Overcoming failure in infrastructure risk governance implementation: large dams journey

[EN] There is ample recognition of the risk inherent in our very existence and modes of social organization, with a reasonable expectation that implementing risk governance will result in enhanced resilience as a society. Despite this, risk governance is not a mainstream approach in the infrastructure sector, regardless of the increasing number of peer-reviewed published conceptualizations, mature procedures to support its application, or public calls to cope with systemic risks in our modern societies. This paper aims to offer a different view on the issue of risk governance, with focus in the analysis of the root causes of its relatively low degree of implementation in the infrastructure sector. We later analyze the impact of such essential causes, which we have grouped and labeled as the ontology, the concerns, the anathemas, and the forgotten, in the specific field of large dams. Finally, we describe the journey toward risk governance in the specific field of large dams, thus supporting the ultimate objective of this paper to facilitate an evidence-based approach to successful risk governance implementation within and outside the dam sector.This work was supported by Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España) [grant number BIA2013-48157-C2-1-R].Escuder Bueno, I.; Halpin, E. (2016). Overcoming failure in infrastructure risk governance implementation: large dams journey. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1215345SAbrahamsen, E. B., & Aven, T. (2012). Why risk acceptance criteria need to be defined by the authorities and not the industry? Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 105, 47-50. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.004Ardiles, L. D. Sanz, P. Moreno, E. Jenaro, J. Fleitz, and I. Escuder. 2011. “Risk Assessment and Management of 26 Dams Operated by the Duero River Authority in Spain”.Dam Engineering. 21 (4): 313–328. Willmington Publishing. ISSN 0958-9341.Van Asselt, M. B. A., & Renn, O. (2011). Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14(4), 431-449. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.553730Van Asselt, M., & Vos, E. (2008). Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. Journal of Risk Research, 11(1), 281-300. doi:10.1080/13669870801990806Aven, T. (2010). Misconceptions of Risk. doi:10.1002/9780470686539Aven, T. (2012). Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Risk Analysis, 32(10), 1647-1656. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01798.xAven, T. (2012). The risk concept—historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 99, 33-44. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.006Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2010). Response to Professor Eugene Rosa’s viewpoint to our paper. Journal of Risk Research, 13(3), 255-259. doi:10.1080/13669870903484369Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2010). Risk Management and Governance. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0Baecher, G. B., Paté, M. E., & De Neufville, R. (1980). Risk of dam failure in benefit-cost analysis. Water Resources Research, 16(3), 449-456. doi:10.1029/wr016i003p00449Black, J., & Baldwin, R. (2012). When risk-based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges. Regulation & Governance, 6(1), 2-22. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01124.xBoholm, Å., Corvellec, H., & Karlsson, M. (2012). The practice of risk governance: lessons from the field. Journal of Risk Research, 15(1), 1-20. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.587886Cox, L. A. (2009). Risk Analysis of Complex and Uncertain Systems. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-89014-2Davis, D., Faber, B. A., & Stedinger, J. R. (2008). USACE Experience in Implementing Risk Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Projects. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 140(1), 3-14. doi:10.1111/j.1936-704x.2008.00023.xDe Vries, G., Verhoeven, I., & Boeckhout, M. (2011). Taming uncertainty: the WRR approach to risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14(4), 485-499. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.553728Escuder-Bueno, I., Matheu, E., T. Castillo-Rodríguez, J., & T. Castillo-Rodríguez, J. (Eds.). (2011). Risk Analysis, Dam Safety, Dam Security and Critical Infrastructure Management. doi:10.1201/b11588Ezell, B. C., Bennett, S. P., von Winterfeldt, D., Sokolowski, J., & Collins, A. J. (2010). Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Terrorism Risk. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 575-589. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01401.xForrester, I., & Hanekamp1, J. C. (2006). Precaution, Science and Jurisprudence: a Test Case. Journal of Risk Research, 9(4), 297-311. doi:10.1080/13669870500042974Funabashi, Y., & Kitazawa, K. (2012). Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(2), 9-21. doi:10.1177/0096340212440359Hartford, D. N. D., & Baecher, G. B. (2004). Risk and uncertainty in dam safety. doi:10.1680/rauids.32705IRGC (International Risk Governance Council) 2005.Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach, White Paper No. 1, O. Renn with an Annex by P. Graham. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.Krause, P., Fox, J., Judson, P., & Patel, M. (1998). Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 138-156. doi:10.1007/3-540-49426-x_7Kröger, W. (2008). Critical infrastructures at risk: A need for a new conceptual approach and extended analytical tools. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 93(12), 1781-1787. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.005Lofstedt, R. E. (2010). Risk communication guidelines for Europe: a modest proposition. Journal of Risk Research, 13(1), 87-109. doi:10.1080/13669870903126176(2008). Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 140(1). doi:10.1111/jcwr.2008.140.issue-1Park, J., Seager, T. P., Rao, P. S. C., Convertino, M., & Linkov, I. (2012). Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Management in Engineering Systems. Risk Analysis, 33(3), 356-367. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01885.xRenn, O., & Walker, K. D. (Eds.). (2008). Global Risk Governance. International Risk Governance Council Bookseries. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0Renn, O., Klinke, A., & van Asselt, M. (2011). Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis. AMBIO, 40(2), 231-246. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0Rosa, E. A. (2010). The logical status of risk – to burnish or to dull. Journal of Risk Research, 13(3), 239-253. doi:10.1080/13669870903484351Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. doi:10.1126/science.3563507Vlek, C. (2010). Judicious management of uncertain risks: I. Developments and criticisms of risk analysis and precautionary reasoning. Journal of Risk Research, 13(4), 517-543. doi:10.1080/13669871003629887Zhao, X., Hwang, B.-G., & Low, S. P. (2015). Enterprise Risk Management in International Construction Operations. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-549-

Explicit wave overtopping formula for mound breakwaters with crown walls using CLASH neural network-derived data

Based on the Crest Level Assessment of Coastal Structures (CLASH) Neural Network Overtopping prediction method, a new 16-parameter overtopping estimator (Q6) was developed for conventional mound breakwaters with crown walls, both with and without toe berms. Q6 was built up using the overtopping estimations given by the CLASH Neural Network and checked using the CLASH database. Q6 was compared to other conventional overtopping formulas, and the Q6 obtained the lowest prediction errors. Q6 provides overtopping predictions similar to the CLASH Neural Network for conventional mound breakwaters but using only six explanatory dimensionless variables (Rc=Hm0; Ir; Rc=h;Gc=Hm0; Ac=Rc, and a toe berm variable based on Rc=h) and two reduction factors (g f and g b ). Q6 describes explicit relationships between input variables and overtopping discharge, and hence it facilitates use in engineering design to identify costeffective solutions and to quantify the influence of variations in wave and structural parameters.The authors are grateful for financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Grant BIA2012-33967). The first author was funded through the FPU program (Formacion del Profesorado Universitario, Grant AP2010-4366) by the Spanish Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte. The authors also thank Debra Westall for revising the manuscript.Molines, J.; Medina, JR. (2016). Explicit wave overtopping formula for mound breakwaters with crown walls using CLASH neural network-derived data. Journal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Engineering. 142(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000322S142

Recent shifts in coastline change and shoreline stabilization linked to storm climate change

Because cuspate coastlines are especially sensitive to changes in wave climate, they serve as potential indicators of initial responses to changing wave conditions. Previous work demonstrates that Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout, NC, which are largely unaffected by shoreline stabilization efforts, have become increasingly asymmetric over the past 30 years, consistent with model predictions for coastline response to increases in Atlantic Ocean summer wave heights and resulting changes in the distribution of wave-approach angles. Historic and recent shoreline change observations for Cape Fear, North Carolina, and model simulations of coastline response to an increasingly asymmetric wave climate in the presence of beach nourishment, produce comparable differences in shoreline change rates in response to changes in wave climate. Results suggest that the effect of beach nourishment is to compensate for—and therefore to mask—natural responses to wave climate change that might otherwise be discernible in patterns of shoreline change alone. Therefore, this case study suggests that the effects of wave climate change on human-modified coastlines may be detectable in the spatial and temporal patterns of shoreline stabilization activities. Similar analyses of cuspate features in areas where the change in wave climate is less pronounced (i.e., Fishing Point, Maryland/Virginia) and where local geology appears to exert control on coastline shape (i.e., Cape Canaveral, Florida), suggest that changes in shoreline configuration that may be arising from shifting wave climate are currently limited to sandy wave-dominated coastlines where the change in wave climate has been most pronounced. However, if hurricane-generated wave heights continue to increase, large-scale shifts in patterns of erosion and accretion will likely extend beyond sensitive cuspate features as the larger-scale coastline shape comes into equilibrium with changing wave conditions

Big dams and salmon evolution: changes in thermal regimes and their potential evolutionary consequences

Dams designed for hydropower and other purposes alter the environments of many economically important fishes, including Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). We estimated that dams on the Rogue River, the Willamette River, the Cowlitz River, and Fall Creek decreased water temperatures during summer and increased water temperatures during fall and winter. These thermal changes undoubtedly impact the behavior, physiology, and life histories of Chinook salmon. For example, relatively high temperatures during the fall and winter should speed growth and development, leading to early emergence of fry. Evolutionary theory provides tools to predict selective pressures and genetic responses caused by this environmental warming. Here, we illustrate this point by conducting a sensitivity analysis of the fitness consequences of thermal changes caused by dams, mediated by the thermal sensitivity of embryonic development. Based on our model, we predict Chinook salmon likely suffered a decrease in mean fitness after the construction of a dam in the Rogue River. Nevertheless, these demographic impacts might have resulted in strong selection for compensatory strategies, such as delayed spawning by adults or slowed development by embryos. Because the thermal effects of dams vary throughout the year, we predict dams impacted late spawners more than early spawners. Similar analyses could shed light on the evolutionary consequences of other environmental perturbations and their interactions

Participatory modelling for stakeholder involvement in the development of flood risk management intervention options

Advancing stakeholder participation beyond consultation offers a range of benefits for local flood risk management, particularly as responsibilities are increasingly devolved to local levels. This paper details the design and implementation of a participatory approach to identify intervention options for managing local flood risk. Within this approach, Bayesian networks were used to generate a conceptual model of the local flood risk system, with a particular focus on how different interventions might achieve each of nine participant objectives. The model was co-constructed by flood risk experts and local stakeholders. The study employs a novel evaluative framework, examining both the process and its outcomes (short-term substantive and longer-term social benefits). It concludes that participatory modelling techniques can facilitate the identification of intervention options by a wide range of stakeholders, and prioritise a subset for further investigation. They can help support a broader move towards active stakeholder participation in local flood risk management