Part 3
Prioritization Framework
As described in Parts 1 and 2 of this proceedings, Days 1 and 2 of the workshop used a series of in-person exercises to guide participants into identifying and prioritizing project ideas that would likely increase infrastructure resilience in the Gulf of Mexico region. These brainstorming sessions were scenario specific and included facilitated discussions designed to elicit inputs from workshop participants on how they defined and distilled five macro-criteria—Environment, Economy, Society, Resilience,1 and Project Governance—into sub-criteria, for the purpose of prioritizing infrastructure resilience projects. Participants also considered the relative importance of the macro-criteria. Workshop designers analyzed inputs collected on Days 1 and 2, identified the sub-criteria that emerged through these discussions (both across domains and specific to individual domains), and presented this information to four small groups on Day 3 for in-depth discussions about each sub-criterion. These discussions included whether each sub-criterion should be included in a final set of criteria that would form the foundation of a prioritization framework for infrastructure projects in the Gulf region, how each sub-criterion should be defined, how feasible it is to assess projects against these sub-criteria in an expedient manner, and whether explicit consideration of risks for project implementation introduces any additional sub-criteria.
This part includes the master set of criteria that would form the foundation of a prioritization framework, suggestions for the relative weighting of the macro-criteria, and details on how each individual sub-criterion might be defined based on open-source literature and participant comments. Appendix C describes the research and rationale that drove the early development of this approach and how the master set of criteria fits into that approach.
THE PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
Figure 3-1 depicts the master set of criteria, an aggregation of the criteria reviewed by each of the four groups on Day 3 of the workshop that supports a prioritization framework for infrastructure resilience projects in the Gulf region. More detailed explanations of the sub-criteria are provided later in this section. Participants’ perspectives on which criteria were more and less important than others varied, but there was only limited questioning about whether they should all be included in some form. Several participants suggested that technical merit or feasibility of a project should simply be a prerequisite of any project proposal and not assessed specifically as a part of Project Governance; others discussed if Resilience should be included as a stand-alone criterion. Overall, however, the general takeaway from Day 3 was that this set of
___________________
1 Resilience as a concept is part of all of the other criteria and is a key overall objective. The resilience criterion concerns adaptability and prevention of failures and exposures to physical harms.
criteria in its entirety is worth inclusion in a prioritization framework and worthy of further attention.
When discussing feasibility of applying the criteria to project prioritization, participants offered several recommendations and reminders. They promoted leveraging existing datasets whenever possible and considering a two-level approach to the assessment of the sub-criteria. Level 1 is a binary assessment: Does the project address and satisfy the sub-criterion or not? Level 2 is open-ended: How does the project meet the sub-criterion and to what extent? At the same time, however, participants noted the burden that an overly elaborate prioritization framework would impose on project proposers, many of whom may not have an abundance of resources available to them to support the development of complex proposals, thereby exacerbating concerns about issues of equity. Workshop designers concluded that careful attention should be paid to asking what is truly necessary for effective assessment. Finally, the session on Day 3 dedicated to the identification of project risk and how that risk might impact the criteria, revealed the need to add a single new sub-criterion, “accounting for cyber/physical security implications.”
NOTE: Boldface indicates criteria identified as significant for infrastructure projects in the Gulf region.
RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF THE MACRO-CRITERIA
Participants completed handouts at each domain on Days 1 and 2, assigning 100 percentage points across the five macro-criteria, to indicate how they believe each should be
weighted relative to one another when prioritizing projects.2,3 Scoring across all scenarios and all domains suggests relatively close weighting. Overall, Resilience is weighted heavily relative to other macro-criteria. Project Governance and Economy are weighted slightly below Society and Environment. Figure 3-2 shows the aggregated results of all inputs. The box area for each macro-criterion reflects the middle two quartiles of scores from participants, and the whiskers reflect the first and last quartiles for each. Dots reflect outlier scores.
ELABORATION ON THE SUB-CRITERIA
Tables 3-1 through 3-5 offer descriptions of the sub-criteria in alphabetical order, not priority order. Readers may use these tables to gain further ideas or insights on how to interpret and apply the sub-criteria. Boldface sub-criteria were identified by participants as significant across all domains. These often also appear in other frameworks that serve to help prioritize investments to increase infrastructure resilience, even if the sub-criteria are understood or defined a bit differently across the various sources. Descriptions in the tables include perspectives from the workshop participants; the footnotes offer examples of how select sub-criteria appear in other well-known frameworks that informed development of the framework and design of the workshop.
___________________
2 The handouts also asked whether participants had suggestions for additional macro-criteria categories. Only four handouts suggested additional macro-criteria, suggesting the initial five are sufficient.
3 The workshop designers and the National Academies recognize that there are shortcomings of simple linear weighting schemes, but the process and results are more about prompting the discussions and identifying issues than the actual scores.
TABLE 3-1 Discussion of Each Sub-Criterion in the Environment Macro-Criterion, from Participants and from the Literature
| Environment | |
|---|---|
| Advancement of scientific understanding of the environment | The extent to which projects support the advancement of the scientific understanding of the relevant environment should be considered when prioritizing projects. For example, participants commented that conducting baseline studies in areas where they are lacking is critical because measuring the impacts of incidents or of projects will be very difficult if there are no data or metrics against which to benchmark changes. They added that monitoring, mapping, assessment, analysis, and investments in new technologies are other ways to improve our understanding of the environment. |
| Biodiversitya | Participants commented that projects have not always considered their impacts on local species, but moving forward they must. For example, certain methods of deoiling birds have proven to be ineffective and, in fact, caused more harm than good. Projects should consider and acknowledge these impacts and explain how they will be addressed. Projects should at minimum not adversely impact biodiversity, and ideally, they would enhance biodiversity. Some participants felt biodiversity should be considered a sub-component of climate change. |
| Climate Changeb |
Participants argued that to be prioritized, projects should address climate change, and they identified several ways for projects to satisfy this sub-criterion:
|
| Degradation prevention | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they focus on preventing environmental degradation in the first place, over projects that focus on restoration and recovery. |
| Do no harm/reduce harm to environmentc | Participants suggested that projects should focus on reducing harm to the environment on a net basis first and if possible, account for unintended consequences second. They also observed, however, that sometimes, some harm to the environment must be done to support long-term sustainability and thrivability (e.g., employment), so that nuance and complexity should be kept in mind when evaluating projects. |
| Land used | Participants noted that land use must be considered, possibly much more strongly than it has been in the past. Projects should keep people and infrastructure out of high-risk areas, either moving them or not putting them there in the first place; participants continued that any project that intends to move people, however, must require community leadership and buy-in so that no one is forced to leave their home. Additionally, projects should seek to preserve or even create communal and recreational land, and projects should address cascading impacts to land. |
| Maintenance | Participants explained that, similar to the “Persistence of efforts” sub-criterion below, the environment is not a “set-it-and-forget-it” issue. Given that some projects will take years to complete, they should account for long-term resource needs and maintenance costs. |
| Mitigation | Similar to the “Degradation prevention” sub-criterion above, participants commented that projects that mitigate impacts to the environment should be prioritized over those that simply respond to impacts. |
| Persistence of efforts | Participants explained that the environment typically receives the most attention after a disaster strikes, when there is visible impact or damage. To make real progress and truly improve environmental conditions, however, priority should go to projects that focus on long-term restoration after incidents and continuous preservation before incidents. |
| Riverine and coastal erosione | Participants reported that riverine and coastal erosion are very important issues but are not studied enough, so projects should be prioritized that further the general knowledge of these topics. Projects should be prioritized that emphasize using natural barriers and green infrastructure to combat riverine and coastal erosion; if a project proposes gray infrastructure, it should consider how it will interact with natural barriers already in the area. Projects that support retrofitting and minimizing impacts from erosion should also be prioritized. |
| Safe living and working spaces | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they emphasize the importance of equitably creating safe (hazard-free) living and working spaces, which are the foundation of a functioning community. |
| Sustainability | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they take deliberate steps toward supporting environmental sustainability. |
| Water/air qualityf | Participants reported that projects should be reviewed to ensure they are taking into account impacts to water and air quality at three levels: (1) now, (2) as a result of disasters, and (3) as a result of future impacts from climate change. They reported that current systems and infrastructure, especially related to the oil, gas, and petrochemical industries, are failing to take into account future impacts to water and air quality from climate change, and this must change. And similar to “biodiversity” above, some participants felt water/air quality should be considered a sub-component of climate change. |
NOTES:
a The Standard for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure (SuRe®) includes biodiversity in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows Good International Industry Practice (GIIP) for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure. An example of one SuRe criterion for biodiversity, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management, states that “the Project shall take actions to avoid negative impacts and maximise positive impacts on the conservation of Biodiversity such as species, habitats, (natural, modified, and/or critical), legally protected and internationally recognized areas, ecological corridors and ecosystems, which might arise from the Project.” Another SuRe criterion for biodiversity, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation, states that “the Project shall collaborate with state and local agencies in the protection and conservation of Natural Capital, Critical Habitats, ecosystems and species as recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red list.” SuRe provides additional language for each of these criterion in its publication. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
b SuRe® includes climate change in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure. One SuRe criterion for climate change, Climate Change Mitigation, states that “the Project shall avoid, or if not feasible, reduce project related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by assessing and implementing alternative solutions considered to be technically feasible and financially feasible throughout the lifecycle of The Project.” Another SuRe criterion for climate change, Climate Change Adaptation, states that “the Project shall demonstrate its ability to withstand identified climate change risks and hazards in plausible scenarios throughout The Project’s lifecycle.” SuRe provides additional language for each of these
criterion in its publication. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant program also includes considerations of climate change in its scoring criteria: “… describe how the project will enhance climate adaptation and resilience, detail how the project is being responsive to the effects of climate change (such as sea level rise, increased rainfall, increased likelihood of flash flood due to wildfire, etc.) and/or other future conditions (population/demographic/land use, etc.), and cite data sources, assumptions, and models.” See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-flood-mitigation-assistance-grants.pdf.
c The no-harm principle obligates a state to prevent, reduce, and control the risk of environmental harm, as it relates to activities within their jurisdiction, to other states. See https://leap.unep.org/knowledge/glossary/no-harm-rule. This principle serves as the cornerstone of environmental law. For further information, see Benoit Mayer, “The relevance of the no-harm principle to climate change law and politics,” Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 19.1 (2016): 79–104.
d FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant program includes the idea of land use, insofar as the degree to which repetitive loss (RL) and severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties are included in the “benefitting areas of the project” as a scoring criteria for its projects. See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-flood-mitigation-assistance-grants.pdf. SuRe® includes land use in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure: “the Project shall minimise the use of green-field land. The Project shall also employ technologies that reduce footprint and minimise impervious space. If the site may contain chemical, biological or radioactive contamination, the Project shall ensure that the site is adequately decontaminated prior to construction.” See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
e SuRe® includes soil restoration in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure, specifically, “the Project shall promote sustainable use of soil through protection and restoration measures.” SuRe includes this sub-criterion under its Land Use and Landscape category, and it provides additional language about this criterion in its publication. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
f SuRe® includes air and soil pollution in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure: “the Project shall be designed, built, operated and decommissioned in a way that avoids or minimises the pollution of air and soil and avoids the transfer of Pollution from air to soil or from soil to air.” It also includes water pollution: “the Project shall avoid or when avoidance is not possible, minimize the Pollution of water and the transfer of Pollution from water to other resources (land, air, etc.).” SuRe provides additional language about this criterion in its publication. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
TABLE 3-2 Discussion of Each Sub-Criterion in the Economy Macro-Criterion, from Participants and from the Literature
| Economy | |
|---|---|
| Business continuity | Participants commented that projects should be prioritized if they include the development of plans to provide small businesses with the means to continue operations after incidents. Participants explained that having a program in place before an incident will help keep the economy functioning, reducing job losses, business closures, and the loss of the tax base. |
| Commerce support | Participants suggested that a project should be prioritized if it specifically focuses on restarting, driving, or supporting commerce. Some participants felt uninterrupted or enhanced commerce is one of the, or the, most important aspect of the economy criterion. Also, projects should be prioritized if they support the microeconomies and small businesses in the region, and minimally, all projects should address their impacts on the local or regional microeconomies and businesses. |
| Continuity/recovery of economic activitya | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they clearly support rapid resumption of economic activity or continuation of markets. Some participants suggested that it is not effective to just focus on employment or the tax base; it should be economic activity from a holistic perspective. |
| Cost-effectivenessb | Participants suggested that project proposals should specifically address how the projects are cost-effective, and cost-benefit assessments should account for noneconomic impacts in addition to economic impacts. |
| Economic developmentc | Participants suggested that projects should encourage economic development to whatever extent possible, even if those benefits will not be realized until years from now. They added that projects should strive for equity in economic development and prioritize the needs of underserved communities. |
| Employmentd | Participants commented that projects must, first, prevent job loss and, second, create jobs. And even better, they suggested that a project should strive to create diverse employment opportunities in the region to maximize opportunities for populations with various backgrounds and skills. |
| Equity | Participants suggested that equity of outcomes should be an overarching theme addressed by all projects, but it should be specifically assessed under the Economy and Society macro-criteria. Here, “equity” should focus on ensuring equity of financial outcomes as a prioritization criterion. |
| Financial need | Participants commented that state governments, local governments, and organizations in the regions have already maximized what they can do with their existing funds. Projects should be prioritized if they are addressing unmet needs of these agencies. |
| Individual support | Some participants thought projects should be prioritized if they address the immediate needs of individuals. They explained that the local community has needs, and the community must see short-term benefits from the projects they often hear about. Others saw this as a part of the Employment and/or Economic development sub-criteria. |
| Labor rights and working conditionse | Participants reported that projects that involve labor laws or otherwise directly improve working conditions should be prioritized. This might include, for example, projects designed to prevent worker burnout or worker fatigue, which can lead to adverse health impacts across the community. |
| Multiple impacts | Participants commented that projects that address multiple or complex impacts should be prioritized over those that address a more narrow impact. |
| Proximity to major economic and/or residential centers | Participants suggested that to maximize positive impacts for as many communities as possible, projects should be located near major economic and/or residential centers, if feasible and safe to do so. |
| Spending drivers | Similar to “Continuity/recovery of the economy,” above, participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they take deliberate steps to drive spending—by the government, by businesses, or by residents—because spending jumpstarts the economy and should be encouraged. |
| Tax base | Participants explained that keeping the tax base robust is key to supporting services funded by state and local government agencies that are very important to the community, so projects that support the tax base should be prioritized. Further, this is important because there are downstream effects—participants commented that maintaining a healthy tax base and thus resultant services helps encourage people to not leave the area, keeps unemployment down, and prevents other adverse impacts to the economy, and in turn to the people. |
NOTES:
a Several frameworks in use today promote the conduct of cost-benefit analyses to inform project selection. There is more information related to cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness in general under the next sub-criterion, but one element of cost-benefit analysis relates directly to continuity/recovery of economy activity. “Benefits” of a potential project often include measures that support loss reduction, which supports recovery of the economy. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Community Resilience Economic Decision Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems describes an approach to cost-benefit analyses that addresses this directly. See https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1197.pdf.
b Cost-effectiveness is a predominant component of several other existing frameworks. See FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant program (https://www.fema.gov/grants/guidance-tools/benefit-cost-analysis); the HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] Rebuild by Design (CPD-16-06) guidelines (https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/16-06CPDN.PDF); and the USACE [U.S. Army Corp of Engineers] “Cost Effectiveness for Environmental Planning: Nine EASY Steps,” for detailed processes to conduct cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. See https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/94-PS-2.pdf
c The Standard for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure (SuRe®) includes indirect/direct economic development enabled by the project in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows Good International Industry Practice (GIIP) for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure: “the Project shall contribute to local socioeconomic development priorities throughout its life cycle and beyond, aligned with local and national development goals.” SuRe provides additional language about this criterion in its publication. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
d SuRe® includes direct employment and training in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure: “the Project shall hire people from the local communities as workers, professionals and in managerial positions during construction and operation of the Project.” SuRe provides additional language about this criterion in its publication. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
e SuRe® includes labor rights and working conditions as a category in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure. It breaks this category down into nine sub-criterion, including: (1) employment policy; (2) ensuring rights to association and collective bargaining; (3) nondiscrimination; (4) forced labor and child labor; (5) occupational health and safety; (6) employee grievance mechanism; (7) working hours and leave; (8) fair wages and access to employee documentation; and (9) retrenchment. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
TABLE 3-3 Discussion of Each Sub-Criterion in the Society Macro-Criterion, from Participants and from the Literature
| Society | |
|---|---|
| Access to information/awareness | Participants explained that project proposers and managers should make the approach, methodology, and anticipated impacts of projects transparent. They should present this information in a user-friendly and consumable format so all stakeholders have awareness of what is taking place or expected to take place. They should extend access to this information to the general public whenever possible and appropriate. Participants added that this sharing of information should promote equal access to information and resources, and it should offer the community tools to educate themselves. This will ultimately build and maintain trust. Further, given the current trends on mis-, dis-, or malinformation (MDM), some participants believed a project should have a plan in place to counter the spread of MDM. |
| Benefits go to underserved communitiesa | Participants stated that priority should go to projects that benefit underserved communities and provide outcomes that are fair and equitable. They added that projects should address long-term systemic problems of these underserved communities. |
| Community engagementb | Participants suggested that this is possibly the most important sub-criterion of all; that a project will never succeed without deep and sustained community engagement. This includes partnership between project managers and the community and involving local leadership in project-related planning and execution. Other participants suggested that projects should also leverage volunteer support and crowd sourcing, where possible. Also, if the community is engaged and there is buy-in, it lessens the need for conflict resolution later. |
| Connections | Participants suggested projects should be prioritized that help restore connections among the impacted population, because connections support a return to normalcy and/or stability. These include, for example, projects that restore communications so that people can “connect” with their friends and family. |
| Cultural value | Participants commented that projects should be respectful of land, flora, and/or fauna that are culturally valuable to communities. Minimally, project proposals should explain how they will do no harm to these natural cultural assets. |
| Education | Participants explained that many people in the Gulf region feel that the government does things to people, and not for people, so projects should include public education. Participants suggested projects should be prioritized if they educate the public about how to increase their own resilience and/or if they educate the public about how to reduce their own risk, for example, forcibly removing people out of high-risk areas is very difficult, but if the impacted people understand the benefits, they may take voluntary action on their own. Finally, people in the region already volunteer their time to supplement response operations, but if projects include education about these activities, their volunteering and thus the response will be even more effective. |
| Equity and inclusionc | Participants suggested that equity and inclusion should be a priority, and it should be prioritized over cost. Projects should strive for equity in jobs and resource sharing and/or offset impacts of local industries if they are currently harmful to communities. Because equity can be difficult to measure, project proposals should describe specific and quantifiable impacts on different communities and how inclusion will be approached. Unlike other sub-criteria, participants believed equity and inclusion cannot be assessed simply as a binary choice given the diversity in communities that exists across the Gulf region. |
| Health and welfared | Participants suggested that project proposals should include specific metrics to measure impacts of the project on human health and that projects should also monitor impact on human health throughout project implementation. |
| Public safety/ordere | Participants explained that people must feel safe first before any other initiatives can be effective, so projects should be prioritized that improve safety. This includes preventing loss of life and/or reducing the risk of death. It also includes enhanced disaster response and, specifically, support for mental health. Several participants explicitly stated that this sub-criterion is not about prioritizing law enforcement, but about general community welfare and safety. |
| Public trust | Participants suggested projects should be prioritized if they help to increase the public’s understanding of governmental actions and work to increase public confidence in government. This might be achieved, for example, through projects that explain how they will support increased transparency around government activities, how they will utilize community engagement to build public trust, how they will create partnerships with trusted voices in the community, and how they will promote core social values (e.g., use of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework). |
| Return to stable society/normalcy | Participants suggested that projects must first and foremost support a return to a stable society or normalcy after an incident. Projects that help promote rapid and effective returns to normalcy should be prioritized until survivability is no longer at risk. |
| Social and political acceptability | Participants explained that a project should include advice and consent from the people it will affect. Further, buy-in from marginalized groups who are already wary of governmental intrusion is necessary for long-term project success; project proposals must account for achieving this buy-in. |
| Survivability (e.g., water, basic needs) | Similar to “Return to stable society/normalcy,” above, participants reported that basic survival is still at risk immediately after an incident, and so projects that directly support survival should be prioritized. This includes access to clean drinking water, functioning wastewater systems, communications, electricity, and housing. |
NOTES:
a The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant program includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) as a scoring criteria. More specifically “projects that benefit area(s) with an overall SVI score of 0.7501 or greater per CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index will [be] eligible for this point priority…. In the event multiple census tracts are included in an area benefiting from the project, FEMA will consider the highest SVI score.” See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-flood-mitigation-assistance-grants.pdf.
b The Standard for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure (SuRe®) includes stakeholder engagement as a category in its governance criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows Good International Industry Practice (GIIP) for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure. Based on participant feedback during the workshop, this concept may be relevant to both the society and the project governance macro-critieria. SuRe breaks this category down into three sub-criterion, including (1) stakeholder identification and engagement planning; (2) engagement and participation; and (3) public grievance and customer feedback management. See https://surestandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
c FEMA’s Guide to Expanding Mitigation, Making the Connection to Equity, suggests the following ways to measure equity successes in mitigation initiatives, for example: (1) at-risk populations lend expertise and have agency in the hazard mitigation process; (2) barriers to participating in mitigation activities are removed, and training, language access, transportation, meals and/or childcare are provided; (3) investment takes place in traditionally underserved communities; (4) race is no longer a determining factor of risk; and (5) indicators of social vulnerability and environmental burden are assessed alongside hazards in mitigation plans and are used to target outreach or risk reduction projects. The publication includes additional considerations. See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_mitigation-guide_equity.pdf. Arup International Development’s City Resilience Framework identifies inclusion as a quality of a resilient system: “Inclusion emphasizes the need for broad consultation and engagement of communities, including the most vulnerable groups. Addressing the shocks or stresses faced by one sector, location, or community in isolation of others is an anathema to the notion of resilience. An inclusive approach contributes to a sense of shared ownership or a joint vision to build city resilience.” See https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf.
d SuRe® includes both management of public health and safety risks and delivery of public health and safety benefits in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
e SuRe combines public health and safety into the same two sub-criteria.
TABLE 3-4 Discussion of Each Sub-Criterion in the Resilience Macro-Criterion, from Participants and from the Literature
| Resilience | |
|---|---|
| Adaptabilitya | Participants acknowledged that adaptability is a more complex sub-criterion than many of the others, but that to lead to resilience, projects must be designed to adapt to future conditions, even if those conditions are not yet known. Changing weather patterns, sea level rise, and other impacts from climate change may adversely affect the outcome of projects based on current conditions, and so projects must be designed so that they can adapt to worsening conditions. The inclusion of green infrastructure in project design would also be appropriate here. |
| Exposure reduction | Participants suggested that projects that support exposure reduction of either people or infrastructure should be prioritized. This might include encouraging people to move out of flood zones or away from chemical plants. Prioritize projects that would decrease exposure to rising sea level for both people and infrastructure. Participants added that projects should use (or change) regulations and enforcement to address abandoned and exposed infrastructure before they become hazards. |
| Focus on preparedness and response | Participants explained that not only does the Gulf region have experience with natural hazards but it expects to have more frequent and forceful weather impacts to its infrastructure in the future. Participants further explained that oil spills have happened in the region before, and they will continue to happen. Therefore, projects should be prioritized if they do more than just repair damage—they should help prepare infrastructure and society for these events and also improve the state and local responses to those events. |
| Hardening of infrastructureb | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they include solutions to mitigate the impacts from a disaster, solutions to adapt flexibly to disasters, measures of redundancy, and multiple lines of defense against threats and hazards. Projects should take more natural approaches to infrastructure investment (i.e., green infrastructure), if feasible; if not feasible, gray infrastructure projects that allow green infrastructure to be included should be prioritized. |
| Information management and communications | Participants explained that projects should directly address clearly how they will manage information and support transparent communications. Projects should be prioritized that include a thoughtful communications plan that offers an explanation of trade-offs and benefits of the project to the local community. |
| Interdependence with other systemsc | Participants explained that interdependence among infrastructure systems and networks is positive and something projects should strive to support. That being said, to prevent larger system failure, participants noted that projects must address interdependencies and explain how they will mitigate potential adverse impacts from a disaster and ensure operability if a system is inaccessible. Any new project should minimally ensure that its implementation does not harm other projects in the system or area and, ideally, leverage and compliment them. |
| Long-term impact | Participants suggested that projects that can illustrate long-term benefits should be prioritized over those that cannot or do not. |
| Planning and preparedness (prevention focus) | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they include planning to prevent known hazards from happening in the first place or prevent major impacts if they do occur. Better yet, projects that include expansive and creative consideration of future risk versus historical risk should receive priority consideration. |
| Rapid deployment for response | Participants suggested that projects enhancing the ability to respond rapidly to a disaster should be prioritized, because they believed part of resilience is the ability to quickly deploy and get to work responding without delay. |
| Redundancyd | Participants commented that project proposals should include a clear explanation of fail-safe alternatives they are including to help with quicker recovery of systems after a disaster and minimize negative or cascading impacts from that disaster. From a sustainability perspective, priority should go to projects that support systems with more than one purpose. Projects should also address workforce redundancy (possibly achieved through training) to ensure continuity of operations. |
| Supportive of the system/networke | Participants suggested that projects should deliberately address how they are supplementing or complementing systems or projects already in development and not work against them or unnecessarily replicate them. Some participants considered this sub-criterion as complimentary of, but more comprehensive than, “Interdependence with other systems,” listed above. |
| Understanding AND action | Participants suggested that projects that both increase knowledge and incite action should be prioritized over those that just do one or the other. Increasing knowledge might include enhancing situational awareness or understanding of disaster impacts through improved data collection, analysis, or research. This increased understanding should automatically drive related action. |
NOTES:
a Arup International Development’s City Resilience Framework (Arup) identifies flexibility as a quality of a resilient system and defines it similarly to the spirit of the adaptability sub-criterion: “Flexibility implies that systems can change, evolve and adapt in response to changing circumstances.... Flexibility can be achieved through the introduction of new knowledge and technologies, as needed. It also means considering and incorporating indigenous or traditional knowledge and practices in new ways.” See https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf.
b Arup identifies robustness as a quality of a resilient system and defines it similarly to the hardening of infrastructure sub-criterion: “Robust systems include well-conceived, constructed and managed physical assets, so that they can withstand the impacts of hazard events without significant damage or loss of function. Robust design anticipates potential failures in systems, making provision to ensure failure is predictable, safe, and not disproportionate to the cause.” It provides additional language in its publication. See https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program includes “incorporation of nature-based solutions” as a scoring criteria. See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-flood-mitigation-assistance-grants.pdf; https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-building-resilient-infrastructure.pdf and https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-building-resilient-infrastructure.pdf.
c Arup identifies integration as a quality of a resilient system: “integration and alignment between city systems promotes consistency in decision-making and ensures that all investments are mutually supportive to a common outcome. Integration is evident within and between resilient systems, and across different scales of their operation. Exchange of information between systems enables them to function collectively and respond rapidly through shorter feedback loops throughout the city.” See https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf.
d Arup identifies redundancy as a quality of a resilient system and defines it as “spare capacity purposely created within systems so that they can accommodate disruption, extreme pressures or surges in demand. It includes
diversity: the presence of multiple ways to achieve a given need or fulfil a particular function. Examples include distributed infrastructure networks and resource reserves. Redundancies should be intentional, cost-effective and prioritised at a city-wide scale, and should not be an externality of inefficient design.” See https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf.
e Arup’s criteria address interdependence with other systems.
TABLE 3-5 Discussion of Each Sub-Criterion in the Project Governance Macro-Criterion from Participants and from the Literature
| Project Governance | |
|---|---|
| Accounting for cyber and physical security implications | Participants suggested that projects must deliberately consider and acknowledge any cyber or physical security implications, and if such implications do exist, projects should include actions to address them. |
| Alignment with existing plan | Similar to the “Supportive of the system/network” sub-criteria under Resilience, participants suggested that since many plans are already in place and many projects are already underway, new projects should be prioritized if they leverage work already done or utilize teams already formed. It would be acceptable for these plans or teams to require updates to account for equity and fairness, however. |
| Community inclusiona | Many participants believe projects must collect inputs from the community on their design and execution, in order to be successful and/or effective. Projects should include mechanisms for sharing information with the local population and educating the community about potential benefits they can expect from a project. Projects should aim to lower bureaucratic barriers as much as possible for the community to get involved effectively and successfully. Some workshop participants believe this sub-criterion is a subset of “stakeholder engagement.” |
| Data and information sharingb | Some participants argued that, first, a project must not impede current information-sharing efforts. Second, a project should illustrate how it will create and deliver its information in a user-friendly, easy-to-consume way. Data and information sharing should specifically include the sharing of best practices and lessons learned from past experiences. |
| Feasibilityc | Some participants believed a project proposal must specifically address why it is feasible. Minimally, the proposal must make clear that it will follow existing codes and how it will do that. Some participants did not think feasibility should be a part of project governance because it should be worked out ahead of time, but they did not specify when or where. |
| Outcomes focus—effectiveness, return on investment (ROI)d | Participants suggested that projects should include mechanisms to assess if they are generating the impacts and benefits promised or expected. Others suggested metrics would be useful here and so projects should offer mechanisms to clearly measure both their progress and their effectiveness. Others felt current frameworks for prioritizing projects should be leveraged, as they offer reasonable ways to evaluate outcomes appropriately. |
| Oversight and compliancee | Participants reported that projects must include some explanation of how they will comply with relevant laws, codes, and other norms. |
| Project readiness | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if proposals clearly address project readiness, which might include, for example, availability of trained staff or identification of proven experience securing relevant permits. |
| Repeatability/scalability | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if proposals make explicit how the projects can be both repeatable and scalable. |
| Stakeholder coordinationf | Participants suggested that projects should be prioritized if they clearly identify project stakeholders and have a plan in place to engage them regularly for information-sharing and collaboration purposes. |
| Technical meritg | Participants suggested that technical merit should be assessed in some way, and that project proposals should address how they will manage project risk. |
NOTES:
a Arup emphasizes the need for broad consultation and engagement of communities, including the most vulnerable groups, to create resilience. The Standard for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure ((SuRe®) includes engagement and participation as sub-criteria. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program includes “outreach activities” as part of its evaluation criteria. See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-building-resilient-infrastructure.pdf.
b SuRe® includes public disclosure in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows Good International Industry Practice (GIIP) for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure. It explains that minimally a project must disclose all information required to remain in compliance with applicable laws, and then it offers a list of additional types of project information that should be disclosed even if not required by law. See. https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
c SuRe® includes project team competence in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure, described this way: “for the construction and the operation phases of the Project, the Project Team(s), including those of its Direct Contractors, shall consist of skilled and experienced professionals qualified to fulfil their tasks and responsibilities and are appointed based on merit via a transparent recruitment process.” See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
d SuRe® includes results orientation in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure, described this way: “the Project shall define goals and objectives with regard to the primary purpose of The Project and define Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) accordingly.” SuRe provides additional language about this criterion in its publication. See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
e SuRe® includes legal compliance and oversight in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure, described this way: “the Project Owner shall ensure that the Project complies with the applicable laws and regulations throughout its life cycle. Applicable laws and regulations shall include local (municipal and regional), national legal, regulatory and administrative requirements as well as applicable international law and indigenous rights.” See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf. FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant program does not necessarily include this as a sub-criterion, but it does conduct monitoring and oversight as part of its management process; it makes “site visits or conducting desk reviews to review project accomplishments and management control systems to review award progress and to provide any required technical assistance.” See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-flood-mitigation-assistance-grants.pdf.
f FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program includes “leveraging partners” as an evaluation criteria, explained this way: “the project subapplication incorporates partnerships (e.g., state, tribal, private, local community, etc.) that will ensure the project meets community needs, including those of disadvantaged populations, and show the outcome of those partnerships (e.g., leveraging resources such as financial, material, and educational resources, coordinating multi-jurisdictional projects, heightened focus on equity related issues, etc.)” See https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-building-resilient-infrastructure.pdf. Also, as described in footnote 27 for “Community engagement” under the Society macro-criterion, above, SuRe includes three criteria related to stakeholder engagement: (1) stakeholder identification and engagement planning, (2) engagement and participation, and (3) public grievance and customer feedback management. While the first was particularly relevant to the “Community engagement” sub-criterion, the second is particularly relevant to this, the “Stakeholder engagement” sub-criterion under Project Governance. See https://surestandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
g SuRe® includes risk management in its criteria for receiving certification that an infrastructure project follows GIIP for sustainability and resilience in infrastructure, described this way: “the Project shall make regular and comprehensive assessment and management of current and future risks; including natural hazards, environmental, social, governance, policy, technological and economic risks relating to the construction and operation phases of The Project. Risks assessed shall include those caused by third parties’ actions that have an impact on The Project’s area of influence.” See https://sure-standard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ST01_Normative_Standard_v1.1_clean.pdf.
This page intentionally left blank.
