Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Último
Último (20)
Psu Hurricane Study070609
- 1. CURRENT & FUTURE VULNERABILITY OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FL, TO HURRICANE STORM SURGE & SEA LEVEL RISE Tim Frazier, Penn State University Brent Yarnal, Penn State University Nathan Wood, U.S. Geological Survey
- 2. Introduction Goal Develop a comprehensive vulnerability assessment framework that integrates geospatial analysis and stakeholder input to facilitate enhanced community resilience through planning. – Vulnerability assessment including SLR – Decision-support methodology incorporating scientific understanding with value-based human dynamics – Inject SLR scenarios into long-range planning activities Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 3. Study Area Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 4. Category 1 SLOSH ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 5. Category 1 with 30 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 6. Category 1 with 60 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 7. Category 1 with 90 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 8. Category 1 with 120 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 9. Category 2 with SLOSH ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 10. Category 2 with 30 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 11. Category 2 with 60 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 12. Category 2 with 90 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 13. Category 2 with 120 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 14. Category 3 with SLOSH ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 15. Category 3 with 30 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 16. Category 3 with 60 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 17. Category 3 with 90 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 18. Category 3 with 120 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 19. Category 4-5 SLOSH ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 20. Category 4-5 with 30 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 21. Category 4-5 with 60 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 22. Category 4-5 with 90 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 23. Category 4-5 with 120 cm Sea Level Rise ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 24. All Categories with SLR Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 25. Percent of Total Population in Surge Zone - Category 1 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 26. Percent Total Population in Surge Zone - Category 2 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 27. Percent Total Population in Surge Zone - Category 3 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 28. Percent Total Population in Surge Zone - Category 4/5 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 29. Percent Population Over 65 in Surge Zone- Category 3 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 30. Percent Female Head of Households in Surge Zone- Category 3 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 31. Percent Tax Parcels in Surge Zone - Category 1 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 32. Percent Tax Parcels in Surge Zone - Category 2 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 33. Percent Tax Parcels in Surge Zone - Category 3 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 34. Percent Tax Parcels in Surge Zone - Category 4/5 Bee Ridge Desoto Lakes Englewood Fruitville Gulf Gate Estates Kensington Park Lake Sarasota Laurel Longboat Key Nokomis North Port North Sarasota Osprey SLOSH Plantation Plus 30 Ridge Wood Heights Sarasota Plus 60 Sarasota Springs Siesta Key Plus 90 South Gate Ridge Plus 120 South Sarasota South Venice Southgate The Meadows Vamo Venice Venice Gardens Warm Mineral Springs Unincorporated Sarasota County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 35. Sarasota County, Florida: Land Use 2050 ±
- 36. Focus Groups • 33 Participants • Divided into subgroups – Business – Environmental – Planners – Facilities & infrastructure – Government officials • Presentation of research • Assign task Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 37. SLOSH Output: All Categories ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 38. Category 3 With 30, 60, 90, 120, cm of SLR ± Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 39. Results: Overall • Location of development • Location urban service boundary • Infrastructure inside hazard zones • Cost of shifting development Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 40. Results: Business • ID beach specific businesses • Rebuilding with FEMA restrictions • Moving critical & essential facilities • Imposing mitigation restrictions Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 41. Results: Environmental • Mitigate SLR impacts on environmental areas • Transfer development rights • Develop land swaps • Replenish wetlands for surge mitigation Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 42. Results: Planners • Increase density outside hazards zones • Incentives to steer development • Strategies to retreat from coast • Limited by economic realities Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 43. Results: Facilities & Infrastructure • Mitigate now – Move dated infrastructure – Ensure functional flexibility – Revise existing plan • Plan better for future – Cautiously place infrastructure in hazard zones – Evacuation Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 44. Results: Government Officials • Evaluate placement of urban service boundary • Mitigation need vs. cost of moving (facilities & infrastructure) • Locate high density residential outside hazard zones • Transportation add more N to S Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 45. Conclusions • Development constricted to hazards zones • Specific adjustments – Relax urban service boundary – Steer development out of hazards zones – Relocate/replace infrastructure – Explore evacuation alternatives Urban growth boundaries in coastal communities could contribute to hurricane hazards exposure Introduction Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Conclusions
- 47. Hurricane risk perceptions & preparedness among Sarasota business owners Peter D. Howe Department of Geography The Pennsylvania State University
- 50. Online survey • Developed after interviews with business owners • E-mail recruitment • 252 responses – 23% response rate
- 52. Risk perceptions • Perceived damage severity Category 1: – wind damage: ‘minor’ – flood damage: ‘none’ Category 3: - wind damage: ‘moderate’ - flood damage: ‘minor’ Category 5: - wind damage: ‘catastrophic’ - flood damage: ‘major’
- 53. Preparedness – Attended meetings or received written - Developed a business disaster information on hurricane preparedness recovery plan – Talked with those working in your - Made arrangements to move the business about what to do in case of business to another location in a hurricane case of damage – Developed a plan to notify employees – Taken action to flood-proof or wind- - Permanently moved your proof your facility business to another location to reduce risk of damage – Purchased flood insurance for your business - Obtained an emergency – Purchased business interruption generator for use if electric power insurance fails – Stored water - Backed up computer data – Stored fuel or batteries – Stored critical inputs – Developed a business emergency plan Median: 8 measures implemented
- 54. Differences in experience “The more events that you've been through, the better educated you are. Out here...our changeover in business and ownership is fairly high. So you have a lot of people that are new that haven't experienced different situations” (Respondent 6, owner) Flood risk perception Preparedness index
- 55. Spatial differences Wind risk perception Flood risk perception Preparedness index Mean preparedness index Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
- 56. Risk perception / preparedness gap • Perceived adaptation “Being located where I am, even in a Category 1 storm...we're probably efficacy going to have a water issue. So the degree to which we try to • Perceived self- harden our buildings...we haven't placed a lot of emphasis on it. efficacy Because if I'm looking at protecting this building against a Category 3, 4, 5 hurricane, wind is not going to be the issue. It's going to be water...where we're sitting right now will be full of water. And there's no way for me really to prevent that type of damage.” (Owner of business located on a barrier island)
- 57. Acknowledgements Storm surge and sea-level rise scenarios: Tim Frazier, Nathan Wood, and Brent Yarnal Survey recruitment: Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce Partial support provided by: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University