Search

Hazard mitigation planning requires disparate agencies to negotiate through the planning and implementation processes. These agencies must strategize, develop, and implement plans for addressing scenarios of natural and human-caused hazards. Competing perspectives exist in systems engineering at multiple levels of governance. This paper introduces a framework to understand and coordinate when one or more agencies have outlier perspectives of the priority ordering of initiatives in regional hazard mitigation. Each agency perspective is represented as a scenario that disrupts system order. The paper presents a mathematical framework with 40 initiatives, six ordering criteria, and eight scenarios. The method coordinates evidence and experience that are essential to negotiation of requirements among emergency managers in hazard mitigation planning in the postpandemic era. Practical Applications: Unprecedented combinations of natural and human-caused stressors are challenging to plan for since the perspectives of participating agencies can differ significantly. The agencies that collaborate on emergency management include transportation, law enforcement, environment, prisons, parks and recreation, forestry, energy, and others. This paper facilitates negotiations among these various agencies in the hazard mitigation planning process by introducing a framework to understand and coordinate when one or more agencies have outlier perspectives of the priorities for investments in hazard mitigation. The application of the framework identifies where negotiation among the agencies is most needed in determining hazard mitigation priorities. This approach, grounded in principles of systems engineering and risk analysis, reduces cost overrun and schedule delay in the life cycle of emergency management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increases in the magnitudes and frequencies of climate‐related extreme events are redistributing risk across coastal systems, including their environmental, economic, and social components. Consequently, stakeholders (SHs) are faced with long‐term challenges and complex information when managing assets, services, and uses of the coast. In this context, SH engagement is a key step for risk management and in the preparation of resilience plans to respond and adapt to climate change. This paper develops a participatory method to identify and prioritize a set of risk measures, combining multi‐criteria analysis with sensitivity analysis. The process involved local and regional authorities of the Veneto region testing the method, including national, regional, and local government, catchment officers, research organizations, natural parks managers and Non‐Governmental Organizations (NGOs). SHs identified and ranked a range of adaptation measures to increase climate resilience, with a focus on coastal risk in the Venice lagoon. Results demonstrate that the sensitivity analysis provides useful information on how different sectors of expertise can influence the ranking of the identified risk management measures, highlighting the value of investigating the preferences or priorities of different SH groups within the definition of adaptation plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of climate change and water scarcity threaten the stability of critical infrastructure systems in developing regions. In particular, the interconnectedness of energy systems, natural resources, economic growth, and social welfare requires a systems‐level framework to identify scenarios which most impact these systems. This paper evaluates and quantifies infrastructure system risk, defined as the influence of scenarios on system priorities. A scenario‐based multi‐criteria preferences model assesses system component priorities for a baseline scenario as well as climate and related scenarios. The shift in priorities between the baseline and other future scenarios define scenario disruptiveness, or level of risk. The methods are demonstrated for the case of the emerging renewable energy sector of Iraq. Twenty‐five renewable energy system assets are prioritized by an assessment of system success criteria, which include economic, social, political, and climate considerations. The system prioritization is reevaluated in the case of seven disruptive scenarios relating to water scarcity, climate volatility, and social and economic shifts. This paper advances methods of the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) Part 3: Engineering and Management, by defining system risk and proposing methods for risk identification and risk analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]