Using boundary objects to stimulate transformational thinking: storm resilience for the Port of Providence, Rhode Island (USA)

Abstract

Like many coastal ports around the world, Rhode Island’s Port of Providence in USA is at risk for climate-related natural hazards, such as catastrophic storm surges and significant sea level rise (0.5–2.0 m), over the next century. To combat such events, communities may eventually adopt so-called “transformational adaptation” strategies, like the construction of major new infrastructure, the reorganization of vulnerable systems, or changes in their locations. Such strategies can take decades or more to plan, design, find consensus around, fund, and ultimately implement. Before any meaningful decisions can be made, however, a shared understanding of risks, consequences, and options must be generated and allowed to percolate through the decision-making systems. This paper presents results from a pre-planning exercise that utilized “boundary objects” to engage the Port of Providence's stakeholders in an early dialogue about the transformational approaches to hazard–risk mitigation. The research team piloted the following three boundary objects as a means to initiate meaningful dialogue about long-term storm resilience challenges amongst key stakeholders of this exposed seaport system: (1) a storm scenario with local-scale visualizations, (2) three long-term transformational resilience concepts, and (3) a decision support tool called Wecision. The team tested these boundary objects in a workshop setting with 30 port business owners and policy makers, and found them to be an effective catalyst to generate a robust dialogue around a very challenging topic.

Appendices

Appendix 1—workshop resilience concepts

This Appendix 1 describes the advantages and disadvantages of each of the long-term resilience concept alternatives. These were discussed with participants during the workshop. Each of the concepts was developed with the following assumptions:

• Resilience: Ability to rapidly bounce back to normal operations after extreme (e.g., Cat 3) event

• Long-term: Out to ~2050 (focus here is not on emergency response)

• Common objective to strengthen the port community

• Actual solutions would likely combine concepts

• High costs; funding mechanisms unknown at this time

1. Do Nothing

Advantages

• Low/no upfront costs

• No disruption until storm event(s) occur

• Easy

• Allows for investments in other priorities

Disadvantages

• Risk of major catastrophe after each storm event

• Risk of businesses leaving the State

• Risk of major environmental damage to Narragansett Bay

• Risk of channel closing for weeks/months

• Impacts to state’s energy supplies

2. Accommodate—site-specific improvements to increase resilience

Protect/reduce

• Construct barriers and berms

• Reinforce windows and doors

  • Door barriers

• Debris traps

• Storm water detention

• Cover and move stock piles of materials

Wet flood proofing

• Floodable first floors/foundations

• Breakaway/removable walls (reduces structure damage)

• Flood/salt tolerant constructions/materials

Dry flood proofing

• Seal around utility entry points

• Install waterproof bulkheads

• Install pumps with back up generators

Examples from MassPort (Boston)

• New design elevation: 20.5′ (Category 3 surge)

• Building retrofit elevation: 17.5′ (Category 2 surge + wave)

• Identifies all critical infrastructure and risk to flood damage

• Establishes flood-proofing standards for existing and new construction

• Defines permitable uses for accommodation strategies

  • ex. Dry flood proofing cannot be used in VE Zones.

Advantages

• Costs can be incremental

• Site-specificity

• Low-cost options

• Single business could improve its own resilience

• Could address SLR

• Does not disrupt port system as a whole.

Disadvantages

• Limited in ability to protect against major storm

• Does not address interdependent uses

• Storm could result in high levels of environmental damages

• Few tested examples for industrial waterfronts

• Less likely to protect navigation channel from debris.

3. Relocate—move port uses to less vulnerable locations

Advantages

• Removes hazardous materials from floodplain

• Tested strategy has been implemented elsewhere

• Opens floodplain as public waterfront space and/or environmental remediation

• Can account for SLR

• Reduces debris in navigation channel after storm

• Improves water quality to Providence Harbor.

Disadvantages

• Disrupts port network

• Limited land availability

• High costs

• May impact communities around relocation sites

• Complexities from dependence on utilities (e.g., pipelines, rail, and highway)

• May displace environmental damages to other places.

4. Protect—construct new storm barrier for Providence Harbor

Advantages

• Protects during all major events

• New public uses can be integrated (e.g., on berm)

• Does not disrupt shipping

• Creates safe harbor for new business

• Tested solution

• Very long-term solution

• Frees up land in city through removal of current barrier system.

Disadvantages

• Impacts of sea level rise are not addressed

• May impact tidal flows (water quality)

• Impacts sediment flow, water quality, discharge from watershed (sedimentation of navigation channel)

• High upfront costs

• May impact view of Bay

• May require pumping due to increased freshwater flows.

Appendix 2—resilience goals

As part of the Wecision exercise, the research team developed seven goals that were discussed and vetted by workshop participants during the workshop. This Appendix 2 describes each of the seven goals. Each goal is described and a 1–5 metric for assessing each is provided. Because time was limited, the research team provided a first pass for how well each goal would be accomplished by each of the four resilience concept alternatives. These scores were discussed in the workshop, but participants were free to enter their own scores if they disagreed. The limited time  of the workshop proved to be a challenging obstacle. The exercise was limited to about an hour.

In sum, participants:

• 1. assessed and modified the goals defined by the research team;

• 2. weighed the importance of each goal from each participant’s own perspective;

• 3. learned about and gave feedback about some of the possible resilience concept alternatives;

• 4. learned about and gave feedback to the research team’s assessment of how well each resilience concept alternative achieved each goal;

• 5. considered and discussed the relative value of each alternative from individual stakeholder perspectives, and to the Port of Providence waterfront stakeholders as a whole.

The goals are outlined below.

GOAL 1: Ensure post-hurricane(s) business continuity for waterfront business

What does it mean?

• ensure access to supply chain;

• minimize downtime after event.

Metrics:

In the months following a Cat 3 storm event, port-related businesses:

1 = Leave the State.

2 = Are down for up to a year.

3 = Operate at ~50% for 6 months after event.

4 = Operate at ~50% for 2–4 weeks after event.

5 = Are up and running at full capacity one day after event has passed.

Scores

GOAL 2: Minimize hurricane damages to infrastructure and waterfront business

What does it mean?

• Limit damage to buildings, equipment, and storage and protect space in/around terminals.

Metrics:

After a Cat 3 storm event:

1 = All structures and infrastructure are destroyed.

2 = >50% of structures and infrastructure are destroyed.

3 = ~50% of structures and infrastructure are destroyed.

4 = <50% of structures and infrastructure are destroyed.

5 = All structures are standing.

GOAL 3: Minimize hurricane-related environmental damage from port uses

What does it mean?

• Prevent chemical and petroleum spills.

  • Prevent contaminated soils from entering waterways.

  • Minimize amount of debris generated on study area properties.

Metrics:

Between now and 2050:

• 1 = Catastrophic spills contaminate the Bay.

• 2 = Water quality is temporarily impaired by runoff and debris after storm events.

• 3 = Water quality is not impacted.

• 4 = Water quality is improved during short term events.

• 5 = Water quality is improved dramatically.

GOAL 4: Build public support for hurricane resilience measures and port operations

What does it mean?

• Create green space.

• Enhance public access for recreation and walkability.

Metrics:

Between now and 2050:

• 1 = Current green space and public space is converted for other uses.

• 2 = Current green space is impaired by new uses.

• 3 = Green space and public access are maintained.

• 4 = Green space and public space is enhanced.

• 5 = Green space and public access is greatly enhanced.

GOAL 5: Minimize hazard insurance rates

What does it mean?

• Hazard insurance rates are kept low.

Metrics:

• By 2050, the costs of hazard insurance (adjusted for inflation):

  • 1 = Are completely unaffordable after a Cat 3 event.

  • 2 = Increase slightly due to increased risk overtime.

  • 3 = Remain about the same.

  • 4 = Reduced slightly due to new resilience investments.

  • 5 = Drop dramatically due to resilience investments.

GOAL 6: Foster port growth

What does it mean?

• Create storm resilience setting that would attract new waterfront businesses.

• Create opportunities for current businesses to grown.

• Improves public perception of port operations.

• Increase cargo value and volume of cargo.

Metrics:

By 2050, the economic growth rate of port businesses:

• 1 = Decreases dramatically.

• 2 = Decreases.

• 3 = Remains the same.

• 4 = Increases.

• 5 = Increases dramatically.

GOAL 7: Protect human safety and critical lifelines

What does it mean?

• Minimize loss of life and harm to people within study area boundaries.

• Protect critical lifeline services and ensure access to lifelines is secure (e.g., fuel for hospitals and hurricane barrier pumps).

• Provide staging area for relief supplies operations.

• Provide access to waterway for survey vessels.

Metrics:

By 2050, hurricane impacts on the study area:

• 1 = Severely affect human safety and critical lifelines.

• 2 = Affect human safety and critical lifelines.

• 3 = Minimally effect human safety and critical lifelines.

• 4 = Reduce effect on human safety and critical lifelines.

• 5 = Greatly reduce impact on human safety and critical lifelines.

Summary of resilience concept alternative scores

Through the workshop, the scores proposed by the research team were summarized as follows (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 8

“Do Nothing” concept was also included in the Wecision exercise for participant evaluation. Below shows examples of the storm impacts identified by workshop participants