). The scale of an IVA can be categorized in two ways: spatial scale and
infrastructure scale (Figure 2-2). Spatial scale (e.g., site-specific, community, regional, park, or state
level) is related to hazard-specific metrics, including exposure and probability. Infrastructure scale
(e.g., component, asset, or system level) is related to asset-specific metrics, including sensitivity,
adaptive capacity, and impact.
There can be a wide variety of spatial scales (resolutions) used for IVAs. Several assessments
evaluate the vulnerability of infrastructure at the asset-site level. These fine-grained studies focus on
the hazard exposure (or probability) of the asset location and immediately adjacent grounds, which
can provide a high degree of detail (Figure 2-2). Most of the indicator-based VAs evaluated use an
asset-site level spatial scale (e.g., DeFlorio et al. 2014; HES 2017; ICF International 2012a; b; 2013a;
b; 2014a; b; Murdukhayeva et al. 2013; Peek et al. 2015b; 2017a, 2018; Ricci et al. 2019a; b; RK&K
2016; Tormey et al. 2018a; b; VDOT 2011). As the spatial scale increases (coarsens) from the asset-
site level to community (e.g., AECOM 2010; 2012; Brooks and Clark 2015), regional (e.g., Genivar
Consultants 2010; GHD 2014; Rasmussen et al. 2012; Simmons et al. 2015), or park (e.g., Monahan
and Fisichelli 2014) levels, the results for exposure (or probability) become more generalized.
46
Figure 2-2. Example of common spatial (A-C) and infrastructure scales (D-F) within the studies evaluated. A) Asset site-level studies evaluate and
score the exposure/probability of each asset site area (most detailed, highest resolution). B) Community-level studies evaluate and score the
exposure/probability of each community. C) Park-level studies evaluate and score the exposure/probability of each park (most general, lowest
resolution). D) Component-level studies evaluate the sensitivity of each part/component of an asset. E) Asset-level studies evaluate and score the
sensitivity/impact of each individual asset. F) Systems-level studies evaluate and score the sensitivity/impact of entire systems.
There are three primary infrastructure scales (resolutions) used in the evaluated IVAs: component,
asset, and systems (Figure 2-2). Component (high resolution) studies evaluate the individual
elements of an asset, such as the deck, columns, and footings of a bridge. These studies are less
common, as they require detailed engineering data and a high level of expertise (e.g., Genivar
Consultants 2010). Asset-level IVAs examine infrastructure at the scale of individual buildings,
roads, trails, bridges, etc. (e.g., City of Boston 2016; ICF International 2012a; b; 2014a; b;
Murkukhayeva et al. 2013; Peek et al. 2015c; 2017d; 2018; Tormey et al. 2018a; b; WCU and NPS
2016). These IVAs can also be time-intensive, as agencies often manage hundreds to thousands of
assets. To address this issue, studies may use criticality as a filter (e.g., Abkowitz et al. 2015;
Cambridge Systematics 2015; Hogan et al. 2014; ICF International 2011; ICF International and PB
Americas 2011; Merrill and Gates 2014) or conduct a less in-depth assessment such as evaluating
exposure only (e.g., Peek et al. 2015a; in press; RK&K 2016). Indicator-based VAs are commonly
conducted at the asset-level scale because it is less challenging to determine indicators for sensitivity
and adaptive capacity than at the systems scale. Systems-level (low resolution) IVAs typically
involve the evaluation of a group of assets that share a particular purpose or function (e.g., road, trail,
and utility systems). Utilizing a systems-level scale approach assumes each asset type will have
similar sensitivity, adaptive capacity, or impact in response to a hazard or stressor (e.g., AECOM
2010; Brooks and Clark 2015; City of Carlsbad 2017; GHD 2014; MassDOT 2016). Results for
systems-level scale IVAs are more generalized; however, this may be unavoidable due to data and
time constraints.
Many IVAs (e.g., WCU and NPS 2016) typically target assets such as buildings, structures, roads,
and bridges. A key observation from this review of IVAs is that most do not include a detailed
assessment of utilities and systems (e.g., energy, water, waste, and communications). This
observation is critical to consider when developing a future IVA protocol.
Data Issues
Data availability and access can create challenges during an IVA and can influence both the type of
assessment that is appropriate, and how in-depth the project will be. Common data issues for IVAs
include poor quality, low resolution, and lack of coverage (e.g., no data that is park or statewide). In
addition, databases can often be incomplete, poorly maintained, or obsolete. Finally, when assessing
risk, the likelihood or probability of an event in a specific area is often difficult to quantify (e.g.,
probability of an earthquake within a park).
Within an IVA, there can be several issues related to natural hazards and climate change data. One of
the major issues is a lack of mapped or recorded hazard data (e.g., Armstrong et al. 2016; ICF
International 2016). For example, detailed FEMA flood maps have not been developed for many
national parks, like YELL, where the entire park has been mapped as a D zone (i.e., possible but
undetermined flood hazards, no analysis conducted). Similarly, mapped data may be available, but
not appropriately scaled to the study area (e.g., AECOM 2010; 2012; HES 2017; MDOT et al. 2014;
Winguth et al. 2015). Researchers in Australia noted one major limitation in conducting a VA in the
Australian Capital Territory was that the resolution of the temperature climate models could not
capture the urban heat island effect (AECOM 2010).
48
There are also issues related to infrastructure attribute databases. In some cases, an appropriate
infrastructure database may not exist. In other cases, the database may be incomplete, or the attribute
data may not be a good indicator for measuring sensitivity, adaptive capacity, or potential impact
(within risk). ICF International completed several pilot IVAs for the NPS (ICF International 2012a;
b) and the FWS (ICF International 2017). At this time, sensitivity and adaptive capacity indicators
were taken directly from asset management databases. At ASIS, the facility condition index from the
NPS’s facilities management database was the basis for sensitivity, and current replacement value
was the basis for adaptive capacity. Using attributes from this database as indicators for vulnerability
did not fully capture how the asset would fare when exposed to a hazard or stressor. The facilities
condition index is a factor of the projected cost of repairs (deferred maintenance, recurring
maintenance deferred, and component renewal deferred) and the current replacement value of an
asset (NPS 2018). However, the ASIS study evaluated hazards including storm surge and SLR but
did not include any sensitivity indicators directly related to flooding, such as whether the building is
elevated above the ground or built to storm-resistant standards. Other studies have found that using
multiple hazard-specific indicators can be a more effective way to measure sensitivity, adaptive
capacity, and potential impacts (e.g., Cambridge Systematics 2015; Maryland State Highway
Administration and Santec Consulting Services 2014; Peek et al. 2015b; c; d; e; 2017j; k; l; 2018;
Tormey et al. 2018a; b).
Indicator Types
Some assessments evaluate purely the physical vulnerability of infrastructure, while others address
the components of vulnerability (in particular sensitivity and adaptive capacity) from a functional or
economic perspective (e.g., ICF International 2014a; San Francisco BCDC and MTC 2011; WSDOT
2011). Physical sensitivity indicators for a road corridor might include attributes such as condition,
construction, and materials; a functional indicator might include the length of time the road would be
unusable after an event. For adaptive capacity, one physical indicator might be the size/weight of the
asset (larger assets would be harder to relocate), whereas an economic indicator might be the expense
of adapting (it might be harder to fund if the costs are too high).
Transportation-focused VAs often include functional indicators for sensitivity and adaptive capacity.
The FHWA San Francisco Bay case study used level of use as one indicator for sensitivity and the
availability of alternate or similar routes for adaptive capacity (San Francisco BCDC and MTC
2011). Also, the WSDOT used functional indicators (travel disruptions, road closure, and reduced
commerce) when measuring the potential impact of climate change to transportation assets (WSDOT
2011). Functionality is more frequently incorporated into transportation VAs (compared to other
infrastructure), as these assets are designed to be included in networks and systems (e.g., roads, trails,
and bridges).
Economic factors are most often included as indicators for adaptive capacity. For example, an asset’s
replacement value has been used as an adaptive capacity indicator within FHWA (ICF International
2014a), FWS (ICF International 2017), and NPS (ICF International 2012a; b) studies. The rationale
for using replacement value is that more funding and resources would be required to maintain, repair,
or replace the asset when damaged (ICF International 2017).
49
Scoring Vulnerability
There are a wide variety of vulnerability scoring methods within the studies evaluated. Many studies
are qualitative and do not assign a vulnerability score (to assets or systems), but instead include a
general discussion of the hazards and impacts (e.g., Anderson et al. 2015a; Place Matters 2011;
Simmons et al. 2015). Other studies score vulnerability semi-quantitatively, ranking assets on a
simple low-moderate-high (or similar) scale (e.g., City of Carlsbad 2017; ICF International 2012a; b;
2017; Peek et al. 2015b; c; d; e; 2017a; b; c; d; 2018; Tormey et al. 2018a; b; WCU and NPS 2016).
More quantitative studies incorporate additional factors, such as probability, weighting of indicators,
computer models, or engineering analyses (e.g., Genivar Consultants 2010; Hogan et al. 2014; Jamie
Caplan Consulting 2015).
Using indicators to score adaptive capacity is particularly difficult for infrastructure (and other non-
living resources) and incorporating that score into the overall vulnerability can be problematic.
Indicators for both asset exposure and sensitivity are most commonly physical in nature. Exposure is
related to the physical location of the asset compared to a hazard, and sensitivity is how the asset
would fare due to its physical characteristics (e.g., the asset is in good condition, is protected by
engineering, and is built of storm-resistant materials). However, the adaptive capacity of
infrastructure is complex, as it can be dependent on numerous, often hard to measure or calculate,
factors. The adaptive capacity score of infrastructure includes both intrinsic factors (the physical
barriers to adaptation due to the properties of the asset) and extrinsic factors (e.g., the social,
economic, or organizational barriers to adaptation).
Some organizations attempt to evaluate and score adaptive capacity for infrastructure using a
combination of these complex factors. The NPS does not evaluate adaptive capacity for non-living
resources (e.g., infrastructure), but instead considers management response to be part of adaptation
and evidence of organizational capacity to adapt.
2.7 Best Practices and Recommendations
The following sections discuss the ideal approach for evaluating the climate change and natural
hazards vulnerability of infrastructure, with best practices and recommendations specific to assets
within the NPS. These recommendations focus on the intrinsic (physical) vulnerability of
infrastructure to the hazard or climate change stressor at the asset/site level scale or resolution
(Figure 2-2).
Clarify Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic
Vulnerability assessments commonly include both intrinsic (physical) and extrinsic (e.g., functional
and economic) factors as part of the overall vulnerability score. While evaluating both the intrinsic
and extrinsic aspects of vulnerability is a beneficial practice, combining these factors when scoring
each asset can confuse or complicate the final vulnerability results. For instance, it is possible to have
an asset that has high intrinsic (physical) vulnerability to a hazard (e.g., a small, dilapidated shed that
is being inundated by SLR), that also has a low extrinsic vulnerability (e.g., has low priority, value,
and utility). Combining these factors into one vulnerability score can dilute (or conversely,
exaggerate) the physical threat of the hazard, which could negatively impact future decision making
50
and planning for assets. Evaluating and reporting intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerability separately
provides greater clarity and accuracy for decision-makers and managers.
Address Criticality
Criticality is commonly addressed as part of an IVA process. Ideally, criticality is scored separately
from the physical vulnerability of assets, either before the IVA to narrow down the quantity of assets
to be evaluated, or after to help prioritize adaptation strategies. One recommended approach for
assessing criticality of assets is a hybrid approach, which uses a combination of a quantitative
analysis and qualitative stakeholder/expert opinion (ICF International 2011). The NPS commonly
utilizes the asset priority index within FMSS to help determine the criticality of assets. While this is a
quantitative way to evaluate criticality, the asset priority index is typically used for funding decisions
and does not represent the absolute criticality of the asset. The FHWA typically incorporates
operational/functional and economic data sources when assessing criticality (e.g., traffic volume,
evacuation routes, detour length, cost of replacement), which could be a useful approach for
evaluating the criticality of NPS transportation infrastructure. It is also important to consider the
integrated nature of assets within a system (e.g., energy and water delivery systems are critical to
nearly all park buildings). Qualitative methods for evaluating criticality can vary, but when possible,
it is advisable to include a range of park personnel, partners, and experts, particularly those who have
institutional knowledge of the assets.
Complete a Detailed Exposure Assessment
Exposure is the foundation of any IVA. If an asset is not exposed to a particular natural hazard or
climate stressor, it is not meaningful to evaluate its sensitivity (or impact). Robust exposure
assessments utilize scientific data and models related to the extent of the stressor/hazard. Completing
a detailed asset-specific exposure assessment requires good data, which should be scientifically
reviewed, spatially appropriate, well maintained, and up to date. Ideally, data should be of a high
enough resolution to show variability between assets and mapped continuously over the entire region
of interest.
While an exposure assessment could be a simple geospatial desktop exercise, a best practice is for the
analysis to be conducted (or at least reviewed) by a subject matter expert. Even the most robust
spatial data can have errors and model inaccuracies that are more likely to be recognized by someone
with proper training. In addition, ground-truthing the data can increase the likelihood of recognizing
data issues and can improve the accuracy of the final exposure results. As a final quality check, it is
recommended that the resulting exposure scores be reviewed by personnel with institutional
knowledge of the infrastructure and/or hazards.
Evaluate Sensitivity
In addition to exposure, a sensitivity analysis is vital for a complete IVA. Robust analyses rely on
indicators (i.e., factors that represent or characterize how the asset will fare when exposed) to
evaluate an asset’s sensitivity. For infrastructure, indicators related to the physical attributes of the
asset, such as condition, construction/materials, resistance/resilience, and engineering, are most
useful. Federal asset databases are often mined for information relevant to infrastructure sensitivity
indicators. One example of a good data source for sensitivity is the FHWA National Bridge
51
Inventory, which has over 100 categories that describe the physical attributes of each bridge and is
updated annually. In addition, the NPS Wildland Fire Risk Assessment database contains detailed
information related to the construction and materials of structures within national parks. These
databases can contain a large quantity of information regarding each asset; however, these attributes
do not always well represent the sensitivity of an asset to a particular hazard. For example, some
studies have used the facilities condition index within FMSS as a proxy for physical condition
(degree of deterioration), however, this attribute is in fact calculated using the asset’s deferred
maintenance and current replacement value.
Sensitivity indicators can be difficult to assign for infrastructure, and often science-based data does
not exist for these indicators. When sensitivity data is lacking, it is recommended that indicators still
be used for the hazard or stressor. In these cases, subject matter experts can be used to evaluate and
score each sensitivity indicator. Some studies utilize surveys or workshops to collect sensitivity
indicator data for infrastructure (e.g., NPS 2017a; WCU and NPS 2016). Using experts to score
specific indicators, as opposed to a generalized ranking of sensitivity, can provide greater detail and
improve the accuracy of the assessment results.
Evaluate Probability and Potential Scenarios
Including probability in an IVA can be useful, as it can provide managers with the likelihood of an
event, hazard, or stressor. Probability data is not always easy to quantify, and therefore, may be
qualitative in nature. In these cases, it may be useful to assess probability using expert opinion,
workshops, or surveys. Finally, analyzing multiple future scenarios (e.g., SLR rates, multiple time
frames, storm surge scenarios) in combination with probability, can lead to more informed future
planning and adaptation strategies.
Evaluate and Prioritize Adaptation Strategies
Adaptation to natural hazards and climate change is the ultimate goal of most IVAs, and therefore,
evaluating potential adaptation strategies is the next logical step following the vulnerability process.
Making adaptation decisions for infrastructure can be extremely complex, and multiple factors
should be considered, including physical, economic, social, and political. A thorough examination of
these factors can help inform the selection of appropriate adaptation strategies.
It is recommended that the evaluation of adaptation strategies is performed in a team or workshop
format, where multiple internal and external parties are involved (e.g., park staff, partners, and
subject matter experts). In addition, incorporating the IVA results and subsequent adaptation
strategies into relevant park planning documents and processes can increase the overall impact and
utility of the VA. Implementing effective adaptation strategies will reduce an asset’s exposure or
sensitivity to a natural hazard or climate change stressor, which lowers overall vulnerability.
2.8 Literature Cited
Abkowitz, M., J. Camp, and L. Dundon. 2015. Assessing the vulnerability of Tennessee
transportation assets to extreme weather. Prepared by 3 Sigma Consultants for Tennessee DOT
and FHWA, Nashville, Tennessee.
52
AECOM. 2010. Human settlement vulnerability and adaptive capacity assessment, spatial plan
evaluation. Prepared for ACT Planning and Land Authority by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd,
Canberra, Australia.
AECOM. 2012. Climate change vulnerability assessment framework for infrastructure: Discussion
paper. Prepared for and in collaboration with ACT Chief Minister's Department by AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia.
Almodovar-Rosario, N. and C. Dorney. 2014. MnDOT flash flood vulnerability and adaptation
assessment pilot project, final report. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff and Catalysis Adaptation
Partners for Minnesota DOT and FHWA, Baltimore, Maryland.
Anderson, T., C. Beck, K. Gade, and S. Olmsted. 2015a. Extreme weather vulnerability assessment.
Prepared by Cambridge Systematics for Arizona DOT and FHWA, New York, New York.
Anderson, C., D. Claman, and R. Mantilla. 2015b. Iowa’s bridge and highway climate change and
extreme weather vulnerability assessment pilot. Prepared by the Institute for Transportation, Iowa
State University for Iowa DOT and FHWA. HEPN-707, Ames, Iowa.
Andrew, J., E. Simmons, and B. Rasmussen. 2015. Integration plan for the Mid-Region Council of
Governments central New Mexico climate change scenario planning project. DOT-VNTSC-
FHWA-15-14. Prepared by U.S. DOT Volpe Center with FHWA, Washington, D.C.
Armstrong, A., C. Dorney, M. Flood, E. Garich, K, Krcma, M. Meyer, J. Ramsden, and E. Schecker-
DaSilva. 2016. Alaska climate trend vulnerability study. Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for
FHWA. FHWA-WFL/TD-16-001, Vancouver, Washington.
Asam, S., C. Bhat, B. Dix, J. Bauer, and D. Gopalakrishna. 2015. Climate change adaptation guide
for transportation systems management, operations, and maintenance. Prepared by Leidos and
ICF International for FHWA. FHWA-HOP-15-026, Washington, D.C.
Balica, S.F., N. Douben, and N.G. Wright. 2009. Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales.
Water Science and Technology 60(10):2571–2580.
Balica, S.F., N.G., Wright, and F. van der Meulen. 2012. A flood vulnerability index for coastal cities
and its use in assessing climate change impacts. Natural Hazards 64(1):73–105.
Beavers, R.L., A.L. Babson, and C.A. Schupp [eds.]. 2016. Coastal adaptation strategies handbook.
NPS 999/134090. National Park Service. Washington, D.C.
Bonham-Carter, C., K. May, C. Thomas, A. Sudhalkar, B. Fish, A. Boone, M. Mak, J. Mull, J.
DeFlorio, and J. Dempster. 2014. Climate change and extreme weather adaptation options for
transportation assets in the Bay Area pilot project. Prepared by AECOM, Cambridge
Systematics, and Avila & Associates for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
FHWA, San Francisco, California.
53
Brooks, K.A., and J.H. Clark. 2015. Evaluating vulnerability of critical state park infrastructure
caused by extreme weather events: A Tennessee application. Risk Management 17(4):298–328.
Cambridge Systematics. 2015. Central Texas extreme weather and climate change vulnerability
assessment of regional transportation infrastructure. Prepared for the Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization, the City of Austin, and FHWA, Austin, Texas.
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. 2008. Adapting to climate change: Canada’s first
national engineering vulnerability assessment of public infrastructure, Elgin, Ottawa.
Choate, A., B. Dix, B. Rodehorst, A. Wong, W. Jaglom, J. Keller, J. Lennon, C. Dorney, R.
Kuchibhotla, J. Mallela, S. Sadasivam, and S. Douglass. 2017. Synthesis of approaches for
addressing resilience in project development. Prepared by ICF International, WSP USA, and
South Coast Engineers for FHWA. FHWA-HEP-17-082, Fairhope, Alabama.
City of Boston. 2016. Climate Ready Boston Final Report. Boston, MA.
https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/climate-ready-boston-final-report-2016.html
City of Carlsbad. 2017. City of Carlsbad sea-level rise vulnerability assessment.
https://carlsbadca.prod.govaccess.org/home/showdocument?id=5795
City of Everett. 2018. City of Everett hazard inventory and vulnerability analysis 2018. Prepared by
City of Everett Office of Emergency Management and City of Everett Utility Mapping, Mapping
and Data Analysis, and the University of Washington. Everett, Washington.
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 2008. Impacts of climate change and variability on
transportation systems and infrastructure. The Gulf Coast Study, phase I. A Report by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Savonis,
M. J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter, editors. DOT, Washington, D.C.
DeFlorio, J., C. Goodison, A. Wynne, M. Flynn, E. Henry, K. Bolter, M. Cahill, R. Clarendon, and
A. Yeh. 2014. Hillsborough County MPO: Vulnerability assessment and adaptation pilot project.
Prepared by Cambridge Systematics for Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning
Organization for Transportation, the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission,
and FHWA, Tampa, Florida.
Dorney, C., M. Flood, M. Meyer, G. Cornetski, G. Borroni, and J. Lafferty. 2015. South Florida
climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation pilot project. Prepared by Parson
Brinckerhoff for Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization and FHWA, Miami, Florida.
Ecosystem Management. 2014a. Climate change effects on central New Mexico’s land use,
transportation system and key natural resources. Task 1.1. Prepared with U.S. DOT Volpe Center
and the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
54
Ecosystem Management. 2014b. Climate change effects on central New Mexico’s land use,
transportation system, and key natural resources. Task 1.2. Prepared with U.S. DOT Volpe
Center and the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Fatorić, S., and E. Seekamp. 2017. Assessing historical significance and use potential of buildings
within historic districts: An overview of a measurement framework developed for climate
adaptation planning. AG-832, NC State Extension, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017. FEMA’s National Fl