Citation
Resilience planning through urban recentralization in medium-density coastal cities: Florida’s Central Atlantic Coast as a model

Material Information

Title:
Resilience planning through urban recentralization in medium-density coastal cities: Florida’s Central Atlantic Coast as a model
Creator:
Allen, Christie
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
Project in lieu of thesis

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of Landscape Architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Landscape Architecture
Committee Chair:
Gurucharri, Maria Christina
Committee Members:
Volk, Michael Ives

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Area development ( jstor )
Climate change ( jstor )
Community forestry ( jstor )
Floodplains ( jstor )
Floods ( jstor )
Hurricanes ( jstor )
Land development ( jstor )
Land use ( jstor )
Sea level rise ( jstor )
Shorelines ( jstor )

Notes

Abstract:
Despite international concern over predictions of a warmer climate, rising sea levels, and increased storm intensity, coastal counties in the US contain over half of the country’s population and have experienced an average of 60% growth in population between 1980 and 2003. This has translated into intense and often haphazard development pressure in highly dynamic geographies. Recent meteorological disasters, namely Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, have spurred competitions and reactions within the design professions internationally, but few have explicitly explored the adaption strategies available specifically to medium-density coastal communities. These types of communities, which constitute the predominant decentralized pattern of development along the eastern US seaboard, generally don’t possess the resources or populations to warrant expensive adaptation measures to protect against or accommodate sea level rise. This study hypothesizes that the agendas of coastal resilience planning and urban recentralization share many common goals, and utilizes a sequential mixed-methods approach to determine if recentralization, as defined by G. Tachieva’s regional sprawl repair method (2010), can achieve coastal resilience, as defined by T. Beatley in Planning for coastal resilience (2009). The mixed-methodology includes literature review, a hybrid recentralization suitability analysis utilizing geographic information systems (GIS) and a final, qualitative analysis of the GIS output against Beatley’s definition of resilient coastal land use. That evaluation is discussed and suggestions are made to further enhance the coastal resilience capacity of the study. This paper undertakes a very focused and specific approach towards examining the potential of recentralization to address issues of resilience; however, when all factors of coastal change are taken into equal consideration, the likelihood of the recentralization method developed here to achieve coastal resilience is ostensibly lower. The paper concludes that, despite its many merits, a solution as simple and deterministic as urban recentralization alone cannot ensure resilience, although its capacity to improve coastal communities is evident. Coastal issues caused by anthropogenic-induced change inherently are extremely complex, and the safe continued inhabitation of the coast will likely depend on a combination of recentralization methods in combination with other, natural-systems based and landscape-process inspired strategies, focused specifically on maintaining resilient coastal communities.
General Note:
Landscape Architecture terminal project

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Christie Allen. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Resilience planning through urban recentralization in medium-density coastal cities Florida's Central Atlantic Coast as a model by Christie Allen A Graduate Terminal Project presented to the Department of Landscape Architecture of the College of Design, Construction and Planning at the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Landscape Architecture Committee Chair: Tina Gurucharri Member: Mike Volk Gainesville, Florida Spring 2015 ! Allen i

PAGE 2

! Allen ii

PAGE 3

ABSTRACT Despite international concern over predictions of a warmer climate, rising sea levels, and increased storm intensity, coastal counties in the US contain over half of the country's population and have experienced an average of 60% growth in population between 1980 and 2003. This has translated into intense and often haphazard development pressure in highly dynamic geographies. Recent meteorological disasters, namely Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, have spurred competitions and reactions within the design professions internationally, but few have explicitly explored the adaption strategies available specifically to medium-density coastal communities. These types of communities, which constitute the predominant decentralized pattern of development along the eastern US seaboard, generally don't possess the resources or populations to warrant expensive adaptation measures to protect against or accommodate sea level rise. This study hypothesizes that the agendas of coastal resilience planning and urban recentralization share many common goals, and utilizes a sequential mixed-methods approach to determine if recentralization, as defined by G. Tachieva's regional sprawl repair method (2010), can achieve coastal resilience, as defined by T. Beatley in Planning for coastal resilience (2009). The mixed-methodology includes literature review, a hybrid recentralization suitability analysis utilizing geographic information systems (GIS) and a final, qualitative analysis of the GIS output against Beatley's definition of resilient coastal land use. That evaluation is discussed and suggestions are made to further enhance the coastal resilience capacity of the study. This paper undertakes a very focused and specific approach towards examining the potential of recentralization to address issues of resilience; however, when all factors of coastal change are taken into equal consideration, the likelihood of the recentralization method developed here to achieve coastal resilience is ostensibly lower. The paper concludes that, despite its many merits, a solution as simple and deterministic as urban recentralization alone cannot ensure resilience, although its capacity to improve coastal communities is evident. Coastal issues caused by anthropogenic-induced change inherently are extremely complex, and the safe continued inhabitation of the coast will likely depend on a combination of recentralization methods in combination with other, natural-systems based and landscape-process inspired strategies, focused specifically on maintaining resilient coastal communities. ! Allen iii

PAGE 4

! Allen iv

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am foremost obliged to the advisory committee who has guided me through a process that has been at times confusing and even daunting, but has simultaneously advanced the depth of my understanding of specific queries as well as the breadth of my appreciation for the dynamic capacity of landscape architecture. Over the past year, Tina and Mike have provided an incredibly appreciated balance of direction and encouragement, logic and opinion, as well as technical instruction and data sources. I would like to extend my gratitude toward the entire faculty and cohort of the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Florida, particularly the lecturers and professors who have instructed the various studios and seminars that have solidified my esteem for our field. I would be remiss to not mention my studiomates Ñ particularly the nine I started with in Summer 2012 Ñ whose friendship and general camaraderie I have cherished and will truly miss. Finally, I'd like to offer a sincere and special thanks to my family and friends. Particularly I have to acknowledge my sisters, Ashley, Keri, and Carlee, my parents, William and Janet, as well as my stepparents, Amy and Jeff, my class/ roommates, Sara and Kelsey, and the friends I've managed to keep and make during this process. You have all supported me in various small, unique, and essential ways that I cannot begin to recount here. ! Allen v

PAGE 6

Dedicated to my mom, for her decade-spanning and unwavering guidance, encouragement, love, friendship, and for her reliably steady stream of emailed articles. You have inspired and reassured me in myriad small and large ways. ! Allen vi

PAGE 7

CHAPTERS 1 Introduction 1 2 Review of Literature 9 3 Assumptions & Delimitations 51 4 Methodology 52 5 Findings & Analysis 97 6 Conclusion & Discussion 106 Bibliography 109 Allen vii

PAGE 8

FIGURES 1.1 Study area location 2 1.2 Study area aerial 4 1.3 Study area + 0.5 m 5 1.4 Study area + 1.0 m 6 1.5 Study area + 1.5 m 7 1.6 Study area + 2.0 m 8 2.1 Access to water 10 2.2 Urbanization cover in Charleston, SC 11 2.3 Sea levels will rise even if all mitigation strategies succeed 12 2.4 LIDAR elevations of Cape Canaveral shoreline 13 2.5 Major cyclone history by time period 14 2.6 Incredible effects of extreme surge 15 2.7 Sea level, climate, storm intensity, and urban population trends 16 2.8 Interactive and reinforcing concept s 19 2.9 The four stages of disaster management 21 2.10 Summary of coastline and construction strategies 23 2.11 House elevated abo ve BFE 25 2.12 Inundation and shoreline recession: vulnerability of adaptation measures 26 2.13 Phased mitigation and retreat 27 2.14 Coastal lotting & subdivision 36 2.15 Rolling easements 37 2.16 New Orleans, St. Bernard's Parish after Hurricane Katrina 40 2.17 View of Boston from Cambridge, Massachusetts 47 4.1 Feature zone boundary 57 5.1 Rolling easements 103 5.2 Phased mitigation and retreat 103 ! Allen viii

PAGE 9

TABLES 2.1 Coastal natural hazards 17 2.2 Impacts of climate change on the world's water resources 17 2.3 Qualities of a resilient world 20 2.4 FEMA Floodplain Management Strategies 21 2.5 Principles of coastal resilience 32 2.6 Strategies of resilient design of coastal communities 32 2.7 Comparison of planning requirements in selected coastal states 34 2.8 Land use tools for coastal resilience 34 2.9 Planning for coastal resilience at different scales 35 2.10 Average lifespan of infrastructure and building types 38 2.11 The New Orleans Principles 42 2.12 Practices to implement recommendations of the New Orleans Principles 43 2.13 Hilltop at Walnut Hill Infill Neighborhood 46 2.14 NOAA Smart Growth Principles for Coastal and Waterfront Communities 50 5.1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Zones 97 5.2 Comprehensive evaluation results 101 5.3 Comprehensive list of suggestions to incorporative into hybrid recentralization suitability analysis 101 5.4 NOAA Smart Growth Principles for Coastal and Waterfront Communities 104 ! Allen ix

PAGE 10

Allen x

PAGE 11

Chapter 1 Introduction Despite international concern over predictions of a warmer climate, rising sea levels, and increased storm intensity, as Timothy Beatley writes in the opening line to Planning for coastal resilience , "We are drawn, it seems, emotionally and economically, to the edge of land, where sea and sand meet" (2009, xi). As NOAA reports in the State of the Coast, 39% of the nation's total population lives in coastal shoreline counties, though they make up less than 10% of the total land area (excluding Alaska), and over the past forty years, almost 35 million people became residents of coastal shoreline counties. Today, the average population density of coastal shoreline counties (excluding Alaska) is 446 persons per square mile (0.7 people per acre), as compared to the US average density of 105 persons per square mile (0.16 people per acre), and is expected to increase 8% by 2020 to 483 people per square mile, or 0.75 people per acre (US Census Bureau 2011, cited by NOAA's State of the Coast) . The significance of resilience planning today is made clear in the President's Climate Action Plan, particularly in the section called, "Building Stronger and Safer Communities and Infrastructure," which calls for investment in programs to promote resilient natural systems while enhancing green spaces and wildlife habitat near urban populations (2013, 12). The investment now might be specific to the region impacted by Hurricane Sandy, but these programs are designed to be used in other coastal communities at a later time. Rebuild By Design, an initiative of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is an example of increased attention toward and innovation in resilience planning and resilient design. Despite its many merits, the Rebuild by Design initiative is solely focused toward the greater New York metropolitan area, whose communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems are largely unique compared to the rest of the US Atlantic coast Ñ New York County's density is about 68,000 persons per square mile, compared to the aforementioned US average population density of 446 persons per square mile (Crosset et al. 2004, 8). The low and medium density communities that border the rest of the US Atlantic coastline are not only vulnerable to natural disaster like New York Ñ in many cases, historically more susceptible Ñ but are also dealing with existing issues caused by decentralization and other poor development practices typical of the later 20th and early 21st centuries. Redevelopment efforts in these areas have created more dense, walkable, economically sustainable, and ecologically responsible communities in response to such patterns, though the problems associated with decentralized development are seemingly as ubiquitous and widespread as ever. The consequences associated with this form of development have been extensively studied and discussed, both within and outside of academic discourse, but to give a brief overview, the primary issues are generally regarded as: air pollution, increased reliance on fossil fuels, negative impacts on physiological and psychological health, increase in traffic and traffic-related injuries and fatalities, decreased social cohesion, increased pressure on water supply, increased infrastructure costs, and consumption of natural and agrarian land. The aforementioned redevelopment efforts are fundamentally a recentralization of the formerly decentralized pattern of development. The term "urban recentralization," which is used throughout the paper, is synonymous with the more common terminology of "sprawl repair," or "suburban retrofication," and refers to a phenomenon involving "a reversal of the urban organizational structure. It suggests the weakening of the model of a horizontal, sprawling metropolis with specialized and Ôvertical' polar concentrations or sub-centers, and reinforces the idea of the compact city with a large multi-functional core" (Pompili 2014, 314). The major distinction between urban recentralization and the related concepts of sprawl repair and suburban retrofication is the connotation of scale; the former is primarily relating to regional and community-wide patterns, while the latter may be concerned with all scales of development, down to the building. The concepts of urban recentralization and resilience planning are both pertinent, meaningful, and relevant topics to contemporary issues regarding the urban landscape, but typically disparate in discourse on the subject. It is my hypothesis that these two concepts can work in tandem to achieve, in effect, very similar goals : namely those three goals of natural resource conservation, sociocultural enhancement, and compact, mixed-use development patterns. Allen 1 Introduction

PAGE 12

This graduate terminal project examines how urban recentralization can be used as a tool to achieve the goals of resilience planning in the contemporary coastal urban landscape by employing its means and methods at a regional scale on a medium-density study area on the central Atlantic coast of Florida. Using this study area as a model, the goal of this research is to illustrate ways to achieve coastal community resilience through the recentralization of the urban form. Progression & Formulation of Inquiry The fundamental inquiry this research began with concerned the methods of adaptation available for medium-density coastal cities. The Interboro Partners (2013), in their submission to the Rebuild by Design competition, asked the pertinent question: "Very high-density places are more likely to be protected against floods and very low-density places are less likely to be. But what about medium-density communities that don't have the resources to effectively adapt to storm surges and sea level rise (or move somewhere else)?" (12). Because these areas generally possess fewer monetary resources, the ability to protect against or accommodate a change in sea level is severely limited. This leaves retreat as the most viable option; although of course this strategy assumes that there is available land at higher elevations relatively nearby. However, in the case of barrier islands, which border 13% of the world's coastline, land is typically built out Ñ which leads to the question: Can the coastal geologic typology of the barrier island viably continue to accommodate its populations and developments, in the face of coastal change projections? To begin to address these questions, a review of literature on coastal resilience planning was conducted, and revealed that the goals of resilience closely overlap with the goals of recentralized development. This lead to the impetus of this research Ñ to determine if urban recentralization (infill redevelopment and density increase) can be used as a method to reallocate retreating populations affected by inundation. The final inquiry was formulated using specific resources on both topics that provided metrics and measures for defining and evaluating both concepts: the 2009 book Planning for coastal resilience: best practices for calamitous times by Timothy Beatley, the Teresa Heinz Professor of Sustainable Communities in the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning at the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia, and the 2010 book Sprawl repair manual by Galina Tachieva, a partner at Duany PlaterZyberk & Company . The adoption of these two sources yielded the final research question: Can the regional-scale sprawl repair method espoused by Tachieva (2010) achieve coastal resilience, as defined by Beatley (2009)? The Study Area A portion of the Space Coast of Florida was selected as the study area for this research. The entire study area is in Brevard County and contains fully three incorporated cities (Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, and Satellite Beach), a portion of the city of Indian Harbor Beach, as well as three unincorporated communities: Merritt Island, Angel City, and Canova Beach. ! Allen 2 Introduction

PAGE 13

This particular area was chosen for three primary reasons: 1) This particular stretch of the Florida's central Atlantic coast is typical of the medium-density, coastal cities that don't posses the resources to fully armor against coastal change but are inhabited at a significant enough level that they will require a different breed of adaptation measures than those used in the likes of New York and Miami, who have garnered significant attention, particularly from design professionals. 2) The study area possesses a particular coastal geography that is severely vulnerable to coastal change Ñ the barrier island. Barrier islands mitigate high velocity swells and storm surge to the benefit of the lagoon and estuary systems they border, which are typically unique brackish environments of relatively low energy. Barrier islands are of particular ecological, sociocultural, and economic importance along the world's coasts, and are particularly fragile in Florida, which has more barrier islands than any other state (Historical Society of Palm Beach County 2009), but was identified by NOAA as one of two states most densely developing these islands Ñ the other being New Jersey (n.d.-a). The barrier island coastal geologic typology presents a unique challenge wherein the basic response options (accommodation, protection, retreat) are not readily viable. Barrier islands are primarily made of unconsolidated sand, whose porosity and permeability allow infiltration beneath and behind protection measures, as rising waters migrate in response to hydrostatic pressure toward hydrostatic equilibrium. The conventional model of retreat assumes the availability of land at higher elevations and into which new construction or re-development can be directed. In the case of most barrier islands along Florida's coast, the developable lands are typically fully or almost fully built out . Other issues with barrier islands may include their susceptibility to breach, new inlet formation, and overwash, typically caused by significant surge generated by hurricanes and severe storms. Barrier islands, particularly along high velocity shorelines, are also prone to geologically rapid migration, usually caused by longshore drift and natural sediment flows, especially when inlets are maintained for navigational purposes. 3) Finally, this stretch of coast is an area the author is familiar with, and therefore was able to make more informed recommendations about Ñ time constraints also limited the viability of extra research and site visits for an area with which the author was not familiar. The following page is an aerial view of the study area (at current sea level) with its communities and major features labeled, and the following 4 pages show maps of projected inundation from sea level rise, at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 meter. Allen 3 Introduction

PAGE 14

4) Allen 4 Introduction

PAGE 15

Allen 5 Introduction University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2014. Tidally adjusted sea level rise projections .

PAGE 16

Allen 6 Introduction University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2014. Tidally adjusted sea level rise projections .

PAGE 17

Allen 7 Introduction University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2014. Tidally adjusted sea level rise projections .

PAGE 18

Allen 8 Introduction University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2014. Tidally adjusted sea level rise projections .

PAGE 19

Chapter 2 Review of Literature Contents Coastal Habitation 10 Numbers 10 Development Patterns 11 The Anthropocene 12 Sea Level 12 Projections 12 Types of sea level rise 13 Erosion 13 Uncertainty and timeliness 14 Storm Increase 14 Property damage 15 Florida-Specific 17 Resilience 19 Defined 19 Measures 21 Related fields 21 National Flood Insurance Program 22 Three Typological Approaches to Coastal Resilience 22 Protection 24 Accommodation 24 Retreat 26 Water as a resource 28 Issues of retreat 28 State Policies that encourage a retreat from the shore 29 A Natural Systems-Based Approach 29 Coastal Resilience Planning 31 In the Context of Urban & Regional Planning 33 At a Neighborhood or Block Scale 35 Education & Awareness 37 Implementation Tools 37 Transfer of development rights 37 Rolling easements 38 Policy Discussion 38 Case Studies 40 New Orleans, Louisiana 40 Worcester County, Maryland 45 Climate's Long-term Impacts on Metro Boston (CLIMB) 46 Overlap in the Literature 48 Natural Resource Conservation 48 Sociocultural Enhancement 48 Centralized Development 49 Allen 9 Review of Literature

PAGE 20

Coastal Habitation Almost 40 years ago, A Pattern Language writ the phenomena design professionals for decades have accepted as fact. Of the water's edge, Christopher Alexander wrote: "People have a fundamental yearning for great bodies of water. But the very movement of people toward the water can also destroy the water" (1977, 136). What Alexander may not have known in the 1970s was that, in fact, the very movement of people toward the shoreline Ñ while, yes, more often than not degrading the quality of our water-based and littoral ecosystems Ñ put people themselves in vulnerable positions of increasing risk. "The very history of this nation began with coastal cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston É We are drawn, it seems, emotionally and economically, to the edge of land, where sea and sand meet, and where terra firm gives way to the vastness of ocean and marine habitats" (Beatley 2009, xi). As President John F Kennedy put it, "We are tied to the ocean É and when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch, we are going back from whence we came." Figure 2.1 Ñ "Access to Water" is #25 (Alexander et al. 1977, 136 ). Numbers It is no surprise then that coastal counties, which account for only 17% of the nation's land area, contain over half of the US population, after a 28% increase between 1980 and 2003. Over the same period, coastal counties in the Southeast US observed an average 60% growth in population, while Florida's coastal populations increased by 75% (Beatley 2009, 14-15). Coastal states in the US support 81% of the country's population, produce 83% of GDP, and are host to the 43% of the population that take part in marine recreation (NOAA). Allen 10 Review of Literature

PAGE 21

Development Patterns This dramatic and rapid increase has translated in most areas into heavy and often "haphazard" development pressure (Beatley 2009, 15). According to Crosset et al., nearly 3 million building permits were issued for singlefamily homes in coastal counties between 1999 and 2003 (2004). "Much of this coastal development occurs in the form of sprawl É This pattern of development is highly land-consumptive and destructive of natural features, and much of it is in areas subject to coastal hazards" (Beatley 2009, 15). Beatley (2009) cites a study on Charleston, SC by Jeffery Allen and Kang Shou Lu (2003) of Clemson University that reports a 256% increase in urbanized area but only a 41% increase in population between 1973 and 1994. Campbell et al. further modeled the continued growth of Charleston from 2000 to 2030; the results demonstrated a 250% increase in urbanized area but only a 50% increase in population (15-16). Figure 2.2 Ñ Urbanization cover in Charleston, SC (adapted from Allen & Lu 2003 by author) is typical of most late 20th and early 21st century American development. Population growth, larger demographic trends, a desire to be near to and enjoy the amenities of coastal living, and a public policy and financial system that has largely encouraged and underwritten coastal risks were identified by Beatley (2009) as the key drivers of unsustainable coastal development (13). "A limited understanding of the longterm (or even short-term) risks and dangers of living in coastal environments further contributes to these vulnerable patterns of development, as does a failure to adequately price and value natural ecosystems and ecosystem services" (Beatley 2009, 13). Many coastal homes were constructed shortly after World War II and thus built quickly under limited comprehensive planning and a loose regulatory framework, and often with the intent of purely seasonal occupation. "Much of that building stock is now used year-round, with and without upgrading, and most of it is at risk to hurricanes and other severe storms. The sprawl of coastal development has impinged on, eliminated, or otherwise compromised natural areas of coastal forest, wetland, and marshes Ñ as well as barrier strands Ñ that have developed over millennia to absorb flooding and storm impacts" (Watson & Adams 2011, xx) . Beatley summarizes this predicament: "We are drawn, moreover, to coastal environments for their beauty, mystery, and wonder, and we should not minimize the emotional value and connectedness we derive from these places. However, in light of current trends and future pressures, we will have to find new ways to live in and with the coast, new ways of reconciling the desire to be near it with the cautious humility and respect for the dangers a changing climate will present. Our coastal management strategy increasingly will need to be based less on armoring, less on conventional large-project infrastructure, and more on resilience and adaptability" (2009, xi). Allen 11 Review of Literature

PAGE 22

The Anthropocene Scientific consensus affirms that global climate is changing. The effects of these changes are different across regions and not possible to predict with absolute accuracy. The two most notable effects coastal regions will observe are changes in sea level and an increase in major cyclone intensity; both are discussed below. Sea Level Projections A point of reference for sea level projections is the fact that if the entire stock of ice sheets and glaciers were to melt, it would add close to 250 feet (80m) to global sea level. While no one suggests the possibility, there is also no scientific evidence suggesting a stabilization of sea level (FOCC 2010, vi). Figure 2.3 Ñ Sea levels will rise even if all mitigation strategies succeed (graphic by author ). Reported scientific predictions for the next century vary from 3.5 to 35 inches (90 to 880 mm) Ñ "a tenfold disagreement" (Watson & Adams 2011, 221). In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most referenced organization on sea level, predicted a rise between 7 inches and 1.9 feet by 2100. Beatley reports, however, that many find those estimates "conservative, and not fully reflective of the dynamics of glacial and ice shelf melting" (2009, xii). The 2010 Report of the US National Academy of Sciences supported the principle findings of the IPCC but also included newer research and concluded that the IPCC projections were conservative and underestimated the potential rate of sea level rise. "While framing its conclusions with emphasis upon uncertainty, the report supports the soundness of scientific-consensus studies that indicate sea levels could rise as much as 6.25 feet (1.9 m) by 2100 if greenhouse gas reduction efforts are not effective" (Watson & Adams 2011, 221). If one thing is clear from the scientific literature, it's that predictions are not precise and some degree of uncertainty is inherent in all projections. In response, a common concession is that adaption planning should take into account some leeway for ice cap melt, tidal changes, and storm surge by erring on the high rather than low side of estimates. Allen 12 Review of Literature !""" !"!" !"#" !"$" !"%" &""" '(()*+,-./ ! -+*0((012(-3+'4 5"-61-7""-8+'9(: ./ ! -(6';0<0='6012 57""-61-&""-8+'9(: ./ ! -+*0((012( (+'-<+>+<-90(+-,)+-61-6?+9*'<-+@3'2(012 5A+26)90+(-61-*0<<+20': 6+*3+9'6)9+-(6';0<0='6012 5'-B+C-A+26)90+(: (+'-<+>+<-90(+-,)+-61-0A+-*+<602D 5(+>+9'<-*0<<+20': This graph is a general depiction of stabilization of global climate indices assuming CO 2 at any level between 450 and 1,000 ppm Ñ therefore it has no units on the response axis. Impacts become progressively larger at higher concentrations of CO 2 . (Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001, referenced by Watson & Adams 2011)

PAGE 23

Types of sea level rise While sea level rise and climate change are both global in scale, not every region will experience the same effect or amount of change. Eustatic, or global, sea level rise refers to a change in the volume of the world's oceans due to expansion or melting of land-based ice, while relative sea level rise refers to local increase relative to land elevation, due to ocean rise or land subsidence (NOAA, n.d.). (Note: n.d. refers to no date. ) Williams (2004) writes that "instrument observations over the past 15 years show that global mean sea level has been highly variable at regional scales around the world. On average, the rate of rise appears to have accelerated over twentieth-century rates, possibly due to atmospheric warming causing expansion of ocean water and ice-sheet melting. In some regions, such as the Mid-Atlantic and much of the Gulf of Mexico, sea level rise is significantly greater that the observed global sea level rise due to localized sinking of the land surface, attributed to ongoing adjustment of the Earth's crust due to the melting of former ice sheets, sediment compaction and consolidation, and withdrawal of hydrocarbons from underground." A 2011 report by Gary T. Mitchum of the University of South Florida documents the higher relative sea level rise experienced and projected for the Southeastern US. "The sea level change in this region over the 20th century is about 20% higher than the globally averaged change over the same time period. If we take the global change to be 80 centimeters," as predicted by the IPCC, "and assume that this ratio will remain constant, then we obtain an estimate of about 1 meter of sea level increase by the year 2100 " (13). Erosion Another factor exacerbating the effects of rising sea levels is erosion. The Bruun Rule of shoreline recession ratios assumes a US average of 50 to 100 feet of inland erosion for every 1-foot increase in sea level, and a Florida average of 1,000 feet of inland erosion per foot of sea level rise (Deyle, n.d.). Figure 2.4 Ñ LIDAR elevations of Cape Canaveral shoreline: The coastline at Cape Canaveral is experiencing steady, long-term erosion that is due to dune overwash. The profiles show LIDAR elevations sampled in 1999 and 2006. The dune and beach have migrated approximately 12 meters inland during this period. The slight increase in dune elevation is a result of restoration efforts. (Graphic by author; adapted from USGS, referenced by FOCC 2010, 4) Allen 13 Review of Literature !"#$$ !"$%& $ '() *+,--!-(,+."/,-010,2"345 2678498:"#;;; <=>?=:@"A$$B .C.DE10,2"34F"2EDGHH5 $%& #%$ #%& A%$ A%& I%$ I%& !";$ !"H$ !"J$ !"B$ !"&$ !"K$ !"I$ !"A$ !"#$ !$

PAGE 24

Uncertainty and timeliness Watson & Adams (20111) write that sea level rise is "now part of established consensus among a majority of climate and ocean scientists. Differences revolve around how much and when rather than if " (xviii) [emphasis mine]. With so many moving parts, it's understandable that positive action is often inhibited by uncertainty. "Everyone wants certainty, but in the climate change arena this is not possible. We make our best estimates but remain prepared to adjust as more data and better models become available " (Mitchum 2011, 12). As Beatley (2009) observes, many planners, engineers, and coastal officials are "still in denial about the severity of the challenges and that relatively few state or local plans have taken sea level rise into account" (xv). The IPCC Coastal Zone Management Subgroup recommends that coastal regions, authorities, and planners begin the process of adapting to sea level rise "Ônot because there is an impending catastrophe, but because there are opportunities that may be lost if the process is delayed'" (Watson & Adams 2011, 223). Storm Increase Figure 2.5 Ñ Major cyclone history by time period (Map: by author, Data: NOAA National Hurricane Center). Between 1850 and 1990, the United States experienced an average of ten tropical storms per year, and after 1995, about fourteen per year (Pielke 2007). Not only are storms becoming more frequent, but they are also become more intense: a recent study by researchers at Florida State University concluded that "the strongest tropical cyclones, as measured by wind speeds, are getting stronger over time" (FSU 2008). The Florida Oceans and Coastal Council reports that while tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin may decrease, the frequency of major hurricanes, which are typically the highest generators of storm surge, (Saffir-Simpson Scale categories 4 and 5) is likely to increase as a result of a warmer global climate (2010, 12). ! Allen 14 Review of Literature !"##$%$!"&# !"&#$%$!'## !'##$%$!'&# !'&#$%$(### (##!$%$(##"

PAGE 25

Figure 2.6 Ñ Incredible effects of extreme surge: the combination of wind and tidal surge from Hurricane Katrina deposited an outboard motor boat on the roof of this residence 5 miles inland (photo by John Fleck / FEMA, 2005b). Increased frequency of potential storm surge in combination with sea level rise will exacerbate damage potential, possibly by a factor of 30% compared to current levels (FOCC 2010, 12). It is important to also consider these issues in regard to the inadequacy of many coastal communities' stormwater management systems and the decreased ability of the landscape to absorb excess water via an expansion of impermeable land cover (Watson & Adams 2011, ix). Property damage According to USGS (2007), property damage caused by natural disasters in the US doubles or triples every decade. Nine hundred and fifty natural catastrophes were recorded in 2010 Ñ the second highest annual total ever Ñ with overall losses estimated at $130 billion (Olson 2011, 5). The rate at which damage costs are growing has the potential to place severe burdens on society. "Avoiding huge losses will require either a change in the rate of population growth in coastal areas, major improvements in construction standards, or other mitigation actions. Unless such action is taken to address the growing concentration of people and properties in coastal areas where hurricanes strike, damage will increase, and by a great deal, as more and wealthier people increasingly inhabit these coastal locations" (Pielke et al. 2008, 38). As one former US Corps engineer put it, "ÔErecting a building on a beach is like building on an active volcano. You take your chances, and sooner or later, you lose'" (Interboro Partners 2013, Allen 15 Review of Literature

PAGE 26

116). Table 2.1 Ñ Coastal natural hazards (from Beatley 2009, 14). CATEGORY EVENT HAZARDS Meteorological Hurricanes, tropical cyclones Storm surge, high winds, possibility of tornadoes, heavy rain, flooding, coastal erosion Tornadoes Extremely high winds, heavy rains, possible hail Drought and heat waves Extreme temperatures, loss of crops, possible infrastructure damage Lightning Electrical discharge, possibility of wildfires Hydrological Flood events Erosion, landslides, increase in water levels, groundwater pollution El Ni–o, La Ni–a Drought, flooding, frost, landslides, erratic temperatures and weather Wildfires Result of natural or criminal causes and/or negligence; high possibility for great ecological, human, and property loss Table 2.2 Ñ Climate Change and Water, a report prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2008, summarizes impacts of climate change on the world's water resources (Source: WMO & UNEP, emphasis added). • Climate change has resulted in changing precipitation, intensity and extremes, reduced snow cover and ice melt, changes in soils and runoff. • By mid-twenty-first century, annual average runoff and water availability are expected to increase at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, while water resources will decrease in some dry regions at mid-latitudes such as the western US and the dry tropics. • Increased precipitation intensity and variability will increase risk of rain-generated flooding. At the same time there will be an increase in extreme drought and aridity in continental interiors, especially the sub-tropics. • Water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, resulting in water shortages, low flows and aridity during warm and dry periods. The hydric regimes of mountain ranges Ñ where more than one-sixth of the world's population live Ñ are at risk. • High temperatures and extremes, including floods and droughts, will affect water quality and add to water pollution from sediments, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, pathogens, pesticides, and salt as well as thermal pollution. This will impact ecosystems, human health, and water system reliability and costs, including agriculture and food security. • Sea level rise is projected to extend areas of salinization of groundwater and estuaries, resulting in a decrease of freshwater availability for humans and ecosystems in coastal areas. • Negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems will out-weigh benefits. Although increased annual runoff in some areas is projected to be counterbalanced by the negative effects of uncreased variability of precipitation and seasonal runoff shif ts in water supply, water quality, and flood risks. • Climate change affects the function of existing water infrastructure, including hydropower, flood defense, drainage, and irrigation at the same time that water demand will increase, due to population growth and development accompanied by increasing demand for irrigation water. • Adaptation options require integrated demand-side as well as supply-side strategies. The former improve water-use efficiency, that is, by recycling water, An expanded use of economic incentives, including conservation and development of water markets. Supply-side strategies generally involve increases in storage capacity, abstraction from watercourses, and water transfers. Allen 16 Review of Literature

PAGE 27

Allen 17 Review of Literature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igure 2.7 Ñ Sea level, climate, storm intensity, and urban population trends (diagram by author) .

PAGE 28

Florida-Specific Few parts of the United States have as serious a threat of increased storm frequency and intensity as Florida. "More than fifty hurricanes have come within 125 miles É with six major hurricane hits between 1900 and 1950 alone" (Beatley 2009, 123). The United States Geological Survey's (USGS) shoreline vulnerability index categorizes 1,250 miles of 4,000 total miles of Florida shoreline as highly vulnerable, 460 miles of which are are classified as very highly vulnerable (SWFRPC 2010, 70) . One meter of sea level rise would impact 4,700 square miles, or 9% of Florida's total land area, which contains over 10% of the state's population (FOCC 2010, 12). "There will be major impacts on real estate now valued at over $130 billion, on half of Florida's existing beaches, and on substantial critical infrastructure, including 2 nuclear power plants, 3 state prisons, 68 hospitals, 74 airports, 115 solid waste disposal sites, 140 water treatment facilities, 334 public schools, 341 hazardous-material cleanup sites (of which 5 are Superfund), 1,025 houses of worship, and 19,684 historic structures" (Stanton & Ackerman 2007). In addition to displacing population and damaging infrastructure, effects would manifest largely in estuarine, tidal, and inland river ecosystems Ñ some of the state's most productive and fragile areas. This excerpt from the House of Representatives Select Committee (2008) on Energy Independence and Global Warming describes some of the challenges Florida faces specifically: "It is estimated that a rise in sea level of 12 inches would flood coastal real estate 100 to 1000 feet inland, devastating coastal populations and economies É sea level rise also puts a tremendous strain on Florida's ecosystems. Rising sea levels threaten the beaches, wetlands, and mangrove forests that surround the state. Some of the small islands of the Florida Keys could completely disappear due to rising sea levels. Inland ecosystems will also suffer as salt water intrusion into the Everglades or up rivers impacts freshwater plants and animals. Critical habitats for fish and birds, as well as endangered species like the key deer, American alligator and Florida panther, will be severely reduced and could disappear altogether É America's biggest coral reef, a popular tourist attraction, is found in the Florida Keys. Florida's coral reefs are already experiencing bleaching Ñ a potentially irreversible process Ñ due to environmental stresses, including warmer ocean temperatures. Additionally, carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean from the atmosphere alters the chemical balance of sea water, threatening coral health É All of these changes pose devastating consequences to Florida's economy. Areas facing inundation from climate change attract 4 million tourists a year, who generate $3.4 billion a year for the state. Rising sea levels could destroy the beaches that bring in $15 billion of revenue a year. A decreasing wildlife population could threaten the $6.2 billion hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing industry that employs over 120,000 Floridians É More intense hurricanes could spell economic disaster for Florida" (Volk 2008, 28-29). While the projective nature of most climate and sea level estimates tends to imply a sense of at least temporary security, effects are in fact already occurring, observed even within the state. The Lee County Climate Change Resilience Strategy reports that "impacts from sea level are already evident in the growing demand for and costs of beach renourishment, increased coastal flooding, and more pronounced storm surges during tropical storm events" (SWFRPC 2010, 12). The increase in potential of natural disasters is accompanied by the existing issues of development pressure and population increase Florida has faced for decades. "At precisely the time when coastal communities and regions need to take advantage of the full mitigative benefits and resilience values provided by healthy ecological systems, these systems have been degraded and diminished" (Beatley 2009, xiii). To put an optimistic slant on the current and forecasted situation, this quote from philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1930, describes the opportunity ahead: "These are the only genuine ideas, the ideas of the shipwrecked." Allen 18 Review of Literature

PAGE 29

Figure 2.8 Ñ Interactive and reinforcing concepts (diagram by author; adapted from Beatley 2009, 11). Resilience The term "resilience" has taken meaning in several fields of study, including ecology, psychology, medicine and the community sciences, and has entered the realm of design and planning primarily within the last decade. "C.S. Holling's work on ecological resilience, beginning in the early 1970s, is often identified as the beginning point of discussions about resilience and its application to natural and social systems. Holling speaks of the resilience of ecosystems as Ôthe capacity of a system to absorb and utilize or even benefit from perturbations and changes that attain it, and so persist without a qualitative change in the system's structure'" (Beatley 2009, 3). What follows is a discussion of the concept of resilience in regard to climate change, coastal hazards, and urban design and planning. Defined Most definitions of resilience revolve around the premise of recovery from misfortune. It follows, then, that most definitions describe a capacity or an ability: "Resiliency describes the capacity to respond to stress and change of climatic conditions. Resiliency is evident in natural systems in strategies to adjust to variable and extreme conditions. Characteristics of resilient systems include buffering, storage, redundancy, self-reliance, decentralization, diversity, energy conservation, rapid adaptability, and replacement" (Watson & Adams 2011, 257). "ÔResilience is the capacity of a system, community, or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing, in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase its capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures.' International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, ISDR Secretariat 2009" (Watson & Adams 2011, xv). "Climate change resilience É includes the ability to understand potential impacts and to take appropriate action before, during, and after a particular consequence to minimize negative effects and maintain the ability to respond to changing conditions" (SWFRPC 2010, 10). "É the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, or more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse effects" (Olson 2011, 1). Allen 19 Review of Literature

PAGE 30

Many definitions also focus on the nature of resilience as a continuous process or overall strategy: "To be resilient, an entity must be prepared for an event and must be able to respond effectively when an event occurs. Developing resilience is therefore a continuous process, while resilience itself is the outcome of that process" (Olson 2011, 5) . "Resiliency is not a fixed target, but a strategy with both technical solutions É and adaptive solutions to encourage new behavior" (Unabridged Architecture 2013, 2). "Resilience is a combination of activities that reduces risk and vulnerability to those risks, and provides a safety net or recovery path" (SWFRPC 2010 14). An anticipatory outlook and the themes of flexibility, adaptability, and durability are prominent in the definitions of resilience. It may also be worth noting that the concept of resilience has much in common with the concept of Ôsustainability': "Sustainability and resilience are usually mutually reinforcing and should be viewed as such" (Beatley 2009, 64) . Resilient communities are defined by Godschalk (2003) as living "in harmony with nature's varying cycles and processes É Such cities would be capable of withstanding severe shock without either immediate chaos or permanent harm. Designed in advance to anticipate, weather, and recover from the impacts of natural or terrorist hazards, resilient cities would be built on principles derived from past experience with disasters in urban areas. While they might bend from hazard forces, they would not break. Composed of networked social communities and lifeline systems, resilient cities would become stronger by adapting to and learning from disasters" (136-137). Watson & Adams (2011) begin to explain resilient design as a new field responding to the concept of resilience in the built environment. They write that the "agenda" of resilient design is expressed through three factors: multiple scales of impact, collaborative design, and innovation in design, technology, and policy (257). Further, they write that the "challenge and charge" of resilient design is to combat anthropogenic change through 3 "realizable steps": the reduction of risk by mitigation and adaptation measures, the restoration of ecosystem services, and the revitalization and reinvestment toward community and regional sustainability (220). Table 2.3 Ñ Qualities of a resilient world (from Walker & Salt 2006, 145-148). 1 Diversity A resilient world would promote and sustain diversity in all forms (biological, landscape, social, and economic). 2 Ecological variability A resilient world would embrace and work with ecological variability (rather than attempting to control and reduce it). 3 Modularity A resilient world would consist of modular components. 4 Acknowledging slow variables A resilient world would have a policy focus on "slow," controlling variables associated with thresholds. 5 Tight feedbacks A resilient world would possess tight feedbacks (but not too tight). 6 Social capital A resilient world would promote trust, well-developed social networks, and leadership (adaptability). 7 Innovation A resilient world would place an emphasis on learning, experimentation, locally developed rules, and embracing change. 8 Overlap in governance A resilient world would have institutions that include "redundancy" in their governance structures and a mix of common and private property with overlapping access rights. 9 Ecosystem services A resilient world would include all the unpriced ecosystem services in development proposals and assessments. Allen 20 Review of Literature

PAGE 31

Measures Related fields Mitigation and disaster resistance are two concepts closely related to resilience. Beatley (2009) discusses how resilience has been viewed as simply Ôlong-term mitigation,' but argues that it is fundamentally different based on two key aspects: "its focus on creative adaptation and learning, and its focus on developing an underlying capacity " (6). Disaster resistance, he says, "implies a belief in our ability to armor or shield coastal communities and residents against the forces of natures. Seawalls, revetments, groins, jetties, and other shore-hardening structures reflect a disaster resistance approach; beach renourishment, while a softer engineering strategy, still reflects an approach of resistance" (7). Figure 2.9 Ñ The four stages of disaster management (diagram by author; adapted from Beatley 2009 , 7). Watson & Adams (2011) identified the following as models for national and international action on flooding, which serve as examples of initiatives on resiliency-related issues, though don't specifically set out to achieve Ôresilience': • FEMA Floodplain Management Strategy (see table below) • National Science and Technology Council Committee (NSTC) Great Challenges Report • NOAA Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change (MACC) • The Netherlands "Making Room for Water": Yields flood-prone areas to natural river flow. "This does not necessarily result in a loss of land productivity or value. As a result of this long-term conversion of land to water, innovative proposals are being put forth from the Netherlands for amphibious structures and communities, including floating houses, farms, commercial parks, and town that could be stationed in the flood-retainage areas" (Watson & Adams 2011, 268). Table 2.4 Ñ FEMA Floodplain Management Strategies (adapted from Watson & Adams 2011, 259-263) Strategy 1 Modify human susceptibility to flood damage. Reduce disruption by avoiding hazardous, uneconomic, or unwise use of floodplains. Strategy 2 Modify the impact of flooding. Assist individuals and communities to prepare for, respond to and recover from a flood. Strategy 3 Modify flooding itself. Develop projects that control floodwater. Strategy 4 Preserve and restore natural resources. Renew the vitality and purpose of floodplains by reestablishing and maintaining floodplain environments in their natural state. Allen 21 Review of Literature ! " # " $ % # " & ' ! ! " # $ " % # $ & ' $ ( ( # $ ( " ) ' ( $ # $ * ) + $ # , !"#$#%&'(&)&*%

PAGE 32

Another resiliency-related initiative is the report No Adverse Impact in the Coastal Zone by the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), which advocates a comprehensive approach to coastal flood resistance and mitigation. Their recommendations for coastal protection and enhancement include the following: • Dissipate flooding impacts by increasing channels and waterways • Minimize use of structural protection measures • Use nonstructural protection measures • Take erosion seriously The premise of No Adverse Impact in the Coastal Zone is in its title: that there are "desirable outcome[s] of comprehensive planning that accounts for flood risk." "The community's high-risk coastal floodplains provide open space, parks, recreation opportunities, habitat for wildlife and fish, and hiking and biking trails and add to the quality of life the residents and tourists enjoy. Owners of waterside property do not encroach onto the beach or into near shore waters, so public access for recreation, fishing, and other uses are protected. The direct and indirect consequences of increased growth are mitigated so they do not pass the cost of living near the sea along to other properties, other communities, or future generations" ( ASFM 2007). National Flood Insurance Program It is also worth discussing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) because of it impact on the current management of coastal property in the US. Many coastal communities participate in NFIP, which requires the adoption of minimum floodplain management standards (e.g. elevation of buildings and prohibition of development in dangerous floodways) (Beatley 2009, 78). These minimum requirements, however, do not account for "future changes in floodplains due to land development, coastal erosion, or sea level rise. And even if all NFIP requirements are met, large storm events or surge can impact a riverine or coastal site with flood levels well over the anticipated base flood contour (BFC)" (Watson & Adams 2011, 136). The primary concern with NFIP is that the cost of coverage is subsidized and does not reflect the true cost of coverage. "As a consequence, Ôowners of high risk properties with significant coastal exposure do not pay the true cost of the risks associated with those properties É and the below market prices associated with developing the coast will lead to overdevelopment of high-risk areas' (Jerry 2008). Overdevelopment and inflated property values in coastal areas will increase the cost of damage from storm events and other effects of sea level rise. This cost is shifted to the general taxpayer base because it is subsidized by the state" (Volk 2008, 11). Three Typological Approaches to Coastal Resilience In 2005 the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences completed "one of the most comprehensive studies of the economic benefits of hazard mitigation," whose results show that investments in mitigation action returned fourfold in the form of savings (Beatley 2009, 50). The three most commonly referenced approaches to mitigation or resilience action are summarized by the 1990 IPCC Coastal One Management Subgroup: • Protection involves hard structures such as sea walls and dikes, as well as soft solutions such as dunes and vegetation, to protect the land from the sea so that existing land uses can continue. • Accommodation implies that people continue to use the land at risk but do not attempt to prevent the land from being flooded. This option includes erecting emergency flood shelters, elevating buildings on piles, converting agriculture to fish farming, or growing floodor salttolerant crops. • Retreat involves no effort to protect the land from the sea. The coastal zone is abandoned and ecosystems shift landward. This choice can be motivated by excessive economic or environmental impacts of protection. In the extreme case, an entire area may be abandoned (Watson & Adams 2011, 223) . Allen 22 Review of Literature

PAGE 33

! Allen 23 Review of Literature Figure 2.10 Ñ Summary of coastline and construction strategies (adapted from Watson & Adams 2011, 202; Image sources: 01: Quesada/FEMA 2008, 02: Augustino/FEMA 2012, 03: Gately/FEMA 1999, 04 and 05: photo by Watson, scanned from Watson & Adams 2011, 06: photo by Marvin Nauman/FEMA, scanned from Watson & Adams 2011, 07: Riley 2012, 08: Fleck/FEMA 2005a, 09: Skoogfors/FEMA 2005 ).

PAGE 34

What follows is a brief discussion of each strategy. Protection Several factors contribute to a desire to protect coastal properties. Two factors especially relevant to Florida are high property values along the coast and a society that highly values private property rights. "It is a reality that protection will occur," especially in a state like Florida. Nevertheless, "the sea is an unconquerable force whose dynamic processes will continue regardless of human activity" (Volk 2008, 11, 54). The proclivity toward protection is problematic because the nature of protection infrastructure is vastly static and inflexible in its approach to quelling an inherently dynamic environmental condition, resulting in an endeavor that simply will not exist in any enduringly responsible way, financially or ecologically. The projected acceleration of coastal change only exacerbates the risk associated with continued development along a vulnerable coast Ñ it is through this regime that funding allocation is inequitably distributed to increasingly high-risk areas, in many cases, repetitively on the same parcels (Volk 2008, 39-40). The ecological issues are no less significant: "Armoring, filling and diking all damage the recreational and fisheries values of coastlines by causing shoreline ecosystem loss. Protection will likely be ecologically unsustainable because it tends to damage coastal ecosystems, alter shoreline processes such as sediment flows, and prohibit ecosystem translocation" (Titus et al. 1991 cited by SWFRPC 2010, 52). Still, in some cases, protection may be necessary or the best possible option of adaptation to sea level rise. "There are places too valuable to abandon, even in the face of climate change" (Unabridged Architecture 2013, 2). New York City is an example of a region that will probably employ almost exclusively protective measures, based on its density, value, and cultural significance. Where protection is necessary, it is often best to mix soft (nonstructural) and hard (structural or engineered) solutions (Watson & Adams 2011, 199). The following excerpt describes the necessary protection of a Florida historic district: "The historic downtown district of Fort Myers, where Lee County has invested significant infrastructure is an example of an area where some passive protection strategies could be employed. Buildings can be raised either by lifting them with jacks and adding fill beneath, or by filling in ground-level floors and adding additional stories at the top. Raising a building by just one eight to ten foot story would compensate for the maximum amount of sea level rise predicted to occur by 2200. New structures could be designed to have the additional height in the initial design" (SWFRPC 2010, 52). Although it may follow that some areas may have too much ecological value to not be protected, this is generally not recommended. "Natural adaptive and successional processes should be allowed to take place. Protection should only occur for critical conservation lands of a very high priority level, where ecosystem loss due to SLR is almost certain, and where no other adaptive approach is possible such as provision of lands for ecosystem retreat" (Volk 2008, 70). In their submission to Rebuild by Design, entitled, "A Delta of Resiliency Districts," the MIT CAU + ZUS + URBANISTEN with Deltares; 75B; and Volker Infra Design team wrote, "What now could the Americans learn from the Dutch? Certainly not Ôto do as we did,' but to learn from what took us some decades to find out: adaptive measures will last longer, create less dependencies and keep people aware." Accommodation Unabridged Architecture (2013) describes accommodation as a temporary solution toward a longer-term retreat strategy: "It is the perpetual succession of landscapes, infrastructure, and architecture over time. É this means that initially, only a few of these exemplary structures will be built, using the right technical solutions and in the right places. Over time, these will spawn more climate-ready models and more infill at higher ground, until finally, the threatened and low-lying areas become interceptors and sponges, natural buffers to sea level rise and storm surge" (11). ! Allen 24 Review of Literature

PAGE 35

! Allen 25 Review of Literature Figure 2.11 Ñ House elevated above BFE (photo by Jocelyn Augustino / FEMA , 2008).

PAGE 36

Figure 2.12 Ñ Inundation and shoreline recession: vulnerability of adaptation measures (adapted from Deyle, n.d. by author) . Accommodation strategies have become a hotbed for new design ideas over the past several years: proposals like floating and rotating buildings, underwater dwellings, and beach access ramps that double as wave breaks have surfaced around the world. One example proposed by Unabridged Architecture (2013) is the concept of "washthrough" cottages in tourism areas. Because no truly meaningful personal belongings could be lost, these areas are built to allow flooding through the actual dwellings (45). "Ô É When design concepts for dealing with climate change were requested from various practitioners around the world, the proposals that came back were more about shock than strategy. Perhaps that was the intent of the organizers. But the idea that glass-fronted buildings could and should detach from stilt-like supporting piers and float during floods won't exactly appeal to insurance companies: Under what weather and terrain circumstances would floodwaters come without significant winds, waves, and debris? Architects, engineers, landscape architects, urban designers, and planners owe the public a serious discussion of how to deal concretely with the effects of sea-level rise us to at least 2060, as well as a look beyond to protections that would last until the end of the century'" (Barnett 2008, cited by Volk 2008, 12) . Retreat Retreat, a policy of "living with the shoreline, rather than living on the shoreline" (Colburn 2004) is generally regarded as the most ecologically and financially sustainable strategy (Volk 2008, 39). Some guiding principles of managed withdrawal, as written by the Interboro Partners (2013, 121), include: 1. G overnments must end policies and practices that encourage people to put themselves in harm's way. 2. H ousing assistance must be limited to year-round residences, particularly of low-income households, and not extended to seasonal housing. Seasonal housing should be viewed as depreciable commercial investments with limited lifespans. Allen 26 Review of Literature

PAGE 37

3. While seasonal economies must be adapted to SLR, they will not be abandoned. All of the natural assets of land, sea and air that are so attractive to human societies will still be present. Managed withdrawal must expand public access to their enjoyment while yet better fulfilling society's accommodation to nature. 4. A ll policies and programs undertaken by federal, state, and local governments must enhance economic, educational, and social opportunity for low-income families and other marginalized groups. 5. Public policies should honor individuals' freedom of choice, though critical benchmarks do arrive when an overriding responsibility to protect public health and welfare must be exercised through the use of eminent domain and other Ôpolice powers. ' The Lee County Climate Change Resiliency Strategy discusses the "psychologically loaded contexts" of the names used to describe protection, accommodation and retreat: "The term Ôprotection,' that can represent expensive and complex engineering solutions, has a heroic and active connotation of man vs. nature, triumph over adversity. In contrast, the terms Ômanaged retreat' and Ôaccommodation' have passive and negative connotations associated with defeat, particularly for those that seek active, physically tangible solutions to problems" (2010, 51-52). Figure 2.13 Ñ Phased mitigation and retreat (adapted from Watson & Adams 2011 , 204 by author). ! Allen 27 Review of Literature

PAGE 38

Water as a resource "The best thing we can do when it's raining is to let it rain." -Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 19th century Carol Franklin, ASLA wrote in her foreword to Watson & Adams 2011 that " water is a resource and not a problem" (ix). Flooding, a natural phenomenon, is a disaster because of development of areas susceptible to flooding. "Because flooding is little understood and appreciated as a natural system in conventional land development, it arrives with unwelcome and unanticipated intensity" (Watson & Adams 2011, xv-xvi). "Eastern philosophy discusses the supremacy of water over stone because the water adapts but is persistent whereas the stone resists but eventually is eroded. The applicability of this to Florida is that hardening of shores and structures is an attempt to defy powerful natural processes. Perhaps hardening of coastal structures and coastlines to defy coastal hazards is not advisable, but rather less hardening and improved retreat and evacuation measures are more appropriate" (Volk 2008, 76). Issues of retreat Even after extreme disaster, a common impulse is to rebuild. "When government prohibits building in an area or offers buy-outs of private property, people can object, especially in regions that favor private property rights and small governments" (Olson 2011, 40). This excerpt from Interboro Partners (2013) discusses issues of buyout, retreat, and post-occupancy use in the Sandy-affected region of Staten Island: "Less than four months after Superstorm Sandy devastated New York, Governor Cuomo announced an ambitious new home buyout program: homes destroyed or heavily damaged by the storm could be sold to the government at 100 percent of their pre-storm value. While local representatives welcomed the program, most operated on the assumption that when given a choice, most communities would opt to rebuild rather than retreat, and were therefore less than optimistic about its prospects. As Harvey Weisenberg, a State Assemblyman from Long Beach, NY put it, Ôwe have the sand in our shoes. Once you're here, you never want to leave, and if you do leave, you want to come back.' And for the most part, the skeptics were right: many months have passed since Cuomo introduced his program (and since Governor Chris Christie introduced a similar buyout program for New Jersey), but few communities have taken the bait. Staten Island's Oakwood Beach is an exception. A tight-knit, blue-collar community of modest bungalows built on a highly vulnerable marshland, Oakwood Beach was, like many communities on Staten Island's eastern shore, devastated by the storm. Within days of the Governor's announcement, 170 of 184 Oakwood Beach homeowners had registered to be bought out. As one resident put it, ÔIt's with a heavy heart that we do it, but it's a necessary decision to be made.' Indeed, while most of New Jersey was boasting about being Ôstronger than the storm,' residents of Oakwood Beach were painfully coming to the realization that, as Cuomo put it, Ôthere are some parcels that Mother Nature owns.' ÔManaged retreat,' the preferred coastal management strategy of many scientists, academics, and even a few policy makers, has in all but a few instances proved to be a political non-starter. Towns whose municipal budgets rely on property taxes say they can't afford it, residents with ocean views, dense social networks, and ancestral ties and the memories that come with it say they don't want it, and the federal government for the most part isn't set up to administer it. Why is it working in Oakwood Beach? Oakwood Beach was extremely vulnerable, and had recently been devastated by a nor'easter, a marsh fire, and another hurricane. And indeed the Governor's deal was generous. But one reason that has been overlooked has to do with the fact that the residents had a say in determining what would happen to Oakwood Beach once they left it behind. Dismayed at the prospect of the land being redeveloped, homeowners put pressure on the Governor to promise that the land would be turned into open space for use as parks, wetlands, drainage or other water-management purposes" (Interboro Partners 2013, 33). ! Allen 28 Review of Literature

PAGE 39

State Policies that encourage a retreat from the shore The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council identified in their resiliency strategy for Lee County (2010) some state legislation that, in theory, will foster a responsible management of coastal areas in light of projected change. The first is the Coastal Infrastructure Policy, which prohibits the construction of bridges to barrier islands not accessible by bridges or causeways on October 1, 1985. This legislation effectively discourages further development in these fragile and significant ecosystems. Further, the State Comprehensive Plan, under Section 8 (Coastal and Marine Resources) , contains the following policies that encourage retreat: 1. Accelerate public acquisition of coastal and beachfront land where necessary to protect coastal and marine resources or to meet projected public demand. 3. Avoid the expenditure of state funds that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas. 4. Protect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development. 9. Prohibit development and other activities which disturb coastal dune systems, and ensure and promote the restoration of coastal dune systems that are damaged. The Coastal Management Law Chapter of the Florida Statutes provides further direction on encouraging retreat and shore protection. These rules include directions to protect, conserve, or enhance remaining coastal wetlands, living marine resources, coastal barriers, and wildlife habitat; to protect and restore altered beaches and dunes; to limit public expenditures that subsidize development permitted in coastal high-hazard areas except for restoration or enhancement of natural resources; to direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal highhazard areas; to relocate, mitigate, or replace infrastructure within the coastal high-hazard area; and to continue the provision and augmentation of adequate physical public access to beaches and shorelines (65-67). One state program that may be one of the most significant potential actors in the protection of vulnerable coastal lands is the Florida Forever program, one of the largest land, water, and wetland acquisition organizations in the country. Through almost exclusively voluntary participation, the program acquires lands for restoration, conservation, recreation, water resource development, historical preservation, and capital improvements on conservation lands. Funds are distributed annually to various governmental agencies for land and water acquisition: Department of Environmental Protection (38%), Water Management Districts (35%), Florida Communities Trust (24%), Department of Agriculture/Forestry (1.5%), and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (1.5%). Since the program began in 1999, Florida Forever funds have been used to protect over 270,000 acres of natural floodplains, nearly 500,000 acres of significant water bodies, over 24,000 acres of fragile coastline, and over 520,000 acres of functional wetlands (FNAI 2008, cited by SWFRPC 2008). A Natural Systems-Based Approach Conservation and restoration of natural systems provide ecosystem services that contribute to the resilience of a coastal region. Beatley (2009) advocates thinking in terms of regional systems of green infrastructure Ñ "larger patterns and integrated networks of wetlands, forests, and green spaces that together provide extensive ecological services, including resilience in the face of natural events such as hurricanes and coastal storms" (85). Beatley also reports that an appreciation for mitigative value of wetlands and native ecologies has increased since Hurricane Katrina, particularly because of the approximation that every mile of cypress forest reduce the storm surge height by one foot (84). Some other examples of ecosystem services of mitigative potential, were adapted from Volk (2008, 95-99) and are included here: Sedimentation and shoreline stabilization This ecosystem service could be the most pertinent for informing coastal design in response to seawater intrusion. Coastal sedimentation is the natural equivalent of beach renourishment. One of the reasons this process is important for humans is because the natural accumulations of sand balance coastal erosion. This is a dynamic condition where some regions experience more erosion and some experience more renourishment. The effects of human activities such as coastal hardening in these processes have been great and should be decreased É Various other natural systems play a role in the trapping Allen 29 Review of Literature

PAGE 40

of sediments and stabilization of shorelines including tidal marshes and seagrass beds, rocky slopes and shorelines, and barrier islands. Coral reefs Offshore sources of sediment are important sources of sand for beaches and islands, and these sources will play a role in the adaptation of these systems to rising sea level. ÔReefs produce sand that forms and replenishes sandy beaches and islands, the sediment accumulating when corals and other calcified organisms break down after their death' (UNEP-WCMC 2006). Mangrove habitats Mangrove forests play an important role in the accretion of Florida [low-velocity] coastlines by trapping and stabilizing intertidal sediments and providing shoreline protection and stabilization. Mangroves also help to stabilize coastal land by trapping river sediment and other upland runoff (UNEP-WCMC 2006). ÔMangroves dissipate the energy and size of waves as a result of the drag forces exerted by their multiple roots and stems. Wave energy may be reduced by 75 percent in the wave's passage through 200 meters of mangrove' (UNEP-WCMC 2006). Dune systems With regard to shoreline sedimentation, dunes function as sediment reserves and stabilize coastlines. Myers states that in natural conditions, Ôsand stored in the fore dune is moved offshore by storm waves and restored to the beach with the return of normal wave conditions. Winds move the sand back to the line of plant growth, and a new dune is built up' (1990). ÔEncroachment in dune areas often results in shoreline destabilization, resulting in expensive and ongoing public works projects such as the building of breakwaters or seawalls and sand renourishment' (De Guenni et al. 2005). Tidal marshes Mullahey et al. describe the function of salt marshes in the following quote: ÔOn low energy coastlines and estuaries, the salt marsh functions as a transition zone from terrestrial to oceanic life. Salt marshes perform an important function in the stabilization and protection of shorelines, especially during storm tides. Nutrients, sediments and detritus from upland systems are redistributed by tidal action, making the marsh one of the most productive natural ecological systems. The area serves as habitat for the early life stages of numerous ocean species as they feed on countless invertebrate organisms. Many wildlife forms overlap normal ranges at least seasonally to become harvesters and, in many cases, part of the natural food chain.' Tidal marshes collect sediment from incoming tides, and if sediment availability is high enough in proportion to the rate of sea level rise, marshes can build and adapt to sea level rise without significant loss of area. These ecosystems could be an important part of coastal protection measures that are more ecologically sustainable than traditional methods such as dike and seawall construction [emphasis added]. ÔCurrent research shows that restoring tidal salt marshes is one of the most effective measures for sequestering carbon available to us. While people often look to planting trees as a way to take carbon out of the atmosphere, marsh restoration may be even more efficient, per unit area, at removing carbon.' (South Bay 2008). Beatley notes also that residents' emotional and physical health contribute significantly to resilience of coastal communities, and can be encouraged through contact with nature, for its stress reduction and mental and physical health benefits: "A community that provides greater access to nature and natural systems will be more resilient by virtue of the health benefits provided" (32-46). Furthering this point, Paton & Johnston (2006) argue in Disaster resilience: an integrated approach that "interaction with the environment can perform a restorative function and contribute to well-being. It can also act as a protective factor in regard to mitigating present and future stress, act as a catalyst for meaningful interaction that facilitates the development and/or maintenance of adaptive competencies (e.g. selfand collective efficacy), and contribute to the development and maintenance of attachment and commitment to place/community" (206) . Another example of a natural systems-based technique is living shoreline treatment. Living shorelines address erosion by "Ôproviding for long-term protection, restoration or enhancement of vegetated shoreline habitats É Allen 30 Review of Literature

PAGE 41

through the strategic placement of plants, stone, sand fill and other structural and organic materials. Living Shoreline Treatments do not include structures that sever natural processes and connections between riparian, intertidal and aquatic areas such as tidal exchange, sediment movement, plant community transitions and groundwater flow'" (Living Shorelines 2008, cited by Volk 2008). Unabridged Architecture (2013) reported on a 1995 dune planting effort by the residents of the Beachside Bungalows in Far Rockaway, NY, of "halophytic plants in a washboard-pattern of dune and swale, in angular geometries intended to capture deposits of sand. These measures kept their WWI-era houses from significant damage" from the Sandy-caused surge (32) . Coastal Resilience Planning "The disaster of flooding can be mitigated by design. Buildings and communities can be made resilient to flooding and extreme weather by design. Flooding can be anticipated and utilized as a way to sustain land and water needs in a balance of community and conservation value." -Watson & Adams 2011, 272 In Planning for Coastal Resilience , Beatley distinguishes between direct and indirect resilience: "By keeping new development out of high-risk flood zones, for instance, and by preserving and restoring natural mitigation features such as coastal wetlands, a community can directly reduce future exposure and vulnerability to destructive events such as hurricanes. However, land use planning also influences resilience in many more indirect ways. If by designing communities that are compact and walkable and that exhibit a high degree of connectedness, stronger social ties and networks are created and residents are more physically active and healthier, these outcomes will help to Ôimmunize' a community in the face of future disruptive events, and therefore the resilience and adaptive capacity of the community will be greater" (75). Beatley defines nine "Key Elements of Resilient Coastal Land Use," which will be used as a primary measure of resilience in this research, and are as follows: Element 1 Population and development should be located, to the extent possible, outside of and away from high-risk coastal hazard zones. Buildings should be set back a substantial distance from high-risk coastal shorelines, and no or very little development should be allowed within 100-year floodplains. Element 2 Coastal growth patterns should build onto the historic patterns of towns and villages that typically exist in coastal regions. Relatively compact, mixed-use villages and towns dot the American coastal landscape, from New England to the South, and can serve as the linchpins of a more sustainable and resilient growth pattern. Infill development and redevelopment of brownfield, greyfield, and previously committed land should be favored over greenfield locations. Element 3 Coastal land use patterns should be compact and walkable and simultaneously conserve land, reduce car dependence and energy consumption, and allow the possibility of healthier lifestyles and living patterns. Element 4 Coastal land use policies and regulations should be enacted to protect, preserve, and restore ecological systems and natural features such as wetlands, forests, and riparian systems. These provide valuable natural services and also help mitigate natural disasters such as coastal storms and flooding. Element 5 Land use patterns and community design should incorporate direct access to nature and natural systems. The emotional and psychological benefits provided by parks, trails, and water access points are an integral part of creating a healthy coastal community. Element 6 Community land use patterns should promote social and community interaction by creating pedestrianfriendly streets, sidewalks, and gathering places and a vibrant public realm that includes "third places" such as parks and plazas, farmers' markets, and the like. Land use patterns should also help to strengthen place bonds by recognizing and nurturing features that make the community distinctive, such as preserving historic buildings and connections to a community's past. Allen 31 Review of Literature

PAGE 42

Element 7 Critical facilities such as hospitals and police and fire stations should be sited outside of high-risk locations, and in places where in the event of a major community disruption they will remain functional. Water and sewage treatment plants should be sited outside of high-risk zones and designed similarly to operate after a disaster event. Element 8 Essential community lifelines and infrastructure should be designed and integrated into a community's land use to reduce exposure and vulnerability and to ensure operability during and after community disruptions. Examples include elevating roads, placing power lines underground, and shifting to distributed energy systems that minimize large power outages. Element 9 Land use patterns should emphasize the benefits of green infrastructure over conventional infrastructure that will be more likely to fail in disaster events. Green infrastructure might include stormwater management; smallscale on-site stormwater collection and retention; green rooftops and living walls and building facades; and trees and tree canopy coverage, which offer cooling and shading benefits that minimize reliance on mechanical and energyintensive approaches. Table 2.5 Ñ Principles of coastal resilience (Beatley 2009, 59-71). • Take a long-term, multi-scaled approach • Create a compelling vision of the future • Guide growth ad development away from high-risk locations • Ensure that critical facilities are located out or away from high-risk locations • Plan ahead for a resilient recovery and growth • Preserve and restore ecosystems and ecological infrastructure • Promote a diverse local economy • Work toward a landscape of resilience • Design and build decentralized resilient infrastructure • Plan for long-term community sustainability • Think holistically • Design for passive survivability and sustainability • Promote social resilience by nurturing critical social networks and institutions • Encourage an active, healthy community and citizenry • Engage the community by nurturing forward-looking leadership Table 2.6 Ñ Strategies of resilient design of coastal communities (Watson & Adams 2011, 201). 1 Provide shoreline stabilization and protection through structural and nonstructural measures capable of reflecting, reducing, or diffusing storm surge by elevation, construction, and run-up profile. 2 Avoid or prevent increased erosion or other flood impacts to adjacent properties and, in the case of wave reflection, to adjacent waterways and water-edge structures. 3 Restore or create natural features that provide ecosystem services to absorb, filter, and diffuse severe storm and rising sea level impacts. 4 Construct and maintain floodplain landscape features that meet the designated zone regulations for breakaway and free-of-obstruction requirements and are replaceable and maintainable in post-storm recovery. 5 Provide areas for diffusion and absorption of flooding that diverts and reduces threat of life safety and of infrastructure and property damage. 6 Secure routes for emergency egress and for access for first responders and postevent return. 7 Secure utility, water, and sewage connections for pressroom or automatic disconnect and postevent recommissioning. Allen 32 Review of Literature

PAGE 43

In the Context of Urban & Regional Planning Land use plans typically identify desired patterns of growth, and most coastal communities have such zoning regulatory capability today. Land use planning and zoning ordinances have the ability to "regulate the location and density of different land uses over time, and may be extremely useful in advancing a more resilient land use and growth pattern in a community. High risk zones Ñ such as 100-year floodplain É or high-erosion coastal zone Ñ might be reserved for nondevelopment uses or lower-density development that serves to minimize exposure to natural hazard events. Development in natural areas such as wetlands, beaches, and dunes that might undermine their ecological resilience and their provision of natural mitigative benefits might be curtailed or severely restricted. Conversely, zoning should accommodate high growth and greater development in designated safer areas in the community Ñ usually, though not always, in existing urbanized locations." Another resilience planning tool identified by Beatley is comprehensive planning, which he explains functions as a template for the evolution of a community into the future. He lists some ways that natural hazards may be incorporated into a comprehensive plan (Beatley 2009, 7 6-77): • Mapping of natural hazards in the community and the extent of people and property at risk • Mapping of natural environmental features and green infrastructure that might provide mitigative benefits and enhance resilience • Identification and analysis of population and development trends and the extent to which vulnerability is increasing or decreasing in relation to these trends • Community goals and objectives (established through a participative community process) for reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience, and a vision for a resilient and sustainable future • Policies for guiding future growth and development away from high-risk locations, and for restoring and protecting the natural environment and green infrastructure • Identification of implementation tools and measures for implementing the visions and policies laid out in the plan • Provisions for monitoring and updating the plan Beatley reports that the nature and stringency of planning requirements in coastal states across the US varies greatly. "Only ten coastal states mandate local planning for all or some local jurisdictions. É even in strong planning states such as Florida, where local comprehensive plans must include a detailed coastal element that, among other things, establishes the objectives of steering development away from coastal high-hazard areas (CHHAs) and reducing evacuation times within hurricane vulnerability zones (HVZs), evidence suggests that restraints on hazardous growth and development have not occurred. A recent study by Baker et al. (2008, 294) of nearly ninety Florida coastal jurisdictions shows substantial population increases in these hazard zones. A statewide deficit in hurricane shelter space also appears as a result of this growth" (Beatley 2009, 46). Beatley offers some possible reasons that may explain the "ineffectiveness of Florida localities at limiting growth in high-hazard areas": "[a lack of] adequate definition[s] of hazard zones," and "maximum allowable densities ha[ving] been established years ago (and prior to state approval of local plans)" (Beatley 2009, 47) . ! 8 Establish a community emergency communication system and management procedures for storm preparation, evacuation, and emergency response. Allen 33 Review of Literature

PAGE 44

Table 2.7 Ñ Comparison of planning requirements in selected coastal states (Beatley 2009, 56). Local plans mandated? Hazards element mandatory? Discrete hazards element? Does state specify or suggest elements of local plans? Postdisaster recovery plan? Strength of state (from 1 3: Role 1 = week 2 = significant 3 = substantial) California Yes Yes Yes Specify No 3 Florida Yes Yes Yes Both Yes 3 Hawaii Yes No No Suggest No 3 North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Specify No 3 for coastal, weak role otherwise (split judgement) Oregon Yes Yes Yes Specify No 3 South Carolina Yes Yes Yes Specify Yes 2 Texas No No No No No 1 Virginia Yes No No Specify No 1 Alabama No No No Specify No 1 Table 2.8 Ñ Land use tools for coastal resilience (Beatley 2009, 75). Community plans and plan making • Local comprehensive plan (or general plan or land use plan) • Sustainability action plan • Postdisaster recovery plan • Hazard mitigation plan (now mandated under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000) Zoning and development regulations • Traditional zoning and subdivision ordinances • Urban growth boundaries (UGB), designated growth areas • Clustering standards • Conservation and hazard overlays • Form-based codes • Coastal and shoreline setbacks • Planned unit development (PUD) provisions • Traditional neighborhood design (TND) ordinances Land and property acquisition • Fee-simple acquisition • Less-than-fee-simple acquisition: conservation easement, purchase of development rights • Land banks; land trusts • Community land trusts (CLTs) • Community forests • Relocation and acquisition of hazardous areas preand postdisaster Public facilities and capital improvements policies • Capital improvements program • Urban service boundaries • Adequate facilities standards • Impact fees Taxation and financial incentives • Use-value taxation; preferential taxation • Tax credit for renovation and adaptive reuse • Smart-growth incentives programs • Transfer of development rights (TDR) Information dissemination and public awareness • Hazardous disclosure provisions • Public awareness campaigns Allen 34 Review of Literature

PAGE 45

At a Neighborhood or Block Scale Beatley changes scales to describe the strategy of development clustering, which centralizes permissible density onto only a portion of a development site. This technique preserves the remainder of the parcel for open space, habitat, or other nondeveloped uses, and is of particular significance to resilience when the preserved portion is in a floodplain or area of expected sea level impact, while still upholding market value and development potential of the property (Beatley 2009, 79). Another concept that builds onto this strategy was proposed by the Interboro Partners (2013) in their RBD submission: a Ôcut and fill' technique that elevates homes on fill from an on-site excavation that could "simultaneously contribute to the restoration of the freshwater marsh and the health of the lower bay" (38-39) . Watson & Adams (2011) build on the concept of development clustering through zero-lot line layout: "Many subdivision plans place shoreline and interior homes at risk of storm surge, flood debris flow, and erosion É A more suitable arrangement that achieves the same density but creates a buffer zone is zero-lot line layout. The deep lot with conservation zone É illustrates a strategy that meets the resilient design criteria for coastal communities" (204-205) [see Figure 2.14]. Table 2.9 Ñ Planning for coastal resilience at different scales (Girling & Kellett 2005, cited by Beatley 2009, 31). Building • Energy Star house • Passive solar design • Local materials • Solar water heating / photovoltaic panels • Safe room • Rainwater collection / purification • Passive survivability • Green rooftops and rooftop gardens • Daylit interior spaces and natural ventilation Street • Green streets • Urban trees • Low-impact development (LID) • Streets designed for stormwater collection • Vegetated swales and narrow streets • Edible landscaping • Pervious / permeable surfaces • Sidewalks and walkable streets Block • Green courtyards • Clustered housing outside of floodplains and highhazard areas • Photovoltaics • Native species yards and spaces • Setback from ocean or high-hazard area Neighborhood • Stream daylighting, stream restoration • Decentralized / distributed power • Urban forests • Community gardens • Neighborhood parks / kitchen, pocket parks • Greening greyfield and brownfields • Neighborhood grocery, food center, or co-op • Neighborhood energy / disaster response councils / committees Community • Urban creeks and riparian areas • Urban ecological networks • Walking, hiking, biking trails • Green schools • City tree canopy • Community forest coverage (min 40%) / community orchards • Greening utility corridors • Disaster shelters and evacuation capacity Region • Conservation of wetlands • River systems / floodplains • Riparian systems • Regional greenspace systems • Greening major transport corridors • Regional evacuation capacity Allen 35 Review of Literature

PAGE 46

! Allen 36 Review of Literature Figure 2.14 Ñ Coastal lotting & subdivision (adapted from Watson & Adams 2011 , 205-206 by author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�)':)5#:)&:#$%6"3)'<#="5% M+5%#2-"'%3')"5#(57#/()'%5(53% > > > > OK?PFFK!MKM#FPMKL 4FQOPRKM#FPMKL STKU#LPVW#9X;M4R494P! ?P!RK!V4P!YL#FPMKL OK?PFFK!MKM#9X;M4R494P! ?P!RK!V4P!YL#9X;M4R494P! /#01()* /#01()* /#01()*

PAGE 47

Education & Awareness Education and public awareness is a critical aspect of increasing coastal resilience. Beatley offers the idea of signage indicating when one is entering a coastal hazard area that also displays evacuation routes (84). Olson (2011) reports that during the resilience workshop tours of New Orleans, "several of the representatives of the nonprofit organizations emphasized the importance of education in resilience, from schoolchildren to people who have lived through multiple hurricanes. News people who report from the waterfront and the vows of elderly residents who have ridden out past hurricanes to remain in their homes can send the wrong message. Public officials cannot risk putting anyone in danger. Education cannot be based on just fear but must empower individuals to care for themselves and others" (41) . Implementation Tools Transfer of development rights Transfer of development rights (TDR) is an implementation strategy that transfers a property owner's right to develop to another, more suitable location (i.e. from a floodplain to a planned mixed-use development). A local example is Palm Beach County, Florida, which has created zoning and land use regulations to begin to address resilience planning, and has also utilized TDR to implement their initiative. "Coastal high hazard areas [CHHAs] are defined by the state of Florida to mean those areas that would likely be inundated from a category 1 or 2 hurricane." The county has resolved to "Ônot subsidize new or expanded development in the coastal area' and Ôshall direct population concentrations away from É coastal high hazard areas.'" Beatley states that "few coastal counties in the US have done as much resilience planning as Palm Beach County has. In addition to its comprehensive plan the county has also prepared a hazard mitigation plan and a post-disaster redevelopment plan," which "identifies a series of postdisaster recovery and redevelopment goals, and then in considerable detail lays out a matrix-based action plan. Proposed actions are divided into predisaster and postdisaster, short-term and long-term. Along with specific action plan items, the responsible working group, jurisdiction involved, time frame, and funding source are identified" (Beatley 2009, 125). Figure 2.15 Ñ Rolling easements (adapted from Deyle, n.d. by author) . Allen 37 Review of Literature

PAGE 48

Rolling easements A rolling easement is another implementation strategy that adjusts a public easement location based on sea level. As water levels encroach upon a property, so does the easement, while preserving the site's private ownership and land use, preventing protection measures along the shoreline that inhibit natural tidal ecosystem migration, and allowing public access along the waterfront. Policy Discussion The Interboro Partners (2013, 112-115) described in their Rebuild by Design proposal some general policy recommendations that have relevance to most coastal communities: Recommendation 1 To present a valid picture of longer-term SLR and major storm risk, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) should be re-calibrated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to incorporate the best SLR projections of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and cooperating federal agencies. Moreover, such FIRM-SLRs should be regularly updated to reflect new scientific findings and projections. Currently, even when reasonably up-to-date, by law the 100-year coastal flood zone maps are explicitly based on current sea level and not on projected sea level at some relevant point in the future (for example, the 25th year of a 30-year mortgage). Thus, FIRMs perpetuate a false sense of security regarding SLR consequences Ñ that is, that a significant flood has only a 1% chance of occurring in a given year when two or three decades later the probability of a given flood level being reached would be significantly greater because of SLR. É As a city budget director once advised É "it's never a priority until you put a dollar to it." Merely advisory tools will not drive hard choices. The tools must determine federal regulatory standards . Recommendation 2 All federal grants-in-aid for infrastructure projects should be required to meet locational and design criteria that conform to FIRM-SLRs for the duration of their design lives plus a prudent margin of error. The federal government should adopt official FIRMS-SLR projections. In FY 2014 the federal government will make $126 billion in grants-in-aid to state and local governments for transportation infrastructure, housing, and related programs. These grants should be conditioned on the facility's design life falling well above the projected FIRM-SLR É (ÔLifespan' is defined as the period before major renovations/rebuilding must occur.) Table 2.10 Ñ Average lifespan of infrastructure and building types. Type of structure Average lifespan Maximum lifespan Railway 50 years 150 years Airport 50 years 70 years Sewer system 50 years Ñ Nuclear power plant 40 years 60 years Bridge 30 years 75 years Highway (concrete) 20 years 50 years Commercial building 30 years 50 75 years Office building 72 years Ñ Fast food restaurant 12 years Ñ Sewage treatment plant 15 years 20 years Public schools 40 years 60 years Allen 38 Review of Literature

PAGE 49

Considering the magnitude and frequency of federal investment in infrastructure, the generative potential in accounting of FIRM-SLR projections becomes obvious. Residential buildings have much longer lifespans than most office and retail buildings since housing units (particularly owner-occupied homes) never lose their function or fall out of fashion Ð at least, for some group of households in the housing market. In New Jersey in 2012, the median age of an owner-occupied home was 45 years; the median age of an apartment unit, 48 years. One sixth of the owner-occupied homes were built before 1940; almost half of those were built before 1920. Roughly one out of every twelve owner-occupied homes in New Jersey is over 100 years old. Returning to the federal Task Force, its second recommendation is to Ôdevelop a minimum flood risk reduction standard for major Federal investment that takes into account data on current and future flood risk. Recommendation 4 The federal government should create a Sea Level Rise Mitigation Assistance (SLRMA) program within FEMA parallel to FEMA's existing Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program. Recommendation 5 The Internal Revenue Code should be amended to permit landowners to depreciate the value of their land in areas within FIRMS-SLR coastal flood plains. Such depreciation should be scheduled to depreciate land to the acquisition price per acre established by the federal or state government for ultimate use as parkland or wildlife refuges. ÔLand can never be depreciated,' the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) states bluntly. As explained by one tax authority, ÔLand generally does not depreciate in value because it is a limited resource with an infinite life and can be used for a range of purposes. All assets wear out and eventually cease to exist, except land. Land is not considered to be able to be destroyed, so it can't lose value and go down to zero value like other assets. The land generally retains or increases in value. Over the long term, land will go up in value because demand is always increasing, while they are not Ômaking' any new land.' However, land can be destroyed (at least for society's economic purposes) Ð in fact, land can be destroyed in the very blink of an eye (in geological time) as 50 miles of the former Jersey Shore now under the Atlantic Ocean can attest. On the barrier islands and in bay shore communities the land under houses and stores may be considered very valuable now, but in a foreseeable future (albeit several decades off) that same land's only economic use will be as parkland and wildlife refuges. Therefore, in federally designated coastal floodplains, the IRS should establish a schedule for depreciating land value. At a minimum land value depreciation might parallel the current depreciation schedules for residential rental property (27.5 years) and/or commercial real property (39 years) . This paper's brief survey of resilience planning strategies primarily focused on Beatley's overview, both in the context of urban and regional planning and at the neighborhood and block scales, and also briefly explored the interrelated concepts of education and awareness, possible implementation tools, and policy catalysts. To complete this discussion on resilience planning strategies, Beatley notes that, in practice, coastal resilience will demand a strategic conflux of different approaches including retreat, land use planning, greenhouse gas mitigation actions, and accommodations. He succinctly describes the charge and challenge of coastal resilience planning here: "Effective coastal management and planning responses to climate change and sea level rise will not occur quickly; they will likely be costly, entail significant buy-in from many different community interests, and require substantial lead time É Effective responses will require some new ways of thinking and new ways of looking at the issues involved" (2009, xvi). Allen 39 Review of Literature

PAGE 50

Case Studies New Orleans, Louisiana Figure 2.16 Ñ New Orleans, St. Bernard's Parish after Hurricane Katrina (photo by Michael Rieger / FEMA, 2005). A discussion of case studies would not be complete without a brief examination of the Katrina-affected landscape. Hurricane Katrina exceeded the base flood elevations by as much as 15 feet (4.5 m). Watson & Adams report that flooding extended far beyond the inland limits of designated flood-prone areas and that the highest storm surge in US history was recorded on the Mississippi Coast (2011, 133). Exacerbating the damage potential of the storm's extreme surge and precipitation outfall is the dramatic anthropogenic change the greater delta area experienced within the previous century. The coastal Mississippi delta has lost its wetlands at dramatic rates as a result of hydrological management and ecological alterations. The estimated total losses since the 1930s are about 1,853 square miles for coastal land and an additional 513 square miles for wetland. The construction of dams in the upper Mississippi River and flood control levees in the lower delta, the loss of many active tributaries, and the extensive dredging operations at the river mouth as well as along canals for drilling access, pipeline canals, and deep-draft navigation channels, has resulted in the decrease of sediments deposition, which historically have sustained the coastal wetlands (Beatley 2009, 136). Katrina also vividly brought to light issues of environmental justice in hazard situations caused by a decentralized development pattern, particularly the vulnerability of urban coastal populations and coastal cities that have few non auto transportation options. ! Allen 40 Review of Literature

PAGE 51

! Review of Literature Christie Allen Dr. Craig Colten of Louisiana State University spoke at the National Academy of Sciences' disaster resilience series Gulf Coast workshop, in a talk entitled "Forgetting the unforgettable," outlining the area's history. "On September 9, 1965, Hurricane Betsy struck New Orleans with winds over 100 miles per hour. At the time, except for the shore of Lake Pontchartrain, only modest barriers protected shorelines from flooding, and the city had more residents than it does today. The storm, which inundated less than half the urban area of New orleans, caused considerable but not overwhelming damage to residences, and the state of Louisiana suffered just over 80 deaths. Almost exactly 40 years later, the city had a much more formidable hurricane protection levee system, and the population of the city had fallen from 627,000 residents in 1965 to circa 437,000 residents just before Katrina. Yet a staggering number of homes were seriously flooded or destroyed, and the storm caused more than 1,500 deaths throughout Louisiana. After Hurricane Betsey, Louisiana Governor John McKeithen pledged that Ônothing like this will happen again' and asserted that his administration would Ôestablish procedures that will someday in the near future make a repeat of this disaster impossible. Forty years later a storm of lesser magnitude caused far worse damage and fatalities. ÔHad the lessons of Betsey been retained?' asked Colten during his presentation. ÔHad they been woven into hurricane preparations and used to make the city more resilient?' The answer has to be no. Resilience eroded in the city of New Orleans between the two events, Colten said. The city did not retain the lessons of past hurricanes, and it did not plan or prepare adequately for future events. This erosion of resilience has implications for any other city that faces repeated disruptive events. Colten identified four key elements that have been involved in the the loss of resilience between two hurricanes: (1) flood-proof architecture, (2) protective structures and land use, (3) local evacuation and multiple shelters, and (4) the coordination of the organizational response. On the eve of Hurricane Betsy, warnings were sent out to people living in lower coastal parishes, and the city residents were urged by radio, televisions, and newspapers to relocate to shelters. Evacuation routes marked in previous years showed the way, and more than 300,000 people evacuated low-lying coastal areas in Louisiana (Gordeau and Conner, 1967). Many walked or took public transit, so they were not dependent on private cars. After Betsy, development outpaced available levels of protection. With the new levees, deep submersion of the city was possible, so it was no longer possible to evacuate locally. An important lesson from Katrina É is that Ôthe neighborhood brought back New Orleans.' The storm surge during Katrina was as high as 25 to 30 feet in the city. The hurricane destroyed or damaged approximately 90 percent of residences and 100 percent of businesses. A railroad embankment several blocks from the beach in Waveland carries the tracks of the CSX railroad. In previous hurricanes, the embankment has acted as a levee for portions of the town north of the tracks. In Katrina, however, storm surge came across the tracks and also entered Waveland from Bay St. Louis and other waterways, eventually making its way 12 miles inland from the shore. Of the 23 fatalities in Waveland, almost all occurred north of the railroad tracks, including a family of four whose home was covered by water. .. About 90 percent of the town is in a flood zone. " (adapted from Olson 2011, 11-36) 41

PAGE 52

Beatley writes that the restoration and repair of the delta's natural systems and ecology would do much to build resilience (136). He cites a report by Costanza, Mitch and Day (2006), which recommends the conversion of areas below sea level back to wetlands, the sole permitting of buildings that are able to adapt to occasional flooding conditions, reestablishment of wetland systems outside of the levees as flood protection, restoration of historic river flow, and investment in social capital of the city. They write also that this rebuilding process should aim to position New Orleans as a sustainable city model : "ÔWe should restore the built capital of New Orleans to the highest standards of high-performance green buildings and a car-limited urban environment with high mobility for everyone. New Orleans has abundant renewable energy sources in solar, wind, and water. What better message than to build a 21st-century sustainable city running on renewable energy on the rubble of a 20th-century oil and gas production hub. In other words, New Orleans should be built higher, stronger, much more efficient and designed to make extensive use of renewable energy. One can imagine a new pattern for the residential neighborhoods of New Orleans with strong multistory, multifamily buildings surrounded by green space, each with enough water and fuel storage for several weeks, operating principally on wind and solar energy'" (Beatley 2009, 137). A report published 8 years after the storm announced that more than half of New Orleans' 72 neighborhoods have recovered 90 percent of their pre-Katrina populations, and that 17 neighborhoods have more population than they did in June 2005. Reconstruction and recovery efforts began within weeks of the storm's landfall. The event stimulated significant academic research, planning and design reaction, and institutional agency response. One institutional response was conceived by the USGBC through a series of charrettes at the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, which garnered input from over 160 design and construction specialists and community leaders. The following two tables list the 10 principles resulting from these charrettes and some selected practices for their implementation. Table 2.11 Ñ The New Orleans Principles (adapted from USGBC by Watson & Adams 2011, 209). 1 Respect the rights of all citizens of New Orleans: Displaced citizens who wish to return to New Orleans should be afforded the opportunity to return to healthy, livable, safe, and secure neighborhoods of choice. 2 Restore natural protections of the greater New Orleans region: Sustain and restore the coastal and floodplain ecosystems and urban forests that support and protect the environment, economy, communities, and culture of southern Louisiana, and that contribute to the economy and wellbeing of the nation. 3 Implement an inclusive planning process: Build a community-centered planning process that uses local talent and makes sure that the voices of all New Orleanians are heard. This process should be an agent of change and renewal for New Orleans. 4 Value diversity of New Orleans: Build on the traditional strength of New Orleans neighborhoods, encourage mixed uses and diverse housing options, and foster communities of varied incomes, mixed age groups, and racial diversity. Celebrate the unique culture of New Orleans, including its food, music, and art. 5 Protect the city of New Orleans: Expand or build a flood protection infrastructure that serves multiple uses. Value, restore, and expand the urban forests, wetlands, and natural systems of the New Orleans region that protect the city from wind and storms. 6 Embrace smart redevelopment: Maintain and strengthen the New Orleans tradition of compact, connected, mixed-use communities. Provide residents and visitors with multiple transportation options. Look to schools for jump-starting neighborhood redevelopment and for rebuilding strong communities in the city. 7 Honor the past; build for the future: In the rebuilding of New Orleans, honor the history of the city while creating twentyfirst century buildings that are durable, affordable, inexpensive to operate, and healthy to live in. Through codes and other measures, ensure that all new buildings are built to high standards of energy, structural, environmental, and human health performance. 8 Provide for passive survivability: Homes, schools, public buildings, and neighborhoods should be designed and built or rebuilt to serve as livable refuges in the event of crisis or breakdown of energy, water, and sewer systems. Allen 42 Review of Literature

PAGE 53

9 Foster locally owned, sustainable businesses: Support existing and new local businesses built on a platform of sustainability that will contribute to a stronger and more diverse local economy. 10 Focus on the long term: All measures related to rebuilding and ecological restoration, even short-term efforts, must be undertaken with explicit attention to the long-term solutions. Table 2.12 Ñ Practices to implement recommendations of the New Orleans Principles (adapted from USGBC by Watson & Adams 2011, 211). Infrastructure 1 Rebuild Levee System . Upgrade the existing levee system to withstand a Category 5 storm with redundant systems throughout. Internal levees should be incorporated to isolate flooding in case of a breech in the primary levees. 2 Urban Linear Parks. Use a redesigned, reinforced, and buttressed levee system and embankments as recreational areas, as segments of a system of linear parks with biking, walking, and jogging trails. These linear parks can also be a component of a coordinated evacuation strategy. 3 Emergency Evacuation Routes . Look for creative opportunities to share the costs of creating a better levee system by focusing on recreational opportunities Ñ for example, a new national park could be funded by the National Park Service, and an emergency evacuation system could be funded by the Department of Homeland Security. 4 Critical-Needs Facilities on Higher Ground. Locate higher-density housing and critical-needs buildings such as hospitals, schools, and emergency response services along the redesigned waterway system, building on higher, more protected ground. 5 Use Demolition Waste Creatively. Use suitable demolition waste (such as crushed concrete, aggregate, and bricks) to raise low-lying regions of the city and along expanded levee banks. 6 Water-Resistant Construction. Require new construction in low-lying areas to be built to withstand expected future flooding through careful material selection, elevated floor levels, and careful placement of utilities. Design structures to resist water intrusion and mold growth. 7 Reliable Pumping System . Redesign pumping stations so that they can function and be operated safely during even the most severe storm events. 8 Reduce Stormwater Loading with On-Site Strategies. Reduce the city's stormwater loads through the design of its new buildings and infrastructure. By reducing the stormwater loading, the rate at which stormwater reaches pumps is reduced, lessening flooding and allowing use of smaller pumps operating at substantially lower cost. Open, green areas that accept stormwater and have controlled discharge structures act as temporary storage and further reduce flooding risk. Require the following: • Use porous pavement wherever feasible to reduce stormwater loading. Despite the city's high water table, porous pavement is helpful in reducing flooding that results from small and moderate storms. • Install green roofs for most large structures, both to reduce stormwater loading and to reduce the urban heat island effect, thereby cooling the city as a whole and reducing energy consumption. • Use rainwater harvesting systems, including on-site cisterns, both to lessen the stormwater loading and to provide water for other uses (landscape irrigation, toilet flushing, cooling/heating systems, and maintenance). 9 Survivable Wireless Systems . Develop a reliable and survivable cell phone system and citywide high-speed wireless access to the Internet. Allen 43 Review of Literature

PAGE 54

Passive survivability 1 Passive Survivability. Make it the policy of the City of New Orleans that all homes, schools, churches, and civic buildings that could be used as emergency shelters be designed and built to provide life-support shelter in times of crisis Ñ a criteria referred to here as passive survivability. These buildings should be designed to maintain survivable thermal conditions without air conditioning or supplemental heat through the use of cooling-load avoidance strategies, natural ventilation, highly efficient building envelopes, and passive solar design. Schools and other public buildings should be designed and built with natural daylighting so that they can be used without power during the daytime. Co-locate healthcare facilities with schools as part of the community anchor and to strengthen survivability. 2 Water Systems. Provide incentives to homeowners and other building owners for installing emergency water systems, including rooftop rainwater harvesting systems to provide landscape irrigation during normal times (reducing potable water consumption), but with an option so that during power interruptions, stored water can be used for drinking (with filtration), toilet flushing, bathing, and other uses in the building. 3 Backup Power for Municipal Sewage. Provide backup generator power at sewage treatment plants and pumping stations so that minimal sewage line operation can be maintained during extended power outages. Part of the problem is that sewer systems are not sealed. Rain or floodwater enters the system either by infiltration or through vents and manholes. If floodwater overwhelms the system, it backs up into buildings and untreated waste is released from the treatment plant. One-way valves mitigate this problem, but increase maintenance costs. 4 Distributed Infrastructure. Implement a distributed infrastructure (including power supply, water supply, and communications) to provide these critical services and to ensure emergency response capability during times of crisis. Include renewable energy strategies in achieving this requirement. 5 Solar Electric Systems. Seek federal funding through the Solar Roofs Program to provide rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems on new homes and other buildings in the city. Configure these grid-connected systems so that they can provide emergency power within the building when the electricity grid is down (this will necessitate some battery backup as well as equipment to safely disconnect the PV system from the grid during blackouts). In normal times, these systems will reduce the owner's need to purchase electrical power, reduce peak demand, and lower regional pollution levels. 6 Solar Water Heating. Provide incentives for homeowners, schools, and businesses to install solar water heating systems on buildings. 7 Bury/Protect Infrastructure. Make it the policy of the City of New Orleans to install new electric, communications, and gas lines below ground and protected from stormwater and floodwater loadings. 8 Areas of Refuge. Ensure that each neighborhood of community in New Orleans has a designated building (typically a school, but alternately a public library, church, or other civic building) that can serve the community during times of emergency or extended power outage. Construct or rebuild schools as neighborhood centers and potential refuges. Fund an outreach program to educate residents about this emergency shelter system. 9 Highway System. Upgrade the existing highway system to withstand future Category 5 storms, both to provide safe egress from the city and to save the expense of having to rebuild them after a future storm. 10 Emergency Access. At schools and hospitals and in recreation areas, include spaces that, during an emergency, can be used as assembly areas, helicopter landing areas, and distribution points. Focus on the long term 1 Visionary Master Plan. Use the opportunity to remaster a city and regional plan that corrects past mistakes. Make decisions that will serve New Orleans well for the next several hundred years. 2 Temporary Basic Services. Provide temporary solutions for basic services (including water, sewage treatment, electricity, and security) that will allow system-wide improvements to be made in the context of integrated needs assessment and planning. 3 Temporary Structures. Phased solutions, such as temporary housing and classrooms, can be implemented in a manner than allows longer-term solutions solutions to be fully planned and implemented. Allen 44 Review of Literature

PAGE 55

Worcester County, Maryland Maryland's only oceanfront county, Worcester County has a permanent population of 60,000, a seasonal population increase of over 350,000, 40 miles of oceanfront, and over 400 miles of bayfront lands. After experiencing significant storm and flood events, the county has established a resilience plan that calls for "smart growth away from coastal hazards and avoids development in rural areas," and a "hazard mitigation plan that takes into account long-term climate change" (Beatley 2009, 100). The main components of this effort include a County Comprehensive Development Plan, a County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and a Resilience plan for Ocean City, the most intense development in Worcester County. Worcester County's Comprehensive Development Plan serves as an example of resilience planning at the regional level. The plan sets a vision to "Ômaintain and improve the county's rural and coastal character, protect its natural resources and ecological functions, accommodate a planned amount of growth served by adequate facilities, improve development's compatibility and aesthetics, continue the county's prosperous economy, and provide for resident safety and health,'" and "projects forward growth for the next twenty years, and then by identifying particular criteria, utilizes GIS to identify possible growth areas where the estimated acreage needed for this future growth (3,500 ac) can be accommodated. In deliberations about growth patterns, coastal hazards were strongly taken into account, and a decision was made to specifically site future growth areas away from the ocean and water's edge, where many assumed growth would otherwise occur [emphasis mine]. About 60 percent of the projected growth is to occur within (and adjacent to) existing towns and cities in the county or existing developed areas. É the plan emphasizes the need to strengthen and build onto its existing and historic pattern of growth," (Beatley 2009, 101) which is the second key element of coastal land use as set out by Beatley. The conditions of smart growth, as set out by the plan, are: 1. Contains limited wetlands, hydric soils, floodplains, and contiguous forest 2. Composed of generally larger parcels (100 or more acres) 3. Located outside of aquifer recharge, source water protection, and other critical areas 4. Situated to be cost-effectively served with adequate public sanitary and other services 5. Located near employment, retailing and other services 6. Served by adequate existing roadways (102) Beatley reports that "Much of the positive move in the direction of a safer, smarter, pattern of growth is attributed to the emergence of a strong environmental ethic on the part of the county residents. This ethic is in turn attributed in large part to the good work of the Maryland Coastal Bays Program," one of the 29 estuaries designated and funded under the EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP). The Maryland Department of Natural Resources reports that "several community based conservation and education activities and initiatives have resulted from the program (e.g., volunteer water quality monitoring), and the citizenry is much more aware about coastal management issues," but that, still there is "probably much work left to be done in educating and raising awareness about long term trends such as sea level rise" (106). The city of Berlin, in Worcester County, is located about 6 miles inland of the Atlantic Ocean but still was identified by Beatley as incorporating several strategies toward building resiliency. The following table lists some of these strategies and characteristics: 4 Establish Priorities. Prioritize the implementation of long-term environmentally responsible, and economically responsive improvements to the city. Allen 45 Review of Literature

PAGE 56

Climate's Long-term Impacts on Metro Boston (CLIMB) This report is a analysis of how global warming will affect major urban centers. The study tests overall monetary and environmental costs for four scenarios, assuming that sea levels would increase by 24 inches (0.62 m) or 39 inches (1 m) over the next 100 years. Ride it out scenario Boston would continue development in floodplains over the next 100 years as it does now. Existing flood insurance provisions would repair storm damage by returning buildings to their original condition. This would impose $20 $36 billion in total costs over the next 100 years. Build-your-way-out scenario Allows current development to continue without flood proofing buildings but assumes Table 2.13 Ñ Hilltop at Walnut Hill Infill Neighborhood, Berlin, Worcester County, Maryland (Micheal Munson of Berlin, MD) cited by Beatley 2009, 104). Location / site • Infill neighborhood with 3to 15minute walk / bike to major grocery store chain, local farmers' market, drug stores, hospital, doctors' offices, medical facilities, dentist, barber shop, post office, banks, schools, restaurants, auto repair and parts store • Compact community with urban-size lots, narrow tree-lined streets and sidewalks, common open space, cluster mail delivery • All houses must meet Energy Star residential requirements for energy efficiency by deeded covenants and restrictions • Home office / apartment above carriage house Structure • Modestly sized 2,100-square-foot home with unfinished basement • Orientation to accept winter sun and summer breezes and facilitative passive heating and cooling • Minimum north glazing, shaded east and west • Precast basement walls using 70% less concrete than equivalent poured concrete walls • Framing material of locally sourced yellow pine • Water-resistant OSB (oriented strand board) sheathing throughout • No/low-VOC (volatile organic compound) glues, paints, and finishes • Cementous lap siding • Reflective steel roof of 95 percent recycled content • High-efficiency fiberglass windows and doors Energy & water conservation features • Winter passive solar gains / summer sun shading • Daylighting . natural thermo siphon air circulation • Supplemental wood heat, mostly from construction waste • High thermal mass house • Soy-based spray foam insulation • Groundwater heat pump with HRV (heat recovery ventilator) • 80-gallon ambient air stand tank for hot water preheat • Attic-mounted batch passive solar water heater • Metlund on-demand hot-water circulator system • Meets USDOE Building America specs (50% more efficient than standard home) • Energyand water-saving appliances and fixtures • Dimmable lighting and fluorescents • Plumbed for greywater and rain-water recovery with storage • Separate plumbing supply lines to toilets / hose bibs for greywater / rainwater Preparedness • Sheathing glued to frame • Concrete safe room • 2 months supply of food / water Allen 46 Review of Literature

PAGE 57

that, after a second storm at the heel of a 100-year storm, the region would construct seawalls and bulkheads to protect coastal development .. damages from this scenario with 24 inches of SLR would be $5.9 billion over 100 years É Construction could costs up to $3.5 billion. Maintenance costs would be high. Seawalls would have a negative impact on the environment, separating beachfronts from dunes and increasing vulnerability to erosion. Green or planned adaptation scenario New development in 100and 500year floodplains would be flood-proofed, including existing residential buildings and commercial and industrial buildings, before being sold. Retrofitting homes would each cost between $3,500 and $17,000, depending on location. This scenario would require $1.8 billion in expenditure for flood proofing but would result in reducing the total damages to $4 billion. Retreat scenario No further development is allowed in floodplains and no rebuilding after flood damage is permitted. Total costs are $17.1 billion, due to the high value of abandoned land and buildings in the coastal region." This scenario has the least environmental impact. As land is abandoned, it may revert back to such natural systems as wetlands and beaches, increasing regional ecosystem services. (adapted from Watson & Adams 2011, 228) Figure 2.17 Ñ View of Boston from Cambridge, Massachusetts (Source: Smart Growth America). The CLIMB analysis is significant because it places real values on the options coastal municipalities will be faced with over the next century. Watson and Adams summarize the report's findings: "failure to take any adaptation action is the least effective and most costly policy and that Planned Adaptation is the most effective and least costly long-term policy." ! Allen 47 Review of Literature

PAGE 58

Overlap in the Literature This research is situated between two large theoretical topics within the fields of planning and landscape architecture: urban recentralization and coastal resilience planning. The two subject areas seldom overlap explicitly in current academic discourse, although both have received considerable attention over the past few decades and share many end goals; for example, Beatley (2009) argues that to achieve coastal resilience, in addition to reducing vulnerability to natural disaster , it is necessary to "have a vision that conveys the possibility of dramatically improving quality of life" (60), something which is also arguably the main objective of recentralization efforts. What follows is a discussion of the overlap of these two concepts in terms of their three main shared objectives. It may be worthwhile to reiterate the definition of urban recentralization before discussing its overlap with coastal resilience planning: "Éa reversal of the urban organizational structure. It suggests the weakening of the model of a horizontal, sprawling metropolis with specialized and Ôvertical' polar concentrations or sub-centers, and reinforces the idea of the compact city with a large multi-functional core" (Pompili 2014, 314). Natural Resource Conservation The first shared objective is that of ecological and environmental stewardship. Beatley (2009) discusses Charleston County, South Carolina's vision plan as a case example of resilience despite the fact that the plan doesn't even mention "resilience," only "values and aspirations that come close Ñ for example, protecting the county's unique natural resource base and its diverse regional economy." He identifies the relevance and implications for resilience of natural resources, even when they aren't implemented explicitly for disaster resilience or mitigation: "the plan's natural resources section discusses at length the county's abundant wetlands and floodplains and contains language that supports the protection and conservation of these important natural areas" (130 131). Sociocultural Enhancement Beatley also discusses the master-planned redevelopment of Noisette, North Charleston, a former naval base, whose literature seldom uses the term "resilience," but focuses on the cultivation of a strong social component: "What is especially impressive and different É is the importance placed on community building and efforts to help reweave a strong social fabric in North Charleston. This focus may be as critical as anything in promoting resilience. Though Knott does not often use the word resilience , creating resilience is largely what he's doing" (159). Beatley continues to discuss social cohesion, sense of place, and cultural ties all in a framework of disaster resilience: "The many stories and vignettes of how communities have successfully adapted in the face of catastrophe, such as New Orleans Vietnamese neighborhood of Versailles after Hurricane Katrina, emphasize that in planning for resilience, the social and cultural aspects of a community are as important as the physical ones É Much of this interpersonal and neighborhood resilience will require a sense of commitment to community and place that is today, unfortunately, most absent in US communities. How to rebuild this commitment, how to restitch a network of helping, caring, citizens embedded in places they are committed to staying in and shepherding over will be one of our greatest challenges in the future É The context of place Ñ the history, landscape, and unique and special qualities of place, the climate and unique environment, and the shared cultural understandings Ñ is the backdrop of coastal living and the real and tangible tableau in which every resilience action occurs É Resilience and place strengthening go hand in hand. And, in turn, the steps that help to nurture stronger place commitments yield dividends in enhancing the ability and likelihood that when the need arises, residents and neighbors will step forward to help others and the larger community. Place commitments then, are critical to coastal resilience" (Beatley 2009, 164). Allen 48 Review of Literature

PAGE 59

Centralized Development Unabridged Architecture (2013) wrote, in a more explicit fashion, on the correlation between reduced auto dependence and resilience, whose benefits include not only reduced emissions and increased equity in evacuation capacity in times of emergency, but also stronger social resilience by fostering "more connected, compacted, and complete neighborhoods," and "many points of intersection between people of varied backgrounds and income levels": "In many ways, resilience is good urban design making cities for people rather than vehicles. Making places with safety built in, and robust connections between them. Designing for redundancy, so that if one part of the network fails, another part has the capacity to fulfill the demand" (47). In the Lee County Climate Resilience Strategy plan, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council included a section entitled "What Lee County Government Can Do to Increase Climate Change Resilience: Land Use Planning and Growth Management and the Urban, Suburban, and Rural Landscape" (2010, 92): "The fact that Florida's increase in vehicle miles of travel more than doubled the rate of population growth underscores the land use planning / climate change connection and the fact that most Floridians depend on a car to get to where they want to go. The predominant pattern of growth in the state (low density, disconnected development pushing into rural areas and away from urban areas) not only encourages more driving, but also requires it. That has led to longer commutes for daily activities, more time stuck in traffic (meaning higher carbon emissions), less green space to sequester carbon, and higher energy consumption. Those outcomes, coupled with limited opportunities for biking, walking, and transit due to the low density form of development, have only magnified Florida's greenhouse gas emissions (and explain why 40 percent of those emissions are attributable to transportation)" (SWFRPC 2010, 96). Below are select measures also from the Lee County Climate Resilience Strategy report, included for their applicability to sprawl repair: • Adopt an urban growth boundary or other measures to contain growth within a designated urban area. • Create a Main Street program to encourage reinvestment in existing downtowns. • Create an Employee Assisted Housing Program to encourage employees to live closer to work. • Designate priority growth areas for targeting infrastructure investments and other types of funding. • Enacting land use policies (for example, overlay zones), to minimize development in coastal hazard areas (locating it away from coastal hazards and retreating or relocating public facilities and infrastructure) and low lying interior areas. • Establish an assessment of GHG emissions as a part of the development review and environmental impact assessment processes. • Establish targets for reducing vehicle miles of travel in comprehensive plans and in metropolitan planning organization plans. • Establish zoning (for example, Agricultural Zoning and Conservation Design) and incentive programs (e.g., a purchase or transfer of development rights program) to protect farmland and natural systems. • Actively reduce automobile dependency in our area. • Consider transit oriented development and fight urban sprawl. • Incentivize development and redevelopment within the urban area. • Promote increased density and a reduction in the amount of impervious surface. • Site facilities next to one another to reduce travel time and maximize building use. • Target expenditures through the Capital Improvement Plan to existing neighborhoods and town centers to limit sprawl on the edge of town. • Use local zoning and land development regulations to require and/or provide incentives for compact mixed-use, Allen 49 Review of Literature

PAGE 60

walkable, and transit-oriented development, brownfield and greyfield redevelopment, and infill development. Incentives might include density bonuses or impact fee reductions or waivers. • Utilize Brownfields and Greyfields for government buildings. • Sustainability planning. • Work very closely with planning/community development to address climate change (SWFRPC 2010, 96-98) Finally, even the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has published guidelines for responsible coastal development that also portray an overlap between recentralization and resilience agendas. It becomes clear after even a survey of resilience literature as brief as this paper's that the agendas of recentralized development and coastal resilience planning have much in common, not just with each other, but also with urban and community planning in general. Beatley concludes Planning for coastal resilience with the following line: "at the end of the day, resilience is not about sacrifice so much as what is necessary for a safe, sustainable, and meaningful life for all coastal residents over a long arc of time" (2009, 165). Table 2.14 Ñ NOAA Smart Growth Principles for Coastal and Waterfront Communities (Watson & Adams 2011, 209). 1 Mix land uses, including water-dependent uses. 2 Take advantage of compact community design that enhances, preserves, and provides access to waterfront resources. 3 Provide a range of housing opportunities and choices to meet the needs of both seasonal and permanent residents. 4 Create walkable communities with physical and visual access to and along the waterfront for public use. 5 Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place that capitalizes on the waterfront's heritage. 6 Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and the critical environmental areas that characterize and support coastal and waterfront communities. 7 Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities and encourage waterfront revitalization. 8 Provide a variety of landand water-based transportation options. 9 Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective through consistent policies and coordinated permitting processes. 10 Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions, ensuring that public interests in and rights of access to the waterfront and coastal waters are upheld. Allen 50 Review of Literature

PAGE 61

Chapter 3 Assumptions & Delimitations Assumptions This research is founded on the scientific evidence that indicates: ! a change in climate, particularly in temperature, ! a rise in sea level and accelerating rate of coastal geologic change, and ! an increased severity and frequency of major tropical cyclones and associated storm surge. This paper is also founded on the conviction that although vulnerability is only anticipated to increase, inhabitants of coastal areas, and particularly barrier islands in Florida, will not want to retreat inland and thus will relocate to moderate-risk areas within these geographies, if they don't elect to protect against or accommodate sea level rise; and, finally, that the necessity of policy, planning, and design action to address these phenomena is continuously increasing. Delimitations Due to the limited resources and time frame (one year) of this research, this paper does not: ! attempt to accomplish any community engagement or survey of public opinion, ! undertake a cost estimation or cost-benefit analysis, ! engage community feedback on GIS analysis or final plans and recommendations, ! examine the implementation of protection or adaptation measures, or ! engage in extensive site analysis or reconnaissance. Limitations Due to the highly specific nature of this paper's research inquiry, many factors related to anthropogenic-induced coastal change were not fully regarded or thoroughly considered, although these factors are significant and warrant further research within the framework this paper sets up. Some of these factors include: ! process, policies, and politics of retreat and redevelopment, ! strategies for phased redevelopment, ! the maintenance of sense of place and local character, ! strategies for dealing with inundated areas, structures, and infrastructures, ! the implications of inundation to, or strategies for relocating or retrofitting, utilities, public infrastructure, and other critical facilities, ! carrying capacity and allowable hazard evacuation densities, ! emergency evacuation procedures and routes, ! potable water availability and saltwater intrusion, ! groundwater migration in response to hydrostatic pressure toward hydrostatic equilibrium , ! population growth projections for Florida and its coastal counties, and ! marsh migration (this research uses a bathtub model of inundation). This paper undertakes a very focused and specific approach towards examining the potential of recentralization to address issues of resilience; however, when the factors of coastal change, like those above, are taken into equal consideration, the likelihood of the recentralization method developed here to achieve coastal resilience is ostensibly lower Ñ this is an area in great need of further research: the viability of this approach when considered with any of the above additional factors. Allen 51 Assumptions & Delimitations

PAGE 62

Chapter 4 Methodology This paper will employ a sequential mixed-methods approach to determine if sprawl repair as espoused by Tachieva (2010) can achieve coastal resilience, as defined by Beatley (2009). In the first, qualitative phase of this project, a literature review was conducted to establish a base of knowledge for both topics from which the study can build off. Then, the second, quantitative, phase of the project consisted of applying the process set out by Tachieva (2010) to the study area using geographic information systems (GIS). This process, for "transforming sprawling developments into complete communities that have better economic, social, and environmental performance" (5) begins at the regional scale, and works down to the "building scale." Each scale includes steps for analyzing and "repairing" existing development. This GIS-based analysis is followed by a final, qualitative stage which involves evaluation of the results achieved through application of Tachieva's method against Beatley's nine elements of resilient coastal land use. These results are then discussed and finally, suggestions are made by the author, based on the evaluation against Beatley's nine elements in addition to findings from the literature review, for strategies to achieve a resilient coastal community. While Tachieva's method describes a process of identifying areas suitable for repair, she does not specify how to identify sprawl itself, and so another definitive source was needed as a base for identifying decentralization within the study area. A recent study sponsored by Smart Growth America, attempts to measure the characteristics of sprawl and their impacts on quality of life. In this study, sprawl is defined as "low-density development with residential, shopping and office areas that are rigidly segregated; a lack of thriving activity centers; and limited choices in travel routes" (Ewing et al. 2003, 1). The study "operationalizes" sprawl by combining variables into four factors (density, land use mix, degree of centering, and street accessibility). Though the study utilizes complex statistical, variable, and standardized analytical techniques to determine the values of these four factors in multiple metropolitan regions, these processes are not within the scope of this project. This paper will, however, reference the four factors of sprawl characteristics as a baseline for determining areas of decentralization in the study area using GIS. What follows is the GIS workflow, organized in a format of actionable Goals and Objectives: Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling units per acre. 1.2 Identify areas with single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine areas with low mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine areas with limited land use variety. 1.3 Identify areas with a low degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1 1.4 Identify areas with limited choices in travel routes based on road density. 2 Next, Tachieva's Regional Scale Process is applied using GIS to identify the logical places for retrofit and repair . This regional mapping integrates analysis of projected economic and demographic growth, existing transportation, infrastructure, commercial nodes, natural resources, housing, and job concentrations. What follows is an adaptation of the steps she lays out for the process at the regional scale for specific application to GIS-based suitability analysis: This excerpt from Ewing et. al. describes degree of centering, corresponding to Objective 0.3: 1 "Metropolitan centers are concentrations of activity that provide agglomeration economies, support alternative modes and multipurpose trip making, create a sense of place in the urban landscape, and otherwise differentiate compact metros from sprawling ones. Centeredness can exist with respect to population or employment, and with respect to a single dominant center or multiple subcenters. The technical literature associates compactness with centers of all types, and sprawl with the absence of centers of any type. " (22) This excerpt from Ewing et. al. describes street accessibility, corresponding to Objective 0.4: 2 "Street networks can be dense or sparse, interconnected or disconnected, straight or curved. Blocks carved out by streets can be short and small, or long and large. Sparse, discontinuous, curvilinear networks creating long, large blocks have come to be associated with the concept of sprawl, while their antithesis is associated with compact development patterns. " (24) Allen 52 Methodology

PAGE 63

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION ). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify existing managed areas and conservation lands. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION ). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Goal 3 Prioritize commercial and employment nodes. 3.1 Identify the high-priority targets for redevelopment or conversion to regional urban cores; assign a service area radius [SAR] of 4 miles. 3.1.1 Identify employment hub s. 3.1.1.1 Identify school locations. 3.1.1.2 Identify hospital locations. 3.1.1.3 Identify military base locations. 3.1.1.4 Identify private employer locations. 3.1.2 Identify regional shopping centers . 3.2 Identify the moderate-priority nodes for redevelopment or conversion to town centers; assign an SAR of 1 mile. 3.2.1 Identify strip shopping centers. 3.2.2 Identify office parks. 3.3 Identify targets to be given low priority for redevelopment or conversion to neighborhood nodes; assign an SAR of 1/4 mile. 3.3.1 Identify convenience stores. 3.3.2 Identify gas stations. [adapted from Regional Scale Process, 36-44] It is worth noting that in Tachieva's Regional Scale Process she also includes a scheme for prioritizing potential transit and infrastructure networks (40-41), in which she instructs one to analyze the existing thoroughfare and transit network, including roadways, railways, bicycle, pedestrian, and bus routes. Because no railways run through this study area (the main rail line is mainland, rather than beachside), the bus service Ñ in Brevard County in general and especially in beachside communities Ñ is extremely limited and irregular, and the only designated multi-use pathway is along the Eau Gallie Causeway, this section of Tachieva's process was not addressed in this project, due to an insufficient amount of existing infrasture. This occlusion is not meant in any way to detract from the importance of an integrated and multifunctional transit network; a prioritization analysis in this case was simply not applicable at the regional scale. ! Allen 53 Methodology

PAGE 64

Allen 54 Methodology

PAGE 65

Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling unit per acre. 1.2 Identify single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine land use variety. 1.3 Identify degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1.4 Identify limited choices in travel routes based on road density. Process The content of Goal 1 was taken from the Ewing et al. study, "Measuring sprawl and its impact." The first objective, identifying low-density residential areas, was completed by utilizing the St. Johns River Water Management District Land Use and Cover (2009) dataset, which uses the Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS). FLUCCS classifies residential areas based on their density: • Low density: less than 2 dwelling units per acre • Medium density: 2 5 dwelling units per acre • High density: 6 or more dwelling units per acre Goal 1 utilizes a suitability scale ranging from 1 (not indicative of sprawl) to 5 (indicative of sprawl). Utilizing the reclassify tool in ArcGIS and this suitability scale, the areas in this layer were reclassified based on the following values: • Non-residential: 1 • High density: 1 • Medium density: 3 • Low density: 5 Allen 55 Methodology

PAGE 66

Allen 56 Methodology

PAGE 67

Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling unit per acre. 1.2 Identify single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine land use variety. 1.3 Identify degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1.4 Identify limited choices in travel routes based on road density. Process Objective 1.2.1, determining mixed-use parcel density, was completed by utilizing the statewide parcel dataset (2012), which was clipped to the study area. The mixed use parcels were selected using attribute data (the LU code for mixed-use is 012), and converted to point data so that they could be used in the Kernel Density tool, whose radius was set to 800 meters (based on a 0.5 mile or 10 minute walking radius). The results were then reclassified based on the results of a zonal statistics analysis, which used the urban area limits of Downtown Cocoa Beach as the feature zone data ( see Figure 4.1 ). The Zonal Statistics as a Table tool calculates statistics on the values of a raster within the zones of another dataset. In this study, the feature zone (Downtown Cocoa Beach) serves as a local example representative of the desirable qualities of a coastal community, based on the author's preexisting knowledge of the area's attributes, including mix of use, residential density, development centralization, and connectivity. These parameters of the zonal statistics analysis remain constant and this process is used repeatedly throughout this phase of the project. In each instance, the mean value and standard deviation of the objective grid within the limits of the feature zone is calculated by the Zonal Statistics as a Table tool. In this case, the mean value was calculated as 0.08 mixed-use parcels per 0.5 mi radius , and the standard deviation was 0.4. • 1: 0.64 1.21 mixed-use parcels per 0.5 mi radius (most) • 2: 0.48 0.64 mixed-use parcels per 0.5 mi radius • 3: 0.24 0.48 mixed-use parcels per 0.5 mi radius • 4: 0.08 0.24 mixed-use parcels per 0.5 mi radius • 5: 0.00 0.08 mixed-use parcels per 0.5 mi radius (least) ! Allen 57 Methodology Figure 4.1

PAGE 68

• Allen 58 Methodology

PAGE 69

Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling unit per acre. 1.2 Identify single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine land use variety. 1.3 Identify degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1.4 Identify limited choices in travel routes based on road density. Process Objective 1.2.2, determining land use variety, was also completed by utilizing the statewide parcel dataset (2012) clipped to the study area. This data was used in the Focal Statistics tool, using the variety statistics function, which calculates the number of unique values (in this case, land use types) of cells in the neighborhood. The neighborhood was defined by a radius of 400 meters (roughly equivalent to a 0.25 mile, or 5 minute walking radius). The results of this function were then reclassified based on a zonal statistics analysis, using the mean focal variety value of the feature zone (Downtown Cocoa Beach). In this case, the mean value was calculated as 17.31 different uses per 0.25 mi radius, and the standard deviation was 8.16. • 1: 29.55 33 different uses per 0.25 mi radius (most land use variety) • 2: 25.47 29.55 different uses per 0.25 mi radius • 3: 21.39 25.47 different uses per 0.25 mi radius • 4: 17.31 21.39 different uses per 0.25 mi radius • 5: 0.00 17.31 different uses per 0.25 mi radius (least land use variety) ! Allen 59 Methodology

PAGE 70

• Allen 60 Methodology

PAGE 71

Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling unit per acre. 1.2 Identify single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine land use variety. 1.3 Identify degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1.4 Identify limited choices in travel routes based on road density. Process Objective 1.2, identifying single-use development, was completed by combining subobjectives 1 and 2 (mixed-use parcel density and land use variety, respectively), using a simple weighted sum operation where each raster was assigned an equal value of 0.5. ! Allen 61 Methodology

PAGE 72

Allen 62 Methodology

PAGE 73

Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling unit per acre. 1.2 Identify single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine land use variety. 1.3 Identify degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1.4 Identify limited choices in travel routes based on road density. Process Objective 1.3, identifying degree of centeredness, was completed by determining the density of parcels, again using the statewide parcel dataset. Again, the Kernel Density tool was used, with the radius set to 400 meters (0.25 mile or 5 minute walking radius), and the values were reclassified based on a zonal statistics analysis, using the mean parcel density value of the feature zone (Downtown Cocoa Beach). In this case, the mean value was calculated as 9.91 parcels per 0.25 mi radius, and the standard deviation was 3.14. • 1: 14.61 32.55 parcels per 0.25 mi radius (high parcel density) • 2: 13.05 14.61 parcels per 0.25 mi radius • 3: 11.48 13.05 parcels per 0.25 mi radius • 4: 9.91 11.48 parcels per 0.25 mi radius • 5: 0 9.91 parcels per 0.25 mi radius (low parcel density) ! Allen 63 Methodology

PAGE 74

• Allen 64 Methodology

PAGE 75

Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling unit per acre. 1.2 Identify single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine land use variety. 1.3 Identify degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1.4 Identify limited choices in travel routes based on road density. Process Objective 1.4, identifying choice in travel routes, was completed by determining the road density, using the USGS roads shapefile (2002) clipped to the study area. This data was processed with the Line Density tool, with the radius set to 400 meters (0.25 mile or 5 minute walking radius). The Line Density tool calculates length of the portion of any line that falls within the circle, adds them together, and the total is divided by the circle's area. The values were reclassified based on the results of the zonal statistics analysis.In this case, the mean value was calculated as 0.0028 mi of road per 0.25 mi radius, and the standard deviation was 0.0005. • 1: 0.0036 0.0043 mi of road per 0.25 mi radius (high road density) • 2: 0.0033 0.0036 mi of road per 0.25 mi radius • 3: 0.0031 0.0033 mi of road per 0.25 mi radius • 4: 0.0028 0.0031 mi of road per 0.25 mi radius • 5: 0.0000 0.0028 mi of road per 0.25 mi radius (low road density) ! Allen 65 Methodology

PAGE 76

• Allen 66 Methodology

PAGE 77

Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. 1.1 Identify low-density residential areas, based on dwelling unit per acre. 1.2 Identify single-use development . 1.2.1 Determine mixed-use parcel density. 1.2.2 Determine land use variety. 1.3 Identify degree of centeredness based on parcel density. 1.4 Identify limited choices in travel routes based on road density. Process Goal 1, identifying areas with characteristics of sprawl, was completed by combining the results of objectives 1 4 (each of which was already classified on the 1 5 scale of suitability) through a simple weighted sum operation, where each grid was given an equal weighting of 0.25. ! Allen 67 Methodology

PAGE 78

! Allen 68 Methodology

PAGE 79

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION ). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process The second goal focuses on the delineation of areas where development is legally prohibited or restricted (lands already in conservation ) (Objective 1), and areas where development should not occur (lands that, for environmental 3 reasons, should be preserved) (Objective 2). Tachieva specifies three types of conservation land: wetlands, managed areas, and cultural areas (Subobjectives 1 3, respectively). Wetlands were isolated from the St. Johns River Water Management District Land Use and Cover (2009) dataset, using the FLUCCS attributes to select wetland areas. Goals 2 and 3 use a suitability scale ranging from 1 (not desirable for repair) to 5 (desirable for repair) . Once the wetlands were isolated, they were converted from features to raster data, and reclassified based on the following: • 1: wetland • 5: upland ! Tachieva uses the term "preservation" for lands that are legally protected, but "conservation" is used in lieu of her term 3 throughout the paper as it is the more locally common designation for natural and cultural resource areas managed by official entities and agencies. Allen 69 Methodology

PAGE 80

• ! Allen 70 Methodology

PAGE 81

Goal 2 Delineate con servation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process To complete objective 2 (identify managed areas), the Florida managed areas dataset (2014) was clipped to the study area and reclassified based on the following: • 1: managed area • 5: unmanaged area ! Allen 71 Methodology

PAGE 82

• Allen 72 Methodology

PAGE 83

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process To complete objective 3 (identify culturally significant areas), two separate datasets were used. The first, Historical structure locations (2015), created by the Bureau of Archaeological Research , was intersected with the parcels shapefile to convert it from point data to polygon data. The second dataset, the greenways project cultural and historic features dataset (1999), was created by the University of Florida GeoPlan Center during the greenways network prioritization project, and includes features recommended by the Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, and Florida Department of State, and was edited by the GeoPlan Center, DEP Office of Greenways and Trails, and through public c omment (Regional Greenways Task Force). Both of these datasets were clipped to the study area and reclassified based on the following: • 1: cultural conservation area • 5: not a cultural conservation area ! Allen 73 Methodology

PAGE 84

• Allen 74 Methodology

PAGE 85

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process Objective 1 (define those areas already in conservation) was completed simply by compiling the shapefiles of subobjectives 1 3, converting to raster, and reclassifying based on: • 1: conservation area • 5: not conservation area ! Allen 75 Methodology

PAGE 86

• ! Allen 76 Methodology

PAGE 87

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process Objective 2 delineates areas that are not currently in conservation, but should be reserved for environmental and ecological reasons, and thus should not be developed, though development in these areas is not necessarily legally prohibited. Tachieva calls these lands "reservation" areas, and considers two criteria: floodplains and environmentally significant or sensitive areas. Floodplains were isolated from the FEMA flood insurance rate maps (1996), based on a designation of whether they are in or out of the special flood hazard area (SFHA): • 1: in SFHA • 5: out of SFHA ! Allen 77 Methodology

PAGE 88

• ! Allen 78 Methodology

PAGE 89

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process Subobjective 2, environmentally significant or sensitive areas, was determined from the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project dataset developed by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The aggregated CLIP 3.0 Resource Priorities include five priority levels depicting conservation significance for protecting biodiversity, landscape attributes, and high quality surface water resources at the statewide scale Ñ CLIP Priority 1 represents the highest conservation priority. The CLIP 3.0 priorities raster was reclassified based on the following: • 1: CLIP Priority 1, 2, 3 • 2: CLIP Priority 4 • 3: CLIP Priority 5 • 5: CLIP Priority 0 ! Allen 79 Methodology

PAGE 90

• ! Allen 80 Methodology

PAGE 91

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process The combination of subobjectives 1 and 2 (floodplains and CLIP priorities) was completed with the Raster Calculator tool, with the following conditional statement, where G2O2SO1 represents Objective 2.2.1 and G2O2SO2 represents Objective 2.2.2: Con(G2O2SO1 == 1, 1, G2O2SO2) This means that any areas that are within the FEMA designated flood area will retain a value of one (not desirable for development), and the remaining areas will inherit the values of the Subobjective 2 (CLIP priorities) raster. ! Allen 81 Methodology

PAGE 92

Allen 82 Methodology

PAGE 93

Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. 2.1 Define those spaces already preserved in perpetuity (CONSERVATION). 2.1.1 Identify jurisdictional wetlands. 2.1.2 Identify managed areas. 2.1.3 Identify culturally significant areas. 2.2 Define those spaces that should be preserved in perpetuity (RESERVATION). 2.2.1 Identify floodplains. 2.2.2 Identify environmentally significant or sensitive areas . Process The final grid for Goal 2 was created by combining objectives 1 and 2 (conservation and reservation, respectively), also using the Raster Calculator tool. The conditional statement for this operation is as follows, where G2O1 represents Goals 2.1 and G2O2 represents Objective 2.2: Con(G2O1 ==1, 1, G2O2) This means that any conservation area will retain a value of one (not desirable for development) while the remaining areas will inherit the values of the reservation grid. ! Allen 83 Methodology

PAGE 94

Allen 84 Methodology

PAGE 95

Goal 3 Prioritize commercial and employment nodes. 3.1 Identify high-priority targets for redevelopment to regional urban cores; assign an SAR of 4 miles. 3.1.1 Identify employment hubs. 3.1.1.1 Identify school locations. 3.1.1.2 Identify hospital locations. 3.1.1.3 Identify military base locations. 3.1.1.4 Identify private employer locations. 3.1.2 Identify regional shopping centers. 3.2 Identify moderate-priority targets for redevelopment to town centers; assign an SAR of 1 mile. 3.2.1 Identify strip shopping centers. 3.2.2 Identify office parks. 3.3 Identify low-priority targets for redevelopment to neighborhood nodes; assign an SAR of 1/4 mile. 3.3.1 Identify convenience stores. 3.3.2 Identify gas stations. Process The third goal focuses on determining areas suitable for redevelopment based on proximity to existing commercial and employment areas, and breaks these areas into three levels of redevelopment priority: regional urban cores, town centers, and neighborhood nodes. Tachieva suggests a different service area radii (SAR) for each priority level. The first objective determines areas suitable for repair to regional urban cores, based on employment hub and regional commercial center locations. Tachieva lists schools, hospitals, military bases, and private employers as the locations of potential employment hubs. Schools and hospitals were both located through datasets from the Florida Geographic Data Library [FGDL] (2012; 2009), and the single military base in the area was isolated from the statewide parcels shapefile (2012). The top ten employers of the county were identified by the Brevard County Planning and Zoning Office as: Finally, regional shopping centers were identified using the statewide parcel data (LU Code 015) . These datasets 4 were combined into one shapefile on which a buffer operation was performed, applying Tachieva's suggested SAR by setting the maximum radius at 4 mi (but, because the study area is so small, the maximum distance from a highpriority target did not exceed 3 m i), and reclassified into the 1-5 suitability scale based on Natural Jenks breaks: • 5: under 0.35 miles • 4: 0.35 0.88 miles • 3: 0.88 1.08 miles • 2: 1.08 2.63 miles • 1: over 2.63 miles ! The following is an excerpt of the Department of Revenue's Land Use Codes from the 2012 statewide parcel dataset metadata for 4 commercial properties: 011 Stores, one story 012 Mixed use store and office or store and residential or residential combination 013 Department Stores 014 Supermarkets 015 Regional Shopping Centers 016 Community Shopping Centers 017 Office buildings, non-professional service buildings, one story 018 Office buildings, non-professional service buildings, multi-story 024 Insurance company offices Allen 85 Methodology • School Board of Brevard County (8,222) • United Space Alliance (6,400) • Health First (5,958) • Patrick Air Force Base (5,900) • Harris Corporation (5,000) • Space Gateway Support (3,000) • Publix (2,828) • Brevard Board of County Commissioners (2,929) • Wal-Mart (2,620) • Wuesthoff Health Systems (2,000)

PAGE 96

• ! Allen 86 Methodology

PAGE 97

Goal 3 Prioritize commercial and employment nodes. 3.1 Identify high-priority targets for redevelopment to regional urban cores; assign an SAR of 4 miles. 3.1.1 Identify employment hubs. 3.1.2 Identify regional shopping centers. 3.2 Identify moderate-priority targets for redevelopment to town centers; assign an SAR of 1 mile. 3.2.1 Identify strip shopping centers. 3.2.2 Identify office parks. 3.3 Identify low-priority targets for redevelopment to neighborhood nodes; assign an SAR of 1/4 mile. 3.3.1 Identify convenience stores. 3.3.2 Identify gas stations. Process The second objective determines areas suitable for redevelopment to town centers, based on strip shopping center and office park locations. Both targets were obtainable through the statewide parcels dataset. • strip shopping centers (LU Code 013, 014, 016) • office parks (LU Code 017, 018, 024) These datasets were combined into one shapefile on which the buffer operation was performed, applying Tachieva's suggested SAR by setting the maximum radius as 1 mile, and reclassified into the 1 5 suitability scale based on a Natural Jenks breaking. • 5: under 0.15 miles • 4: 0.15 0.30 miles • 3: 0.30 0.50 miles • 2: 0.50 0.75 miles • 1: over 0.75 miles ! Allen 87 Methodology

PAGE 98

• ! Allen 88 Methodology

PAGE 99

Goal 3 Prioritize commercial and employment nodes. 3.1 Identify high-priority targets for redevelopment to regional urban cores; assign an SAR of 4 miles. 3.1.1 Identify employment hubs. 3.1.2 Identify regional shopping centers. 3.2 Identify moderate-priority targets for redevelopment to town centers; assign an SAR of 1 mile. 3.2.1 Identify strip shopping centers. 3.2.2 Identify office parks. 3.3 Identify low-priority targets for redevelopment to neighborhood nodes; assign an SAR of 1/4 mile. 3.3.1 Identify convenience stores. 3.3.2 Identify gas stations. Process The third objective determines areas suitable for repair to neighborhood nodes, based on convenience store and gas station locations. Both targets were obtainable through the statewide parcels dataset. • convenience stores (LU Code 011) • gas stations (LU Code 026) These datasets were combined into one shapefile on which the buffer operation was performed, applying Tachieva's suggested SAR by setting the maximum radius to 1/4 mile, and reclassified into the 1 5 suitability scale based on a Natural Jenks breaking: • 5: under 0.04 miles • 4: 0.04 0.10 miles • 3: 0.10 0.15 miles • 2: 0.15 0.20 miles • 1: over 0.20 miles ! Allen 89 Methodology

PAGE 100

• ! Allen 90 Methodology

PAGE 101

Goal 3 Prioritize commercial and employment nodes. 3.1 Identify high-priority targets for redevelopment to regional urban cores; assign an SAR of 4 miles. 3.1.1 Identify employment hubs. 3.1.2 Identify regional shopping centers. 3.2 Identify moderate-priority targets for redevelopment to town centers; assign an SAR of 1 mile. 3.2.1 Identify strip shopping centers. 3.2.2 Identify office parks. 3.3 Identify low-priority targets for redevelopment to neighborhood nodes; assign an SAR of 1/4 mile. 3.3.1 Identify convenience stores. 3.3.2 Identify gas stations. Process The objectives of Goal 3 were combined into one final grid using the Weighted Sum tool, applying an equal weighting of 0.33 to each objective raster. Allen 91 Methodology

PAGE 102

! Allen 92 Methodology

PAGE 103

Sector Plan Determine areas suitable for redevelopment . Goal 1 Determine areas with characteristics of sprawl within the study area. Goal 2 Delineate conservation and reservation areas. Goal 3 Prioritize commercial and employment nodes. Process Again, the purpose of Goal 1 was to identify areas with characteristics of sprawl, since Tachieva's method describes a process of identifying areas suitable for repair and not a process of identifying sprawl itself Ñ it is my guess that she assumes that whoever is undertaking the task of sprawl repair has pre-existing knowledge of a particular area of decentralized development. The study by Ewing et al., not related to or associated with Tachieva's method, was utilized as a supplemental resource. Their study lent the four factors of sprawl indicators (density, land use mix, degree of centering, and street accessibility) which created the four objectives of Goal 1, which determined areas of decentralization in the study area using GIS. In other words, the results of Goal 1 represent areas indicative of sprawl, and in the process also simultaneously show areas not indicative of sprawl. It has been my realization after the completion of Goal 1, as well as Goals 2 and 3, that it may be more judicious, at least in this study, for Goal 1 to be combined with Goals 2 and 3 to enhance the determination of areas suitable for redevelopment Ñ particularly because Tachieva doesn't identify areas of sprawl or decentralization in their own right; this is why I needed to further define the locations to prioritize for recentralization. This is, in essence, modifying Tachieva's method; however, I defend the validity of this choice, because of the unique characteristics of the study area: namely, 1) the unique challenges in density and connectivity created by the barrier island geography of the study area, and, 2) the highly decentralized existing fabric of communities in the study area. It seems to me that rather than apply an infill redevelopment strategy (as that espoused by Tachieva) to highly decentralized and low-density areas (as those GIS result areas indicative of sprawl), that, at least in this particular study, it would be much more prudent to apply this redevelopment strategy to areas already indicative of centralized, well-connected, variable use, and high density development, because, in this study area, there are not any urban cores that are maximally or completely built out (or up). For Goal 1 to be combined with Goals 2 and 3 to enhance the determination of areas suitable for redevelopment, this implies that Goal 1 must be inverted in suitability scale (from 1 5 (not indicative of sprawl indicative of sprawl) to 5 1 (desirable for repair not desirable for repair) ). Once this reclassification was complete, Goals 1 3 were combined using the Raster Calculator tool. The conditional statement used was as follows, where G1 represents Goal 1, G2 represents Goal 2, and G3 represents Goal 3: Con(G2 == 1, 1, ((G1 + G2 + G3) / 3)) This means that any conservation land will retain its value of one (not suitable for redevelopment), while the remaining areas will inherit the average of the values from Goal 1, Goal 2, and Goal 3. The results show that the areas of relatively centralized, well-connected, variable use, and high density development , as well as those areas near employment and commercial activity, and that do not interfere with environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant areas, are the areas most well suitable for recentralization, as it is defined by the hybrid geospatial process informed by the work of Tachieva and Ewing et al. ! Allen 93 Methodology

PAGE 104

! Allen 94 Methodology

PAGE 105

Final site selection Finally, it is essential to take a closer look at which areas have the highest suitability values. Theoretically, these are the areas that would serve as the ideal receiving locations for populations retreating from areas impacted by direct inundation as well as associated coastal changes. This map shows areas whose suitability values are equal to or higher than 4. These high-suitability areas are in existing communities: Merritt Island along Courtenay Parkway, Cape Canaveral along A1A, Cocoa Beach (the tourism district and the historic downtown), and a few discrete patches in Satellite Beach and Indian Harbor Beach along A1A and South Patrick Drive. Allen 95 Methodology

PAGE 106

Chapter 5 Findings & Analysis Before the findings are discussed, it may be worthwhile to reiterate the primary question that this paper researches: can managed retreat via urban recentralization methods (in this specific study taking form as a modification of the regional sprawl repair process espoused by Tachieva) achieve coastal resilience (in this study, as defined by Beatley)? What follows is an evaluation of the results of the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis against Beatley's nine Key Elements of Resilient Coastal Land Use, followed by suggestions to increase resilience capacity. A few of the elements are less relevant at the regional scale, which is the scale at which the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis investigates, and thus are not evaluated as comprehensively as other elements. It also may be prudent to reiterate that this study's methodology evolved toward the end of the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis. Again, I decided that in this study area, instead of "repair sprawl," (i.e. redevelop in areas of low-density and low-connectivity) to infill, redevelop, and increase density in areas that already have characteristics of relatively centralized development, based on the unique challenges in density and connectivity created by the barrier island geography and the highly decentralized existing fabric of communities in the study area. Result Evaluation Element 1 Population and development should be located, to the extent possible, outside of and away from high-risk coastal hazard zones. Buildings should be set back a substantial distance from coastal high hazard areas, and no or very little development should be allowed within 100-year floodplains. Discussion Because neither Tachieva or Ewing et al. include in their discussions a context of coastal habitation, it is not surprising that their methodologies don't include consideration of high-risk coastal shorelines, though Tachieva does take care to mention that floodplains are a type of reservation land ("should be, but are not yet, protected from development and are candidates for transfer of development rights"), and as a result, all of the high-suitability redevelopment selections are located outside of floodzones. Beatley is somewhat vague about high-risk coastal shorelines (i.e. he does not specify the qualifications of risk), although it is certainly necessary to understand which shorelines are most vulnerable when planning for redevelopment. One possible interpretation of high-risk coastal zone may be the V and VE zones delineated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), which is the coastal area subject to a velocity hazard, or wave action. It is worth mentioning as well that Tachieva simply uses the term "floodplain," which was interpreted by the author and applied using GIS with the FIRM's attribute data of in or out of the special flood hazard area (SFHA). SFHAs include the A and V Zones (100-year floodplain and velocity zones, respectively). Because of this interpretation of Tachieva's terminology, the high-suitability redevelopment selections are outside of the 100-year flood zones as well as the velocity zones. While the high-suitability redevelopment selections are outside of currently flood-prone areas, neither Tachieva, Ewing et al., or even Beatley , discuss the importance of planning development outside of lands inundated by future sea level rise. At first glance, a comparison between these final high-suitability redevelopment selections and the sea level rise projections illustrate the failure of the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis to inherently select locations not susceptible to coastal change (see page 100 ) Ñ although this is not an unanticipated finding. Allen 96 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 107

Source: FEMA, Flood Hazard Assessments and Mapping Requirements ( www.fema.gov/business/nfip/fhamr.shtm ) Suggestions • Use specific flood-zone terminology when delineating the floodplains that development should not infringe on. • Specifically recommend the placement of planned development outside of areas projected to be inundated by future sea level rise (at least +1.0 meter). Element 2 Coastal growth patterns should build onto the historic patterns of towns and villages that typically exist in coastal regions. Relatively compact, mixed-use villages and towns dot the American coastal landscape, from New England to the South, and can serve as the linchpins of a more sustainable and resilient growth pattern. Infill development and redevelopment of brownfield, greyfield, and previously committed land should be favored over greenfield locations. Element 3 Coastal land use patterns should be compact and walkable and simultaneously conserve land, reduce car dependence and energy consumption, and allow the possibility of healthier lifestyles and living patterns. Element 4 Coastal land use policies and regulations should be enacted to protect, preserve, and restore ecological systems and natural features such as wetlands, forests, and riparian systems. These provide valuable natural serves and also help mitigate natural disasters such as coastal storms and flooding. Element 6 Community land use patterns should promote social and community interaction by creating pedestrianfriendly streets, sidewalks, and gathering places and a vibrant public realm that includes "third places" such as parks and plazas, farmers' markets, and the like. Land use patterns should also help to strengthen place bonds by recognizing and nurturing features that make the community distinctive, such as preserving historic buildings and connections to a community's past. Table 5.1 Ñ National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood zones. Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) Zone V and VE V The coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action) where BFEs are not determined on the FIRM. VE The coastal area subject to a velocity hazard (wave action) where BFEs are provided on the FIRM. Zone A The 100-year or base floodplain. There are seven types of A Zones: A The base floodplain mapped by approximate methods, i.e., BFEs are not determined. This is often called an unnumbered A Zone or an approximate A Zone. A1-30 These are known as numbered A Zones (e.g., A7 or A14). This is the base floodplain where the FIRM shows a BFE (old format). AE The base floodplain where base flood elevation are provided. AE Zones are now used on new format FIRMS instead of A1 A30 Zones. AO The base floodplain with sheet flow, ponding, or shallow flooding. Base flood depths (feet above ground) are provided. AH Shallow flooding base floodplain. BFEs are provided. A99 Area to be protected from base flood by levees or Federal Flood Protection Systems under construction. BFEs are not determined. AR The base floodplain that results from the decertification of a previously accredited flood protection system that is in the process of being restored to provide a 100-year or greater level of flood protection. Outside SFHA or Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone B and X (shaded) Area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods. B Zones are also used to designate base flooplains of lesser hazards, such as areas protected by levees from the 100-year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than 1 foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Zone C and X (unshaded) Area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMS as above the 500-year flood level. Zone C may have ponding and local drainage problems that don't warrant a detailed study or designation as base floodplain. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500-year flood and protected by levee from 100-year flood. Zone D Area of undetermined but possible flood hazards. Allen 97 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 108

Discussion Elements 2, 3, 4, and 6 are illustrative of how much Beatley's definition and Tachieva's method intrinsically hold in common. Compact, mixed-use, village-style, infill development and redevelopment that reduces auto dependence and resource demand is exactly what Tachieva's method attempts to foster, and is further underpinned by the borrowed definitions of Ewing et al. Tachieva also explicitly advises to avoid conservation areas and ecologically and environmentally significant lands. While the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis does not prescribe specific facets of the above four elements (i.e. a "vibrant public realm," the designation of "farmers' markets," or define a structuring around "historic patterns of [coastal] towns and villages,"), it delineates the most suitable areas in which these developments could occur. The recentralization zones are not a plan in and of themselves, they are simply sites selected through an informed geospatial analysis. With that said, future plans that may come about from other hybrid recentralization suitability analyses should not be taken as sole or comprehensive plans for sea level rise adaptation. Beatley writes that, to achieve coastal resilience, in addition to reducing vulnerability to natural disaster , it is necessary to "have a vision that conveys the possibility of dramatically improving quality of life" (2009, 60), something which is also arguably the main objective of recentralization efforts. Element 5 Land use patterns and community design should incorporate direct access to nature and natural systems. The emotional and psychological benefits provided by parks, trails, and water access points are an integral part of creating a healthy coastal community. Discussion Tachieva does not directly specify proximity to natural areas as requisite for redevelopment targets, although she does advocate for the continued protection and undeveloped status of natural resources. She also doesn't address issues of water access, although this is presumably because of her generalist-method of instruction. Suggestions • Plan for access to conservation and reservation natural areas, specifically those coastal areas, hydrologic systems, and surface water bodies that make seaside communities unique. Element 7 Critical facilities such as hospitals and police and fire stations should be sited outside of high-risk locations, and in places where in the event of a major community disruption they will remain functional. Water and sewage treatment plants should be sited outside of high-risk zones and designed similarly to operate after a disaster event. Element 8 Essential community lifelines and infrastructure should be designed and integrated into a community's land use to reduce exposure and vulnerability and to ensure operability during and after community disruptions. Examples include elevating roads, placing power lines underground, and shifting to distributed energy systems that minimize large power outages. Discussion Likely because it is typically not a concern outside of the realm of disaster preparation, the protection of critical facilities and infrasture was not accounted for by Tachieva or Ewing et al. For example, the sole hospital location in the study area experiences some flooding at the +1.0 meter level, and is mostly inundated by +2.0 meter rise. Police, fire, power, and communication stations, as well as water and sewage plants, are examples of critical facilities that must be protected or sited outside of vulnerable zones so that they can function after a disaster event. Suggestions Allen 98 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 109

• Protect or relocate existing police, fire, power, and communication stations, as well as hospitals and water and sewage plants outside of zones of high-risk and vulnerability. • For recentralization zones and other receiving locations of retreating populations, the elevation of potentially inundated roads, underground placement of power lines, and adoption of a distributed energy system should be incorporated into the area's comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plans, and land development code. Element 9 Land use patterns should emphasize the benefits of green infrastructure over conventional infrastructure that will be more likely to fail in disaster events. Green infrastructure might include stormwater management; smallscale on-site stormwater collection and retention; green rooftops and living walls and building facades; and trees and tree canopy coverage, which offer cooling and shading benefits that minimize reliance on mechanical and energyintensive approaches. Discussion Simply because Element 9 focuses on the site and building scale, Tachieva's regional scale process does not address issues of green infrastructure. Suggestions • Incorporate green infrastructure techniques, such as site-scale stormwater management, green roofs, and urban canopy cultivation, into the comprehensive plan and land development code. Allen 99 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 110

Allen 100 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 111

Findings Summary & Final Recommendations To summarize the findings, the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis, informed by Tachieva (2010) and Ewing et al. (2003), when evaluated qualitatively against Beatley's nine Key Elements of Resilient Coastal Land Use (2009), achieves four Key Elements (2, 3, 4, and 6), begins to address two (Elements 1 and 5 ), and simply does not address three (Elements 7, 8, and 9). What follows is a compilation of the recommendations resulting from this evaluation, as well as some others, based on the findings of the literature review, intended to develop a more comprehensive, holistic approach towards building a resilient coastal community. Recommendations for improving the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis. Recommendation 1 Use specific flood-zone terminology when delineating the floodplains that development should not infringe on. The V and VE zones delineated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) area coastal areas subject to velocity hazard, or wave action, and the A zone is the 100-year floodplain. The Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) Table 5.2 Ñ Comprehensive evaluation results. Hybrid recentralization suitability analysis (informed by Tachieva 2010 and Ewing et al. 2003) Beatley's nine Key Elements of Resilient Coastal Land Use (2009) Achieves Addresses Does not address 1 Away from high-risk coastal hazard zones X 2 Traditional mixed-use growth X 3 Compact, walkable, healthy X 4 Protection and preservation of ecological systems X 5 Access to nature X 6 Promotion of social and community interaction X 7 Critical facilities sited outside of high-risk locations X 8 Essential infrastructure designed into land use X 9 Green infrastructure X Table 5.3 Ñ Comprehensive list of suggestions to incorporate into hybrid recentralization suitability analysis. AT THE REGIONAL SCALE • Use specific flood-zone terminology when delineating the floodplains that development should not infringe on. • Specifically recommend the placement of planned development outside of future inundation projections (at least +1.0 meter). • Plan for access to conservation and reservation natural areas, specifically those coastal areas, hydrologic systems, and surface water bodies that make seaside communities unique. • Protect or relocate existing police, fire, power, and communication stations, as well as hospitals and water and sewage plants outside of zones of high-risk and vulnerability. AT THE COMMMUNITY SCALE • For relocated population accommodation and redevelopment zones, the elevation of potentially inundated roads, underground placement of power lines, and adoption of a distributed energy system should be incorporated into the area's comprehensive plan. • Incorporate green infrastructure techniques, such as site-scale stormwater management, green roofs, and urban canopy cultivation, into the redevelopment area comprehensive plan. Allen 101 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 112

include the A and V Zones, and is likely the most straightforward way to specifically establish floodplain delineation terminology. Recommendation 2 Specifically recommend the placement of planned development outside of future inundation projections (at least +1.0 meter). While the use of the SFHA delineation will ensure recentralization outside of currently flood-prone areas, it does not coincide with lands inundated by future sea level rise. Recommendation 3 Plan for access to conservation and other natural areas, specifically those coastal areas, hydrologic systems, and surface water bodies that make seaside communities unique. Not only do natural resources in coastal areas like mangrove forests, salt marshes, beaches, and oyster reefs, help reduce erosion, protect against surge, improve water and air quality, and sequester carbon, but they also provide spaces that can improve psychological, emotional, and physical health, as well as foster social cohesion. Increased access to water and natural areas can also improve public awareness of the value and nature of coastal systems. The hybrid recentralization suitability analysis could ensure increased access by including proximity to natural areas as a suitability factor. Recommendation 4 The resilience-building capacity of the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis would be increased if it also took into account the protection or relocation of existing police, fire, power, and communication stations, as well as hospitals and water and sewage plants outside of zones of high-risk and vulnerability. Municipal and state policy recommendations. Recommendation 5 There are a few recommendations gleaned from the literature review and from the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis that must be implemented at the level of governmental policy. The first recommendation is the phased removal of subsidization for flood-prone areas. The primary concern with the National Flood Insurance Program is that the cost of coverage is subsidized and does not reflect the true cost of coverage. This results in high-risk property owners not paying the true cost of their habitation of vulnerable areas, a shift in burden to the general taxpayer, a false sense of security and inflated property value, and the resultant overdevelopment of these at-risk areas. One strategy that begins to address this issue was proposed by the Interboro Partners (also discussed on pages 38 39 in this document), suggesting that the Internal Revenue Code be amended to permit the land value depreciation in areas within risk zones. Recommendation 6 Another policy strategy conceptualized by Interboro Partners was the incorporation of sea level rise projections to be incorporated into the Flood Insurance Rate Map (they call this new mapping system FIRM-SLR). This must be developed and adopted at the national level with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Interboro Partners furthers this suggestion by proposing that federal grants for infrastructure projects should be "required to meet locational and design criteria that conform to FIRM-SLRs for the duration of their design lives plus a prudent margin of error. " Implementation tools. Recommendation 7 Transfer of development rights (TDR) could be implemented in coastal communities as a voluntary and market-based tool used to direct development away from areas of sea level rise inundation or highhazard zones ("sending zones") and into upland areas with capacity for redevelopment and/or infill development ("receiving zones"). In the case of communities implementing a recentralization plan, the recentralization zone determined by the hybrid suitability analysis would be the receiving zone, while the lands in high-risk and future inundation areas would be the sending zones. Further, the creation of an overlay district (a special zoning district over an existing regulatory zone which identifies special provisions in addition to those existing) for the recentralization areas and their associated sending zones would enable the development of unique policies within the district influencing smart development and retreat policies. Recommendation 8 A rolling easement is an example of an implementation policy that may be enacted through an overlay zoning district. Rolling easements, discussed earlier, adjust the location of a public easement based on sea Allen 102 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 113

Allen 103 Findings & Analysis Figure 5.1Ñ Rolling easements (adapted from Deyle, n.d. by author) . Figure 5.2 Ñ Phased mitigation and retreat (adapted from Watson & Adams 2011 , 204 by author).

PAGE 114

level (see figure 5.1). As water levels encroach upon a property, so does the easement, while preserving the site's private ownership and land use, preventing protection measures along the shoreline that inhibit natural tidal ecosystem migration, and allowing public access along the waterfront. Rolling easements allow for the phased retreat of coastal inhabitants, reliant on the timing of coastal change. Recommendation 9 A crucial aspect of recentralization, like most other large development and redevelopment efforts, is the phased implementation of redevelopment. Planners and designers should create an appropriate phasing plan for infill development, density increase, and redevelopment within the recentralization zone, concurrent with the relocation of inhabitants of high-risk coastal zones. Top relocation priority should be given to inhabitants of structures that interfere with coastal ecosystem migration, which could help protect inland development against surge and sea level rise. See figure 5.2. Recommendation 10 Another important factor of redeveloping formerly decentralized and low-density places into higher-density, centralized communities is the gradation of density, with the highest density and most variable use developments existing in a centralized core, with density gradually decreasing closer to the shoreline or the areas outside of recentralization zones. The designation of high and medium density redevelopment zones will be the first step in ensuring that 20 unit per acre development does not occur directly adjacent to 2 unit per acre developments. Redevelopment tools for the neighborhood & building scales. Recommendation 11 If coastal high-hazard zones or lands projected to be inundated by sea level rise are able to be acquired from private to public ownership (i.e., if the residents were relocating into recentralization zones) before inundation, they should be reserved for public use as open space. As discussed on page 28 of the literature review, managed retreat in Oakwood Beach of Staten Island was successful largely because the retreating homeowners were ensured that the land would be turned into open space for use as parks, reestablished as wetland, or used for other water-management and drainage purposes. Recommendation 12 Any resilience or recentralization plan should be accompanied by a more thorough hazard mitigation analysis. In the receiving zones of recentralization areas, the elevation of potentially inundated roads, underground placement of power lines, and adoption of a distributed energy system should be prioritized and planned for. Recommendation 13 Policies that encourage or subsidize the provision of green infrastructure techniques, such as site-scale stormwater management, green roofs, and urban canopy cultivation, should be incorporated into the overlay zoning district's regulatory framework. Recommendation 14 The infill development and redevelopment of neighborhoods and buildings within recentralization zones should be informed by reference to the smart growth guides that are readily available from a myriad of sources. The other scales of Tachieva's Sprawl Repair method can lend direction particularly for redevelopment of typical suburban developments, and even sources such as NOAA's Smart Growth Principles for Coastal and Waterfront Communities (page table below) can help guide responsible coastal development of vibrant, centralized, and complete communities. Table 5.4 Ñ NOAA Smart Growth Principles for Coastal and Waterfront Communities (Watson & Adams 2011, 209). 1 Mix land uses, including water-dependent uses. 2 Take advantage of compact community design that enhances, preserves, and provides access to waterfront resources. 3 Provide a range of housing opportunities and choices to meet the needs of both seasonal and permanent residents. 4 Create walkable communities with physical and visual access to and along the waterfront for public use. 5 Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place that capitalizes on the waterfront's heritage. Allen 104 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 115

The recommendations made above begin to develop an approach toward more resilient community redevelopment, influenced by the findings of the literature review, hybrid recentralization suitability analysis, and evaluation against Beatley's nine Key Elements of Resilient Coastal Land Use (2009) . They are not all-encompassing in scope, but they begin to relate how resilience may achieved through the creation of a community recentralization plan in tandem with other resilience-building actions. 6 Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and the critical environmental areas that characterize and support coastal and waterfront communities. 7 Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities and encourage waterfront revitalization. 8 Provide a variety of landand water-based transportation options. 9 Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective through consistent policies and coordinated permitting processes. 10 Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions, ensuring that public interests in and rights of access to the waterfront and coastal waters are upheld. Allen 105 Findings & Analysis

PAGE 116

Chapter 6 Conclusion & Discussion Summary The significance of the value we derive from coastal places should not be underestimated. This paper is founded on the conviction that although vulnerability is only anticipated to increase, inhabitants of coastal areas, and particularly barrier islands in Florida, will not want to retreat inland and will prefer to relocate to moderate-risk areas within these geographies, if they don't elect to protect against or accommodate sea level rise; and that the necessity of policy, planning, and design action to address these phenomena is continuously increasing. This paper employed a sequential mixed-methods approach to determine if a hybrid recentralization suitability analysis, as informed by Tachieva (2010) and Ewing et al. (2003) could achieve coastal resilience, as defined by Beatley (2009). In the first, qualitative phase of this project, a literature review was conducted to establish a base of knowledge for both topics from which the study built off. Then, the second, quantitative, phase of the project consisted of applying the process informed by Tachieva and Ewing et al. to the study area using geographic information systems (GIS). This was followed by a final, qualitative stage which evaluated the results of the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis against Beatley's nine elements of resilient coastal land use. Those results were then discussed and finally, suggestions made, based on the evaluation against Beatley's nine elements in addition to findings from the literature review, for strategies towards achieving a resilient coastal community. The review of literature touches on the patterns of coastal habitation and predictions of coastal change, and then briefly reviews sea level rise adaptation measures and the agendas of coastal resilience planning and resilient design. The literature review also discusses three case studies and concludes with a discussion of the overlap between resilience and recentralization literature, namely, the shared values of natural resource conservation, sociocultural enhancement, and centralized development. The results of the hybrid recentralization suitability analysis show that the areas of relatively centralized, wellconnected, variable use, and high density development, as well as those areas near employment and commercial activity, that did not interfere with environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant lands, are the areas most well suitable for recentralization, as it is defined by the hybrid geospatial process informed by the work of Tachieva and Ewing et al. The suitability factors included residential density, land use variety, degree of centeredness, choice in travel, conservation and reservation lands, as well as commercial and employment nodes. It is worth reiterating an important decision I made during the process of determining the final redevelopment suitability areas. Although one of the formulating inquiries of this paper was to determine if the recentralization of decentralized areas could accommodate populations retreating due to sea level rise, I decided to invert the original suitability scale so that areas of relatively centralized development were more suitable for redevelopment than decentralized areas. This, in essence, modified Tachieva & Ewing et al.'s method; however, I defend the validity of this choice because of the unique limitations on density and connectivity created by the barrier island geography and the highly decentralized existing fabric of communities in the study area. It seemed to me that rather than apply an infill redevelopment strategy (as that espoused by Tachieva) to highly decentralized and low-density areas (as those GIS result areas indicative of sprawl), that, at least in this particular study, it was much more prudent to apply this redevelopment strategy to areas already indicative of centralized, well-connected, and variable use development, because, in this study area, there are not any urban cores that are maximally or completely built out (or up). The hybrid recentralization suitability analysis, informed by Tachieva (2010) and Ewing et al. (2003), when evaluated qualitatively against Beatley's nine Key Elements of Resilient Coastal Land Use (2009) , achieves four Key Elements, Allen 106 Conclusion & Discussion

PAGE 117

begins to address two, and simply does not address three. The recommendations made begin to develop an approach toward more resilient community redevelopment, influenced by the findings of the literature review, hybrid recentralization suitability analysis, and evaluation against Beatley's nine Key Elements (2009) . They are not all-encompassing in scope, but they begin to relate how resilience may achieved through the creation of a community recentralization plan in tandem with other resilience-building actions. This paper undertook a very focused and specific approach towards examining the potential of recentralization to address issues of resilience; however, when all factors of coastal change are taken into equal consideration, the likelihood of the recentralization method developed here to achieve coastal resilience alone is ostensibly lower. Despite its many merits, a solution as simple and deterministic as urban recentralization alone cannot ensure resilience, although its capacity to improve coastal communities is eviden t. Future research Due to limited resources and time, this paper did not accomplish any community engagement or survey of public opinion, or engage community feedback on GIS analysis, or final plans and recommendations. Understanding the public reception of recentralization as an alternative model of retreat to adapt to sea level rise is certainly an area in need of further research. Also, due to the highly specific nature of this paper's research inquiry, many factors related to anthropogenic-induced coastal change were not fully regarded or thoroughly considered, although these factors are significant and warrant further research within the framework this paper sets up. The process, policies, and politics of retreat, recentralization, and redevelopment are rife with issues ranging in scale from the international to community level. Even an implementation strategy like rolling easements, mentioned only briefly in this paper, has been written about and argued a very considerable amount. The political processes and successful policy strategies to implement recentralization and retreat need to be explored in greater detail. Another issue that should be investigated further is the maintenance of sense of place and local character in coastal communities when development density is increased considerably. Most beach towns derive their character in large part from a low-density, decentralized pattern. What strategies might be available to ensure that higher-density, centralized, mixed-use development can retain that sense of place? Also, is the model of recentralization presented here still viable when population growth projections are taken into account? Implications for landscape architecture The implications to and opportunities for landscape architecture that will result from sea level rise and the need to prepare for it are vast. Landscape architects are already beginning to lead the way in resilient design, not to mention the projects already accomplished by landscape architects that redevelop decentralized areas into vibrant, attractive, and complete communities. There are manifold new opportunities that arise when recentralization is utilized as a tool for resilience planning. The two biggest areas of opportunity might be the design of recentralization areas themselves, and the restoration of natural systems. As briefly discussed in Recommendation 14 (page 104), the infill development and redevelopment of neighborhoods and buildings within recentralization zones should be informed by reference to the smart growth guides that are readily available from many sources. Most landscape architects are trained to vision and implement these types of developments and have experience in this practice, most notably in master planning, green infrastructure Allen 107 Conclusion & Discussion

PAGE 118

implementation , and the creation of the public realm (i.e. streetscapes, open space, plaza and park design). Further, land that may transfer from private ownership to public control through acquisition, rolling easements, or transfer of development rights may need to be restored to their natural function Ñ this is another realm that landscape architecture is well-positioned to undertake. The rehabilitation of coastal floodplains, dune systems, wetlands, and other coastal ecosystems may become a burgeoning new specialization of landscape architects in the decades to come. Discussion The coastal zone is an area that is under intense human development and utilization. It is also one in which significant geologic change occurs at a rapid pace, even by human timescales. The very dynamic nature of the coastal zone, considered in light of the intense societal pressure to develop these areas creates an important need to understand coastal systems and identify new approaches to land use and development planning. Despite its many merits, the recentralization of urban areas alone likely cannot ensure a sustainable or resilient inhabitation of coastal areas in the very long-term, although its capacity to create more livable and ecologically responsible communities in the short term is clear. The continued inhabitation of barrier islands is very likely unsustainable over the long term. For the purposes of this study, I assumed it was possible, even with sea level rise Ñ however, coastal storms, overwash, breaches, and island migration as well as water availability may well make this impossible in the long term. Still, the continued occupation of coastal areas in general will be most safely and successfully achieved through a combination of recentralization methods as well as other, natural-systems and landscape-process inspired strategies. 1 A solution as simple and deterministic as recentralization cannot ensure resilience on its own. Coastal issues caused by anthropogenic change inherently are extremely complex Ñ complex enough that they are well considered a wicked problem. A major discourse in ecology, filtering into architecture and landscape architecture in the 1990s, wicked problems are largely an issue of scale Ñ occurring when there are large amounts of competing interests, opinions, and scientific data, and the causes and effects are so closely intertwined that they become indiscernible from each other. The Everglades and the Mississippi River Delta are good examples . Timon McPhearson, Assistant Professor of Urban Ecology at The New School in New York City, wrote of Hurricane Sandy and the affected area that "there was no perfect solution É because that is the nature of wicked problems, you only really understand the nature of the problem after you've started working on the solution É This is not the way we typically think of problem solving, and it's why [wicked problems are] difficult to respond to " (2013). This excerpt from McPhearson on Sandy further illustrates the intricate complexities and scales of wicked problems: "Virtually all natural resource managers have some formal university education, which nearly always includes traditional philosophy based on ideas of reductionism developed by Descartes. We all Ôknow' that the way to solve difficult problems is to break them into their component parts and solve each part in isolation. ! This approach is ingrained in education and scientific knowledge. However, the implications are largely unrecognized. Is the problem of hurricane-driven storm surge fundamentally a flooding problem? ! Is there anything a priori particularly wrong with flooding? ! Or rather, is flooding instead a problem because it is connected to issues of energy supply, economic productivity, food security, drinking water availability, and transportation ? One example of this type of strategy may be The Sand Engine (De Zandmotor ) Ñ an experimental project in the Netherlands that 1 harnesses the process of longshore drift and sediment flows as an alternative to conventional beach nourishment. Allen 108 Conclusion & Discussion

PAGE 119

Once you start thinking in systems, you realize the fundamental interconnectedness of all aspects, from residents' political opinions and therefore what leaders they choose, to the number of acres of wetlands remaining in the NY-NJ harbor and their ability to absorb storm surges. Sandy's impact underscored the importance of a systems oriented approach to planning our way toward climate change resilience in NYC. ! Just as Sandy was not an isolated incident, but part of a larger regional and global climate system that produces weather, including very rare hurricane events . Donna Meadows, one of the early pioneers of systems thinking, notes that there are, of course, complex problems that may have no solution. ! Systems thinking is not in itself a solution to wicked problems, but a method for highlighting areas of intervention that can lead to potential solutions or ways to improve the resilience and sustainability of a complex system. However, in the era of Big Data the ability to understand the nature of cities as complex systems has gotten a boost with now massive amounts of data about fundamental components, which means we should, in theory, be better able to understand the relationship among components. Until we understand that we live in a highly connected, interactive, and evolving socialecological system, we will continue to apply our creativity and ingenuity to improving components rather than the structure and functioning of the system itself. " The issues caused by coastal change will occur over large stretches of time and physical space, are continually evolving, and have myriad interacting systems and significant uncertainties. All of this is compounded by an imperfect understandings of these systems. Linear approaches to adaptation, like static armoring measures or even traditional planning methods, clearly won't be able to fully address issues of coastal change. The best way for landscape architecture to work toward creating a more resilient coastal inhabitation is through a combination of adaptive capacity-increasing techniques, based on increased understanding of coastal geologic processes, urban ecology, socio-ecological systems, shifting coastal environments, and and the inherently dynamic landscapes they create . Allen 109 Conclusion & Discussion

PAGE 120

Bibliography Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. 1977. A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction . New York: Oxford . Allen, J., & Lu, K.S. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region of South Carolina: a GIS-based integrated approach. Conservation Ecology 8(2): 2 [online]. Retrieved from: http:// www.consecol.org/vol8/iss2/art2/ Augustino, J. / FEMA. 2008. An aerial view of a house on that survived the destruction of Hurricane Ike in Gilchrist, Texas [Photo]. Retrieved from: https://www.fema.gov/ar/media-library/assets/images/54500 Augustino, J. / FEMA. 2012. Damage from Hurricane Sandy surge [Photo]. Retrieved from: https://www.fema.gov/ media-library/assets/images/66588 Beatley, T. 2009. Planning for coastal resilience: best practices for calamitous times. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Crosset, K. M., Culliton, T.J., Wiley, P. C., & Goodspeed, T. R. 2004. Population trends along the coastal United States: 1980 2008. Washington, D.C.: NOAA National Ocean Service. Retrieved from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ programs/mb/pdfs/coastal_pop_trends_complete.pdf Deyle, R.E. n.d. Sea level rise adaptation options for local governments . Florida Sea Grant. Retrieved from https:// www.flseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ Deyle_Adaptive_Response_Planning_to_Sea_Level_Rise_FlaSeaGrantWkshop_08-09-12_edited.pdf Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Don Chen, D. 2003. Measuring sprawl and its impacts . Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1831(1), 175 183. doi: 10.3141/1831-20. Retrieved from http://trb.metapress.com/content/A7926M4V4Q072985 . Executive Office of the President. 2013. The President's climate action plan . Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf . Fleck, J. / FEMA. 2005a. House built to many FEMA standards in Pass Christian, MS is only structure still standing after Hurricane Katrina [Photo]. Retrieved from: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/46373 Fleck, J. / FEMA. 2005b. Hurricane Katrina's tidal surge placed a boat on roof of house in Waveland, MS [Image]. Retrieved from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_16560__Photograph_by_John_Fleck_taken_on_09-30-2005_in_Mississippi.jpg Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (2005). Changing coastlines [webpage]. University of South Florida College of Education. Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. n.d. Adaptation planning . Retrieved from http://www.floridajobs.org/ community-planning-and-development/programs/technical-assistance/community-resiliency/adaptationplanning Florida Oceans and Coastal Council (FOCC). 2010. Climate change and sea-Level rise in Florida: an update on the effects of climate change on Florida's ocean and coastal resources . Retrieved from http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/ reports/Climate_Change_and_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf Allen 110 Bibliography

PAGE 121

Florida State University [FSU]. 2008. Warmer seas linked to strengthing hurricanes: FSU study fuels global warmin debate (Press release). Retrieved from http://www.fsu.edu/news/2008/09/03/warmer.seas/ Gately, D. / FEMA. 1999. Elevation saves dwellings from Hurricane Dennis in Kitty Hawk, NC [Photo]. Retrieved from: http://www.city-data.com/disaster-photos/1627.html Godschalk, D. R. 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4 (3), 136. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136) Hadfield, C. / NASA. 2013. Satellite photograph of the Space Coast taken from the International Space Station [Photo] . Historical Society of Palm Beach County. 2009. Barrier islands [webpage]. Retried from: http:// www.pbchistoryonline.org/page/barrier-islands Interboro Partners: Apex, Bosch Slabbers, Center for Urban Pedagogy, David Rusk, Deltares, H+N+S Landscape Architects, IMG Rebel, NJIT Infrastructure Planning Program, Palmbout Urban Landscapes, Project Projects, RFA Investments, and TU Delft. 2013. Grassroots regionalism: resiliency building in lowand medium-density communities. NY, NY: Rebuild by Design. McPhearson, T. 2013. Wicked problems, social-ecological systems, and the utility of systems thinking [Essay]. New York City. Retrieved from: ! http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2013/01/20/wicked-problems-social-ecological-systemsand-the-utility-of-systems-thinking/ MIT Center for Advanced Urbanism, Zones Urbaines Sensibles, De Urbanisten, 75B, Deltaires, and Volker Infra. 2013. A delta of resiliency districts . NY, NY: Rebuild by Design. Mitchum, G. T. 2011. Sea level changes in the Southeastern United States . Florida Climate Institute and Southeast Climate Consortium. Retried from http://coaps.fsu.edu/~mhannion/201108mitchum_sealevel.pdf NOAA Office for Coastal Management. n.d.-a. Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials [webpage]. Retrieved from http://coast.noaa.gov/archived/beachnourishment/html/geo/barrier.htm?redirect=301ocm NOAA Office for Coastal Management. n.d.-b Understanding coastal inundation [webpage]. Digital Coast. Retrieved from http://www.coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/inundation/understand?redirect=301ocm NOAA's State of the Coast. n.d.-c. The US population living at the coast [webpage]. Retrieved from: http:// stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html Olson, S. 2011. Increasing national resilience to hazards and disasters: The perspective from the gulf coast of Louisiana and Mississippi: summary of a workshop . Washington, D.C.: National Academies . Paton, D., & Johnston, D. M. 2006. Disaster resilience: an integrated approach . Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Pielke, R. A. 2007. Future economic damage from topical cyclones: sensitivities to societal and climate changes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365 (July): 2717-29. Allen 111 Bibliography

PAGE 122

Pielke, R. A., Gratz, J., Landsea, C. W., Collins, D., Saunders, M. A., & Musulin, R. 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900Ð2005. Natural Hazards Review, 9 (1), 29. doi: 10.1061/ (ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:1(29) Pompili, M. 2014. Shifting typologies: The recentralization of Tokyo and the Dojunkai Apartments. Chapter from New urban configurations . Cavallo, R., Komossa, S., & Marzot, N. [eds]. IOS Press. Quesada, J. / FEMA. 2008. Flood wall at industrial canal in Lower Ninth Ward [Photo]. Retrieved from: https:// www.fema.gov/ar/media-library/assets/images/53368 Rieger, M. / FEMA. 2005. FEMA's US&R teams in rout by helicopter to conduct a search in St. Bernard Parish, view the flooding in New Orleans [Photo]. Retrieved from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_19247__Photograph_by_Michael_Rieger_taken_on_09-08-2005_in_Louisiana.jpg Riley, D. 2012. The Tampa Convention Center [Photo]. Retrieved from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Tampa_Convention_Center_from_Bayshore.JPG RWParkinson Consulting, Inc. 2010. Municipal adaptation to sea-level rise: City of Satellite Beach, Florida [Adapting to rising sea level: summary report submitted to the City of Satellite Beach, Florida]. Climate Ready Estuaries Project. SCAPE / Landscape Architecture PLLC, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Stevens Institute of Technologu, Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Searc Consulting, The New York Harbor School, Lot-ek, MTWTF, and Paul Greenberg. 2013. The Shallows: bay landscapes as ecological infrastructure. NY, NY: Rebuild by Design. Skoogfors, L. / FEMA. 2005. Small saltwater pond left in the wake of Hurricane Dennis in Navarre Beach, FL [Photo]. Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=14015 Smart Growth America. 2014. View of Boston from Cambridge, Massachusetts [Photo]. Retrieved from: http:// www.smartgrowthamerica.org/tag/boston/ Smith, Q.H.T., Heap, A.D., & Nichol, S.L. 2010. Origin and formation of an estuarine barrier island, Tapora Island, New Zealand: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 26, p. 292Ð300. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC): Beever, James W., III, Whitney Gray, Jason Utley, David Hutchinson, Tim Walker, and Dan Cobb. 2010. Lee County climate change resiliency strategy. Fort Myers, FL: SWFRPC. Stanton, E. A. & Ackerman, F. 2007. Florida and climate change: the costs of inaction. Tufts University. Retrieved from https://www.broward.org/NaturalResources/ClimateChange/Documents/Florida_lr.pdf Tachieva, G. (2010). Sprawl repair manual. Washington: Island Press. Titus, J. G., Anderson, K. E., Cahoon, D. R., Gesch, D. B., Gill, S. K., T. Gutierrez, B. T., Thieler, E. R., & Williams, S. J. 2009. Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: a focus on the mid-Atlantic region . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Retrieved from http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-1/sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf Unabridged Architecture, Golf Coast Community Design Studio, Waggonner, and Ball Architects. 2013. Resilience network . NY, NY: Rebuild by Design. Allen 112 Bibliography

PAGE 123

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UN DESA], Population Division. 2005. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/200. Volk, M. 2008. An analysis of strategies for adaptation to sea level rise in Florida [Thesis]. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Vecchi, G., Swanson, K., & Soden, B. 2008. CLIMATE CHANGE: Whither Hurricane Activity? Science , 322, 687-689. Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world . Washington, DC: Island Press. Watson, D., & Adams, M. 2011. Design for flooding: architecture, landscape, and urban design for resilience to flooding and climate change . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons . Williams, S. Jeffress et al., Sea-Level Rise and Its Effects on the Coast, chap. 1, "Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region," Final Report. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 2004]" (Watson & Adams, 2011, 219) WMO and UNEP. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios [Summary for policymakers]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. WMO and UNEP. 2008. Climate Change and Water [Technical papers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. Wu, S., Bates, B., Kundzewicz, Z. W., & Palutikof, J. (Eds.) . Allen 113 Bibliography

PAGE 124

Geospatial Data Bibliography Bureau of Archaeological Research. 2015. Historical structure locations in Florida. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. 1996. Flood insurance rate maps. Florida Department of Revenue. 2012. Parcel data statewide . Florida Division of Emergency Management. 2009. Florida hospitals. Florida Natural Areas Inventory [FNAI]. 2014. Florida managed areas . Florida Natural Areas Inventory [FNAI], University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC]. 2014. Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project. St. Johns River Water Management District [SJRWMD]. 2009. Land use and cover . University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2014. Tidally adjusted sea level rise projections and digital elevation model. University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2012. Florida public and private schools. University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 1999. Greenways project cultural and historic features. US Geological Survey [USGS]. 2002. 1:24,000 Roads . Allen 114 Bibliography