Development of an Adaptation Toolkit for Resiliency...

Development of an Adaptation Toolkit for Resiliency Champions at Businesses and Institutions in the West Michigan Region

Development of an Adaptation Toolkit for Resiliency Champions at Businesses and Institutions in the West Michigan Region

Daniel Schoonmaker, Executive Director, West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum Grand Rapids, MI

William Stough, CEO, Sustainable Research Group

Grand Rapids, MI

Danny McGee, Consultant, Sustainable Research Group Grand Rapids, MI

Laura Briley, Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Jeff Andresen, Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments East Lansing, Michigan

Emily Upton, Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Kim Channell, Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Ann Arbor, Michigan

This project was funded by the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences + Assessments through a 2015 Great Lakes Climate Assessment Grant.

Recommended Citation:

Schoonmaker, D., Stough, W., McGee, D., Briley, L., Andresen, J., Upton, E., Channell, K. 2017. Development of an Adaptation Toolkit for Resiliency Champions at Businesses and Institutions in the West Michigan Region. Western Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, Sustainable Research Group and Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessment. Grand Rapids, MI. In: Project Reports. J. Jorns, I. Robinson eds. Available from the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA).

For further questions, please contact Daniel Schoonmaker ([email protected])

mailto:[email protected]

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADAPTATION TOOLKIT FOR RESILIENCY CHAMPIONS AT BUSINESSES AND INSTITUTIONS IN THE WEST MICHIGAN REGION

2

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction and History: Need for a Toolkit .............................................................................................................. 3 Developing an Adaptation Toolkit .................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction to Climate Resiliency .............................................................................................................................. 5 Assessment Survey ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Climate Event Matrix ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Using the Toolkit ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Testing the Toolkit: Vulnerability Assessment Pilot ................................................................................................ 9

Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 1: Hospitality ..................................................................................................... 11 Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 2: Manufacturing .............................................................................................. 14 Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 3: Health Care .................................................................................................... 15 Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 4: K-12 Public Education .............................................................................. 18

Lessons Learned: Final Toolkit and Expectations .................................................................................................... 20 Future Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Work Cited ................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Appendix A: Climate Resiliency Matrix ........................................................................................................................ 23 Appendix B: Climate Event Matrix.................................................................................................................................. 24


3

Abstract West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum

(WMSBF) and partners developed a toolkit for

resiliency champions to lead organizations

through a vulnerability assessment informed by

predicted industry impacts and historical climate

data and projections, with an overarching intent

to provide a business case for organizations to

conduct resiliency and adaptation planning. This

was accomplished by guiding four representative

organizations in the West Michigan area through

such an assessment, pilot cases that can serve as

illustrative examples to other organizations within

their industry networks and the community in

general, and encouraging use of the adaptation

toolkit and awareness of climate risk among

relevant decision makers.

Introduction and History: Need for a Toolkit WMSBF is a regional network of business,

government, non-profit organizations, and

educational institutions dedicated to promoting

business practices that demonstrate

environmental stewardship, economic vitality, and

social responsibility. In 2013 and 2014 West

Michigan experienced a series of extreme weather

events of the type commonly associated with

climate change, including a historically heavy rain

event that led to a historic April flood, a polar

vortex winter, an abnormally hot summer and

crop damage that decimated the local apple

industry (WMEAC, 2013).

In response, WMSBF launched a regional climate

adaptation planning project in partnership with

Michigan State University’s Department of

AgBioResearch and Toolbox Dialogue Initiative

and the Rock Ethics Institute at Pennsylvania State

University. The West Michigan Climate Resiliency

Framework Initiative was designed to help local

institutions better respond to extreme weather

events and other impacts commonly associated

with climate change. It consisted of sector-specific

workshops to gather data on perceived risk and

vulnerabilities, interviews with illustrative

representatives from each sector and those of

important stakeholder groups, and a culminating

conference. The effort successfully educated

businesses, institutions and their stakeholders on

potential impacts from climate change and how

they might think about responding to those

impacts, and demonstrated to the sustainable

business community a need for resiliency and

adaptation planning.

Interviews and facilitated sessions showed that

participants believed there was a need for

organizations to examine climate change

internally, but that organizations were not

prepared to perform vulnerability assessments on

their operations and assets, or to integrate climate

science into their decision making, with the

exception of those with the most conspicuous and

relatable impacts (e.g.: agribusiness and

enterprises experiencing catastrophic impacts

abroad from hurricanes).

In general, the 2014 project results suggested that

an internal resiliency champion can identify

general sensitivities for an organization with

available resources and potentially work with

interested colleagues to define specific

sensitivities, but they may lack the requisite

understanding of climate science to properly

The Need for a Toolkit 1: Flooding in downtown Grand Rapids required a 2,000-volunteer sandbagging effort in 2013 (Source: West Michigan Environmental Action Council).


4

define exposures, or the time or knowledge

necessary to locate the appropriate climate

information. If not adequately prepared to

facilitate such conversations, champions may even

undermine resiliency efforts. Further, we learned

responsibilities were seldom aligned within one

department or with one individual; there is a need

for organizational dialogue involving multiple

decision makers across departments.

With this in mind, we sought funding from the

Great Lakes Integrated Science Assessment

(GLISA) to develop sector-relevant regional

climate information and tools for organizations to

internally educate decision makers on its use.

More importantly, we sought to define the context

for climate science in decision making at

businesses and institutions, demonstrating how,

when, and why it should be used by these

organizations.

Specifically, the project sought to:

Introduce climate science to strategic

planning and decision making within

businesses and institutions.

Assist the private sector in defining climate

vulnerabilities.

Develop resources for resiliency champions to

lead organizations through a vulnerability

assessment.

Create local impact guide to facilitate use of

climate assessments.

Developing an Adaptation Toolkit There are a number of serviceable climate

vulnerability assessment tools, checklists, or

planning guides for communities, industries,

businesses and institutions. The 2014 Initiative

frequently recommended a model published in the

Harvard Business Review (Lowitt, 2014). While

an ideal tool, SRG and WMSBF reasoned that only

organizations with a funded and committed

interest in climate adaptation planning would be

able to complete such an assessment. The

organizations that participated in the initial

WMSBF effort were not just unprepared to begin

adaptation planning, but also unprepared to

justify the need for adaptation planning. Thus, we

concluded that the overarching intent of the

toolkit would be to provide a business case for

organizations to conduct resiliency and adaptation

planning.

To accomplish this, the toolkit must provide in an

easily accessible manner a means to:

Help a resiliency champion identify the

relevant decision makers and influencers

within the organization.

Identify potential areas of sensitivity to

climate impacts, the associated potential for

adaptability, and the degree of materiality for

each risk to the organization.

Understand historical climate data and

projections relevant to material sensitivities,

defining vulnerability to identified risks.

Research industry and region-specific

scenarios and easily discover resources for

further adaptation planning.

Educate internal and external influencers and

stakeholders on the organization’s climate

resiliency efforts and climate impacts in

general.

Further, WMSBF wished to establish a means to

deliver consistent and relevant climate data to

The Need for a Toolkit 2: The West Michigan Climate Resiliency Summit brought together 150 local stakeholders to discuss climate adaptation in 2014. (Source: WMSBF).


5

decision makers and to regularly evaluate

continued soundness of scenarios and

assumptions, updating with new climate and

business information as needed. Ideally this

would translate identified risks into the

appropriate language for each decision point (e.g.:

the economic cost of system failure). Early in the

discovery process it became clear that this would

not be possible within the scope of the GLISA

project, and is noted in the Future Opportunities

section.

To develop the toolkit, WMSBF partnered with

Sustainable Research Group (SRG), a sustainability

consulting group that had a key role in developing

a sustainable business self-assessment tool

popular among WMSBF members; GLISA

climatologists; and four local organizations

representative of the West Michigan economy,

including a restaurant chain, manufacturer, health

care system, and public school system, further

explained in the Testing the Toolkit section.

After a series of planning discussions and

literature review, the development team defined

the toolkit as containing these specific

components:

1.) Introduction to Resiliency

2.) Assessment Survey

3.) Climate Impact Matrix

4.) Resource Clearinghouse

A description of each component follows.

Introduction to Climate Resiliency The 2014 Initiative produced a library of fact

sheets and slide decks designed to introduce

organizations to climate resiliency. These were

updated and adopted to prepare participants for

the assessment.

Assessment Survey

SRG led the development of a self-assessment

survey that organizational resiliency champions

could use to build consensus among cross-

functional team members. Following discovery

sessions with GLISA and the trial participants, SRG

evaluated a series of existing climate adaptation

tools that were developed to facilitate self-

assessments of organizations or municipalities.

Among these, it selected an adaptation toolkit

developed by the Australian Greenhouse Office for

use by government and business that would

provide the starting point for the West Michigan

toolkit (Australian Industry Group, 2015).

The Australian model included an evaluation

framework built on consequence scales and

success criteria, similar to the materiality

assessments common in sustainability planning.

The consequence scale represented the magnitude

of a potential impact, ranging from Insignificant to

Catastrophic. Meant to be defined by the interest

of the organization, the success criteria

represented an organization’s long-term

objectives, generally including a combination of

financial matters, product delivery, compliance

and reputation. Factoring success criteria against

the consequence scale would allow for an

organization to identify the potential risks

associated with climate change. (Australian

Greenhouse Office, 2006).

SRG applied an enterprise risk management

perspective to adapt the Australian framework

into the Climate Risk Matrix (Figure 1); success

criteria became business functions and the

consequence scale was replaced with a list of

Climate Impacts. When combined, these would

provide a preliminary assessment of an

organization’s vulnerability to climate change and

where to direct further efforts.

Climate impacts were divided between Weather

Events and two secondary impact categories that

might result from weather or market forces

exacerbated by extreme weather, Resource


6

Scarcity and Resource Deterioration. Specific

impacts were chosen from a review of the

Australian checklist, the City of Grand Rapids

Climate Resiliency Report, the Union of Concerned

Scientists, U.S. Department of Energy, and GLISA.

Specific thresholds were identified through the

course of the trial assessments described in the

Pilot section, allowing GLISA to create a baseline

of context for each event historically and as future

projections.

The survey is meant to be taken by a cross-

functional team comprised of representatives

from four Business Divisions. The Business

Divisions were selected by SRG based on its

experience working with companies on enterprise

risk management exercises, with an attempt to

broadly define categories for a wide range of

companies/organizations. The four identified

areas are meant to be universally applicable, but

require some limited customization for use by the

cross-functional teams: Product & Services,

Administration & Processes, Facilities &

Equipment, and Supply Chain.

As the resiliency champions define the functional

areas of each business division (e.g., what is the

organization’s product?), this should identify the

personnel that would be required to complete the

survey and the departments which would send a

representative to participate in the cross-

functional team. The champion must customize

the survey with some brief guidance on how each

function should interpret a climate impact.

To fill out the survey, functional personnel are

asked to indicate whether there would be a

business interruption or conspicuous negative

impact from each of the climate impacts.

Responses are aggregated as a cross-functional

summary, providing an indication of what Climate

Impacts should be of the greatest concern, and

what Business Divisions are the most at risk.

The quantified details for each impact area, as

available, provide a means for the champion or

planning committee to determine the likelihood

such an event might occur, and to facilitate

discussion on possible solutions.

Although the Australian assessment used the

consequence scale of Insignificant to Catastrophic,

SRG decided to employ a simpler scale of

yes/no/don’t know, reasoning that the subjective

Figure 1 Risk Matrix: Primary and secondary climate impacts comprise one axis of the assessment survey.

Risk Matrix

Weather Events

Hot days

Heat waves (> 5 consecutive days)

Draught

Severe thunderstorms

Nuisance flooding & heavy rain

Extreme and prolonged flooding

Ice storms & freezing rain

Snowfall

Cold days (wind chill or real temp)

Blizzards (high winds for 3+ hrs)

Hail

Wind events

Tornadoes

Freeze-thaw cycles

Resource Scarcity

Electricity prices

Natural gas prices

Transportation costs

Water supply & disposal costs

Agricultural costs

Resource Deterioration

Energy infrastructure

Transportation infrastructure

Water infrastructure (supply & disposal)

Externally owned building infrastructure

Pest Infestation & Pathogens

Agricultural yields

Communication Infrastructure


7

nature of the larger scale of potential values would

not provide more meaningful insights into risk

levels. Instead, personnel are asked three

questions designed to identify the most pressing

vulnerabilities within Business Divisions:

1. Is there an impact based on current

conditions and historical experience?

2. Would there be an impact if the frequency or

magnitude of those events were to increase?

3. Do you have contingency or preparedness

plans in place to respond to these impacts?

When aggregated, the Climate Risk Matrix score

for each Business Division (x-axis) and Climate

Impact (y-axis) extends from -3 (No current risk,

no future risk, and response plans in place) to 3

(Current risk exists, future risk exists, and no

current efforts to address the issue). As seen in

Figure 2 on the following page, this creates easy to

visualize “hot spots” of risk. Note that the first and

second versions of the survey used in the Pilot

assessments did not include questions on

sensitivity or adaptive capacity. An explanation of

how the changes occurred are described in the

Pilot section. Respondents are also asked to

provide scenario details for identified risks.

After the survey is completed, the cross-functional

team meets to discuss its results and participate in

a dialogue facilitated by the champion to validate

the assessment results and reach a consensus on

priority concerns.

An example survey is found in Appendix A.

Climate Event Matrix Whereas the assessment survey facilitates an

understanding of how and to what degree an

organization might be affected by climate impacts,

it does not alone provide the necessary context to

assess vulnerability. The Climate Event Matrix

was developed in partnership with GLISA

climatologists to provide that context by aligning

localized climate data to baseline scenario details

collected from the Pilot assessments. This allows

an organization to determine the likelihood its

sensitive assets and processes will be disrupted by

weather events, based on the unique thresholds of

its systems.

For instance, if hot days are flagged as a concern

for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

(HVAC) equipment, responsible personnel should

have some idea of the set-points at which

performance issues would occur. These set-points

can then be cross-referenced with historical

climate data and future projections to determine

the likelihood that the severity of the heat events

will exceed the capacity of the system.

Using the Climate Event Matrix, champions are

able to cross-reference identified set-points of

climate risk to climate data. The baseline data is

specific to Grand Rapids, Mich., and developed

from set-points provided in the four pilot

assessments. GLISA worked with WMSBF and

their partners (through informal phone calls,

surveys, and meetings lead by WMSBF) to identify

the most relevant climate hazards and develop a

custom 2-page Grand Rapids summary of the

historical trends and future projections for those

hazards. Climate information provided in the 2-

page summary included extreme heat and cold

events (hot/cold days, heat waves), flood

indicators (heavy rain at different time intervals),

winter storms (snowfall, freezing rain), freeze

thaw cycles, wind storms, and drought indicators.

This is found in Appendix B.

The Climate Event Matrix is limited to Weather

Events and does not currently provide baseline

information for the secondary impact categories

of Resource Scarcity and Resource Deterioration,

due to the difficulty of quantifying those impacts

as a baseline.


8

Resource Clearinghouse

Curated for WMSBF common member interests,

the clearinghouse collects research and resources

from industry, academic and government sources,

as well as news stories likely of interest to

resiliency champions.

Figure 2: Assessment Survey Results and User Key. When complete, the assessment survey creates easily visualized resiliency "hot spots."


9

Using the Toolkit The toolkit allows organizations to determine

their vulnerability to climate impacts through

dialogue and risk-consideration facilitated by the

champion or their third-party representative.

This is accomplished through the following steps:

1.) Identify key personnel

2.) Take surveys

3.) Hold consensus meeting with key

personnel

4.) Identify and collect risk thresholds

5.) Reconcile with climate variables

6.) Produce deliverable

The deliverable is flexible to the culture of the

organization. In developing the toolkit, it was

assumed to be a short report or slide deck

summarizing the organization’s vulnerability to

climate change, the relevant climate data, and

anecdotes on how peer organizations are being

impacted by climate events or responding to

climate impacts (aggregated from news clippings

or industry reports).

Testing the Toolkit: Vulnerability Assessment Pilot To assist in the development of the toolkit and to

serve as beta testers, WMSBF identified four

regional organizations that participated in its

initial project and expressed an interest in

performing vulnerability assessments for their

organizations if resources and expertise were

made available. These organizations are

representative of a diverse range of business and

institutional interests, and offered an opportunity

to develop sector-wide assessment templates for a

wider audience. Working with these organizations

would allow WMSBF to refine the adaptation

toolkit and later promote it to other relevant

audiences, with the expectation that peer

organizations would be inspired to invest time

into assessments of their own, potentially for

competitive reasons, utilizing the adaptation tool

kit.

Participating organizations included Spectrum

Health, the region’s largest health care provider

and largest employer; Grand Rapids Public

Schools, its largest public school system; Perrigo, a

prominent manufacturer; and Barfly Ventures, a

popular restaurant chain. For each organization,

the environmental sustainability lead served as

the climate resiliency champion, facilitating

participation among cross-functional personnel

and representing the organization to the project

team. Care was taken to select organizations that

were not under significant regulatory pressure as

a result of climate change, avoiding the most likely

potential for internal controversies to emerge

during the process. Information on the four

organizations can be found in Table 1 on the

following page.

The assessment process followed the standard

outlined in the prior section, with the addition of

two meetings between SRG, WMSBF and the

champion and/or their support personnel to

discuss the use of the assessment tool and the

meeting at which the results would be discussed

with the cross-functional team. SRG performed

the facilitation tasks designed for the

organizational champion. Due to confidentially

requirements, the specific set-points and

thresholds collected from each organization will

be kept private.

Adjustments made throughout the pilot process

are outlined in Table 2 on the following page.


10

Table 2: Evolution of Assessment Survey Version Problem Adjustment 1. Expectations for most business divisions aligned with

assessment results, but one division did not, exhibited no

vulnerabilities whatsoever. The decision maker for division

was not able to determine whether potential impacts would

have an effect.

An initial meeting was scheduled to explain the

concept of climate resiliency and to demonstrate

how the survey should be filled out. Respondents

given a month to complete the survey before

consensus meeting.

2. Participants expected assessment to provide a detailed action

plan with suggested capital improvements.

During subsequent assessments there was a much more deliberate effort to outline expectations of the pilot and the role of the internal champion.

The survey tool favored climate impacts that would impact

multiple business divisions, highlighting the most extreme

events, regardless of likelihood and preparation, or whether

the risk would be exacerbated by climate change. A tornado

would impact all business divisions, but occurrences are rare

and the influence of climate change should not alter its high-

impact, low-occurrence dynamic.

The survey was adapted to account for adaptive capacity and to quantify the impact of climate change.

Missing Climate Impact identified: Pest Infestations &

Pathogens.

Added to Climate Risk Matrix.

3 Participants were most concerned for multiple impact

scenarios, which is not addressed directly by assessment

survey.

Multiple impact events are implicit, given the often

causal relationship between weather events and

resource scarcity or resource deterioration. No

change was necessary as a result of this feedback.

4 No significant adjustments were made to the tool or process as a result of this assessment.

Terms Definition GRPS Spectrum Perrigo Barfly

Product & Services

This is the service or product that is

central to the company's mission.

Why does the company or

organization exist?

Student learning &

knowledgeable

students

Community

Health & healthy

patients

Drug

manufacturing &

Satisfied

Customers

Hospitality &

Entertained

Patrons

Administration &

Processes

The processes, procedures, and

institutional knowledge that is

necessary to provide a

product/service to market. Where

does the human capital and

knowledge exist?

Finances,

Marketing/Sales,

Human Resources,

Purchasing,

Community

Relations

Finances,

Marketing/Sales,

Human Resources,

Purchasing,

Public Relations,

Legal

Finances,

Marketing/Sales,

Human Resources,

Purchasing,

Public Relations,

Legal -Regulatory

Finances,

Marketing/Sales,

Human Resources,

Purchasing, Legal

Facilities &

Equipment

What are the physical structures

and equipment that are needed to

produce a service or product?

Energy, HVAC,

Water, Waste,

Structural,

Storage,

Maintenance

Energy, HVAC,

Humidity, Water,

Waste, Storage,

Structural,

Maintenance

Energy, HVAC,

Water, Waste,

Structural,

Regulatory,

Storage,

Maintenance

Energy, HVAC,

Water, Waste,

Structural,

Storage,

Maintenance

Supply Chain

What are the external suppliers that

are essential to produce a

product/service? Which suppliers

are most essential?

Logistics,

Inventory,

Supplier Codes &

Audits, Quality,

Contingency Plans

Logistics,

Inventory,

Supplier Codes &

Audits, Quality,

Contingency Plans

Logistics,

Inventory,

Supplier Codes &

Audits, Quality,

Contingency Plans

Logistics,

Inventory,

Supplier Codes &

Audits, Quality,

Contingency Plans

Table 1: Business Division Definitions By Industry Sector

Table 1: Business Division Definitions by Industry Sector: The business divisions were designed to be universally applicable, but require some customization for each sector.

Table 2: Assessment survey was evaluated and revised after each pilot assessment.


11

Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 1:

Hospitality The toolkit was first tested with Barfly Ventures, a

Grand Rapids-based hospitality group with

restaurant/bar locations in the Greater Grand

Rapids area and across the Midwest. The

vulnerabilities identified through the assessment

are likely consistent with other hospitality chains

and a majority of small to medium-sized

enterprises. It was unique among the pilot

participants for its rapid growth and expansion,

comparable to many growth-oriented national

chains.

The sustainability director and support personnel

were the resiliency champions. Survey version 1

was completed by four key personnel

representing the various business divisions.

Due to availability and scheduling constraints the

consensus meeting was divided into two meetings,

one in May, the other in July. The May meeting

included leadership representatives for supply

chain and human resources. The July meeting was

with a senior manager and co-owner. In the

consensus meeting dialogue, survey respondents

were most concerned with how climate would

impact business on a national scale.

Assessment results are detailed in Table 3 on the following page.

Outcomes and Opportunities The hospitality and food service industry is

dictated by its supply chain in ways that other

industries are not; droughts, crop shortages, and

lower yields can impact all available suppliers at

the same time and the options are limited when

specific crops are not available.

An organization of reasonable size can work with

suppliers to support resiliency within the supply

chain or adapt its sourcing to align with more

resilient ingredients.

In general, it was clear the organization should

invest in continuity planning regardless of

whether it is done through a climate resiliency

framework. Currently, it has limited plans and

protocols in place.

Additionally, the assessment highlighted some

potential opportunities for future resource

development:

Climate resilient menu: Are there

examples of restaurants changing menus

in response to possible supply chain

disruption? What types of foods are

climate resilient?

A national climate vulnerability map for

site assessors would be helpful for

hospitality, retail and other organizations

to determine how to optimize expansion

plans for insurance rates and supply

resiliency.

Lessons Learned

A pre-assessment literature review suggested that

a hospitality business is susceptible to supply

chain impacts such as crop shortages or increased

food costs, and other impacts on products and

services. Facilities would be negatively impacted

by weather events and utility costs. (DeMicco,

2015). There was also an expectation that

restaurant traffic and general performance would

be heavily impacted by weather. (National

Restaurant Association 2012).

The assessment survey did highlight supply chains

and facilities as the business divisions most likely

to be impacted by climate disruptions. However,

there was little discussion on how weather

impacts restaurant traffic and patronage.

In examining how this occurred, it was noted that

the decision maker for the Products & Services

division was not able to determine whether most

impacts would or would not have an impact.


12

Table 3: Pilot Assessment Results for Hospitality Organization

Business Division Assessment Results Climate Impacts

Product & Services Using the version 1 methodology this business division was not flagged as particularly vulnerable.

Hot days

Administration & Processes

Consensus meeting dialogue focused on the general absence

of continuity planning, a result of the organization’s intense

growth, though not unique among organizations of its size

or within its industry.

Ice storms, Blizzards,

Tornadoes, Floods

and excessive rain

Facilities & Equipment

As the organization was preoccupied with expansion, the siting of facilities and potential impact of climate variables on business performance and insurance costs was a keen interest. The most prominent threats were those with significant regional variation: blizzards, tornadoes, floods, and power outages. The decentralized nature of the organization also provides resiliency advantages, in that is can easily absorb local impacts.

Hot days, Cold days, Ice storms, Blizzards, Tornadoes, Floods and excessive rain

Supply Chain Decisions about the supply chain are made with growth in

mind – no items are added that cannot be supplied to all

existing and future locations. The organization does not

currently evaluate the potential for growth in the context of

potential changes in crop yields or future droughts. The

company relies on an existing robust national system

already in place to provide alerts for short-term crop

shortages, but the infrastructure does not exist to evaluate

long-term risks associated with climate trends. While the

national presence has resiliency advantages, the

streamlined national supply chain has the opposite effect;

single-source vendors chosen for consistency and

sustainability are vulnerable to droughts, crop shortages,

and lower yields.

Hot days, Cold days, Ice storms, Blizzards, Tornadoes, Floods and excessive rain

Table 3: Assessment Results for Hospitality.


13

Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 2: Manufacturing

Perrigo is a large manufacturer with two facilities

and several buildings in the West Michigan area.

It is a publicly traded company and among the

region’s largest employers. Its local operations

are principally in rural communities.

Manufacturing operations are highly advanced,

lean and time-sensitive.

The sustainability manager was the resiliency

champion. Survey 2 was completed by 12 key

personnel representing the four business

divisions. An initial meeting with respondents

was scheduled to explain briefly the concept of

climate resiliency and to demonstrate how the

survey should be filled out. They were then given

a month to complete the survey, with the

consensus meeting held a month later, in July. In

the consensus meeting dialogue, survey

respondents were most concerned with how

climate would impact business on a national scale.

Assessment results are detailed in Table 4 on the

following page.

Outcomes and Opportunities

A pre-assessment literature review suggested that

global manufacturing enterprises similar to this

organization were heavily susceptible to supply

chain interruptions and facility impacts as a result

of extreme weather events. Further, heating and

cooling extremes would strain facilities,

particularly HVAC equipment. Critical third-party

infrastructure (electrical, communications, water)

was also vulnerable (Doyle, 2015).

The assessment identified Supply Chain and

Facilities & Processes as the largest areas of risk.

A number of specific thresholds at which asset

failure would occur were identified, including

measures for hot and cold days, and consecutive

hot and cold days. These were then cross-

referenced with climate projections to provide

information on the likelihood these events may

increase in frequency in the future. By and large,

this organization was prepared for a business

interpretation and had significant redundancies in

place to deal with extreme weather and other

common climate impacts. Its most pressing risks

are external in nature, as it relies on a handful of

single-source vendors for critical infrastructure,

especially water and electricity. Such a concern is

not unique, and suggests an opportunity for

businesses to research the resiliency of local

utilities, and resiliency in general. A similar

opportunity exists for information regarding

resiliency of energy choice programs that allow

facilities to opt-out of regional monopolies and

purchase gas or electricity on the open market.

In general, the organization expressed an interest

in seeing examples of how its peer organizations

were responding to climate change, and would

have preferred a set of prepared

recommendations to the consensus building

process.

The assessment result suggest there is a business

case for a thorough risk analysis of the

organization’s supply chain and facilities for

potential climate impacts. In most instances it can

take advantage of existing policies and

procedures, expanding to include climate

information.

As an international organization, there is a need to

evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of

its facilities to best position themselves for future

expenses.

Lessons Learned Similar to the hospitality pilot, there was a

dissonance of scale, as this was a global enterprise

and many of the potential business division

climate impacts would not occur locally. The

focus on the West Michigan area limited the value

that could be offered to the organization being

assessed, as its assets did not precisely align with

the geographic scope of the assessment.


14

Presumably, the potential impacts outlined in the Climate Risk Matrix are ubiquitous and universal globally, making it transferrable to facilities outside of the West Michigan region. But the nature, magnitude and timeliness of the climate events outlined in the Climate Event Matrix are local, further suggesting a need for organizations to access local climate data if an organization with a national or international footprint is to conduct a climate vulnerability assessment at multiple facilities, or for the global enterprise altogether.

Infrastructure, HVAC and other facility concerns

were the predominant points of discussion during

the consensus-building meeting, not unlike most

of the other assessments. However, this was the

only assessment that articulated resiliency

planning in terms of a capital investment, as

opposed to process improvement. Given that the

assessment is not designed to specify potential

capital improvements, and could not do so

without the aid of additional resources, this

implied a failure of process. During subsequent

assessments there was a much more deliberate

effort to outline expectations of the pilot and the

role of the internal champion.

The survey tool again favored climate impacts that

would affect multiple business divisions,

highlighting the most extreme events. After

Table 4: Pilot Assessment Results for Manufacturing Organization

Business Division Assessment Results Climate Impacts

Product & Services The survey results and consensus dialogue suggested

limited vulnerability.

Water


The survey results and consensus dialogue suggested

limited vulnerability.

Hot and Cold Days,

Ice storms and

freezing rain,

Tornadoes, high

winds,

Nuisance flooding,

Communication


HVAC, building design, and codes are not adaptive. The

facilities are designed and sized to accommodate specific

high and low temperature set-points that are relevant to the

region and time the facilities were built. Electricity back-up

plans are limited to the larger grid design, so any

weaknesses in the grid will directly impact the robustness

of available energy systems. Higher wind speeds can have a

direct impact on efficiency and effectiveness of fans. A

specific concern was stated regarding the resiliency of the

state’s electric choice program.

Hot and Cold Days, Ice storms and freezing rain, Tornadoes, high winds, Energy, Water Communication

Supply Chain Extreme cold has an impact on transportation logistics in the form of late deliveries and frozen truck beds, which impact product and ingredients.

Hot and Cold Days,

Ice storms and

freezing rain,

Nuisance flooding, Energy, Communication

Table 4: Assessment Results for Manufacturing.


15

debate among the project team, it was ultimately

agreed that the tool would consistently highlight

such events as the highest risk regardless of

likelihood and preparation, or whether the risk

would be exacerbated by climate change. As an

example, a tornado would cause a business

interruption across all business divisions, but

occurrences are rare and the influence of climate

change should not alter its high-impact, low-

occurrence dynamic.

Subsequently, the survey was adapted to account

for adaptive capacity and to quantify the impact of

climate change. A new climate impact was added

as well, recognizing that there was no means to

capture Pest Infestations & Pathogens.

Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 3: Health Care

Spectrum Health is a not-for-profit health care

system with corporate offices located in Grand

Rapids and a footprint that covers the entire state,

including a medical center, regional community

hospitals, a dedicated children’s hospital, a

multispecialty medical group, affiliated physicians,

and a health plan. It is also West Michigan’s

largest employer.


champion. Survey version 3 was completed by

four key personnel representing the four business

divisions. As with the prior assessment, SRG

representatives met with survey takers initially,

then facilitated the consensus meeting a month

later, in August.

The literature review suggested that climate

change would lead to an increase in demand for

health care services due to a variety of predicted

climate impacts, that health care would suffer

from similar facility and supply chain challenges

as other industries, and that the organization

should already be heavily invested in emergency

management planning, providing an existing

framework for resiliency discussions (USHHS,

2014; Quinlan, 2014).

The final version of the assessment survey

provided a clearer image of climate concerns by

incorporating future impacts and adaptive

capacity. Assessment results are detailed in Table

5 on the following page.

Outcomes & Opportunities

As expected, the health care system has robust

emergency management plans and procedures

that require constant testing and evaluation. On a

whole, the least impacted business division was

Administration & Processes, which was

intentionally designed to be adaptive and

responsive to changing conditions. The impact of

any single climate event is not likely to be outside

the adaptive capacity of the organization, but the

increased strain that climate has on multiple

business divisions has potential to compound

existing risks.

The assessment identified several thresholds for

the organization’s facilities, all of which proved to

be rare and not likely to be vulnerable to future

climate events.

This particular assessment proved the value of the

consensus-building meeting, as certain

conclusions derived from the assessment tool

were challenged and functionally overruled as the

process went on. As noted, combined impacts was

the prevalent concern among the cross-functional

representatives, which seems reasonable given

the adaptive capacity of the organization and

robust thresholds for process failure; for example,

a heat event might not normally present a realistic

risk, but if that event coincided with a power loss

it could be catastrophic.


16

One potential climate impact that had not been

perceived as a risk whatsoever in the assessment

survey results was flagged as a major concern

because of the meeting dialogue. When taking the

survey, respondents indicated that Water Supply

was either not a concern, or that they did not

know it was a concern. Following the dialogue,

there was consensus that Water Supply was a

primary concern. Follow-up research did not

suggest there would be a strong likelihood of this

occurring regionally (WMEAC, 2013), though the

possibility existed. The organization was highly

sensitive to the event, but not particularly

exposed. Further study is merited.

The overarching conclusion of the assessment was

that the organization was well equipped to

respond to many of the impacts associated with

climate change, but that there are targeted needs

for adaptation planning. Given the relationship

between its operational performance and human

health, there is an obvious business case for

climate adaptation planning.

Specific identified needs include an evaluation of

single-source vendors for critical infrastructure

such as water, electricity and communications,

and the development of a model to predict how

climate change could exacerbate health care

staffing shortages.

Table 5: Pilot Assessment Results for Health Care Organization

Primary Concerns Secondary Concerns

Communication infrastructure

Ice storms and freezing rain

Blizzards

Water supply & disposal

Tornadoes Nuisance Flooding & Heavy Rain Extreme prolonged flooding Pests & Pathogens Energy Infrastructure

Business Division Assessment Results Product & Services Vulnerability was limited to a few specific impacts, including those related to staff

availability (transportation), utility costs, and the spread of disease.


With one exception (communication infrastructure), administration is believed to be

adaptive and resilient. However, human resources are essential to the products and

services delivered. Transportation of staff could easily be impaired by climate events,

while staffing needs could be challenged by increased risk of epidemics, heat events,

or vector or water borne diseases.


Infrastructure is multifunctional with strict operating temperature and ventilation

requirements. Weather events have the potential to stress the capacity of buildings

built and designed with a different climate in mind.

Supply Chain The organization relies heavily on its supply chain to be adaptive and responsive to

changing conditions and needs. Any impacts to transportation delays due to weather

events or infrastructure deterioration will have immediate impacts on products &

services provided.

Table 5: Assessment Results for Health Care.


17

Lessons Learned

The adjustments to the survey tool described in

Table 2 provided the intended outcome, guiding

dialogue and attention to climate events more

representative of real-world concerns than in

earlier pilot assessments. Also, the consensus

dialogue proved critical to the process, identifying

a priority concern that would have not have

emerged through the survey alone. Champions

that forego that step may suffer inaccurate

assessment results.

Multiple and compounding impacts were heavily

discussed during this assessment. The tool does

already presume multiple impacts implicitly, given

the often causal relationship between weather

events and resource scarcity or resource

deterioration.

Pilot Vulnerability Assessment 4: K-12 Public Education

Grand Rapids Public Schools is the largest public

school system in West Michigan. It is also among

the largest employers and property owners in the

region, with several dozen facilities in a mostly

urban environment.


champion. Survey version 3 was completed by

eight key personnel representing the four

business divisions. Those taking the assessment

were cabinet-level staff. An unintended variation

occurred in process that created a realistic, if not

ideal, test scenario for the toolkit. Due to

scheduling complications, the consensus meeting

was not held; additional context and verification

of results were from the perspective of the

champion only without cross-functional dialogue.

A pre-assessment literature review suggested the

largest impact would be felt on facilities and

classroom activities as a result of extreme

weather. There was an expectation that the

assessment would demonstrate a need for

adaptive classrooms to accommodate for variable

climates, and that schools have emergency

management plans already in place for extreme

weather events.

The organization was most vulnerable to events

that impacted the transportation and safety of

students and staff. Assessment results are

detailed in Table 6 on the following page.

In this assessment, the Climate Event Matrix was

complemented with an evaluation of school

closures as an attempt to quantify the conditions

under which a closure may occur, and assess those

for resiliency given current projections provided

by GLISA. From fall 2013 to winter 2017 there

were 12 closings (WMSBF, 2017). The district

had no formal system for determining if a closure

should occur. Personnel monitor weather reports

from two local TV stations and make a judgment

call. It did have a system to communicate

closures. Transportation and communication

infrastructures were both highlighted as key

vulnerabilities.


18

Table 6: Pilot Assessment Results for K-12 Education Organization

Primary Concerns Secondary Concerns

Blizzards

Nuisance flooding & heavy rains

Ice storms & freezing rain

Resource Deterioration

Communication Infrastructure

Prolonged flooding

Heavy snowfall

Wind events

Transportation costs

Transportation infrastructure

Business Division Assessment Results Product & Services Respondents suggested that student learning was critically vulnerable to climate

impacts from weather events, resource scarcity and resource deterioration.

Surprisingly, weather events were a secondary concern due to present adaptive

capacity. There is consensus that budget constraints are the largest concern for

student learning and operational efficacy, and those items associated with costs

paid by this division were deemed the most vulnerable. Infrastructure concerns

were also prevalent.


Respondents cited vulnerability to nearly all climate impacts. These issues will

affect how people do their jobs, and there is limited capacity in place to account for

potential changes. For example, on very hot days water is often delivered to staff

and students; as a result the person delivering the water may not be able to

perform his/her normal duties that day. The same is the case for climate events,

resource scarcity, and resource deterioration. Administrative roles will need to be

adaptive and nimble to effectively react to changing conditions.


Respondents representing this division did not identify many issues of concern in

comparison to other divisions. Nuisance flooding & heavy rain was the largest

concern. Of note, although this division has the largest impact on the energy

budget, it does not bear the burden of increased energy/utility costs, which is the

responsibility of departments associated with student learning and

administration.

Supply Chain Is vulnerable to weather events, but is generally resilient. The largest vulnerability

in this instance is food. Other aspects of supply chain have little urgency and ample

supply on hand.

GRPS School Closing Climate Data (2013 – 2017)

Sources: GRPS, WZZM-13, mlive, GLISA

Freezing Rain (Three closures)

Relatively common,

more so in Grand Rapids

than elsewhere in state

Most common between

5 am and noon

Will increase

Low windchill (Four closures)

Below 10 degrees F (real

temp) 23 times per year

Below -10 degrees F

(real temp) almost

never

Will decrease

Heavy Snow or Blowing Snow

(Five closures)

More frequent last 10

years

More common in Grand

Rapids than elsewhere in

state

Will decrease

Table 6: Assessment Results for k-12 Educational Organizations.


19

Outcomes & Opportunities As expected, the school system was vulnerable to

climate impacts. Student learning is traditionally

location-based (i.e., the physical classroom),

centered on the ability to place students and

faculty together on a precise schedule. A single

weather event can delay or cancel hours that

students would typically spend in the classroom.

Available literature suggests adaptive classrooms

and learning environments could accommodate

variable climate events, but put a higher strain on

equipment and infrastructure costs. (Goodman,

2014). As an example, the school could extend

classroom hours into the home with technology.

The resiliency champion and administrative

personnel were keenly focused on how climate

change could exacerbate budget issues. This was

a notable discrepancy in the views of the business

divisions, as the facilities representatives

expressed little concern for the budgetary risks. It

was suggested that only the business divisions

responsible for paying these costs would flag them

as vulnerabilities, which appeared to be the case.

To provide an incentive for resiliency

improvements, the impact of resource scarcity

could be aligned to the usage of resources, so that

the divisions responsible for funding

improvements can benefit from them.

Given the attention paid to community

engagement, student safety, and emergency

planning, schools are typically a community

resource for communication, emergency response,

and community events. The facilities are multi-

functional environments that accommodate both

community and school programming, which may

provide opportunities during major climate

events.

Further, school closings are more than an

operational concern for the school district. Such

occurrences are in themselves a notable climate

impact, given the role schools play in childcare.

Beyond supervision, some students in the pilot

district receive all three meals of the day from the

school. Any effort to limit the impact of closures

should consider the effect on working parents and

disadvantaged families. It is an opportunity to

increase the resiliency of the community as a

whole.

Lessons Learned Though it is likely that many organizations using

the toolkit will choose not to host the consensus-

building meetings, the outcomes of this

assessment did highlight the value of that process.

Had the meeting occurred, it is possible that the

dialogue could have inspired positive movement

around the identified vulnerabilities and

opportunities, particularly the recommendation

that divisions required to make the investment in

a resiliency measure see the benefit of that

measure.

Lessons Learned: Final Toolkit and Expectations Anecdotally, the resiliency assessment process

appears to have been a rewarding experience for

all the organizations that participated, providing

an educational opportunity for internal decision

makers on climate change and how an

organization might be vulnerable to it.

Resiliency and preparedness varied among the

pilot participants. The one organization with no

preparedness strategy whatsoever seems to have

viewed the process as a call to action. The

organizations with existing contingency plans

appear poised to augment those to include climate

projections, especially the two with geographic

footprints limited to the West Michigan area, as

the toolkit will be most useful to organizations

with local operations and local vulnerabilities.

The overarching objective to inspire organizations

to pursue adaption planning appears to have been


20

successful, and the degree of that success will be

determined by whether the champions are able to

maintain focus on continued efforts. It is a fair

conclusion that the organizations and industries

most vulnerable to climate impacts will be the

most likely to continue planning efforts.

WMSBF was not intimately familiar with the state

of climate resources when it began this project. As

a result, we overestimated the availability and

practicality of certain resources, such as the ability

to provide relevant climate data downscaled to

the facility level. Such resources did not prove

necessary to the process.

One objective was not meaningfully accomplished

through the toolkit development: to develop a

means to educate internal and external

stakeholders on the organization’s climate

resiliency efforts. This was not deemed valuable

to the participants given existing efforts, based on

pilot participant feedback.

Future Opportunities WMSBF will promote the availability of the toolkit

and continue to work with the pilot participants as

resources allow. There is an immediate need to

expand the Climate Event Matrix to include

baseline data for the secondary impacts of

Resource Scarcity and Resource Deterioration.

During the pilot assessments narrative data was

customized to unique organization requests,

which were more difficult to quantify and codify

than the set-points for Weather Events.

In addition, the assessments highlighted many

opportunities for further research and resource

development, including:

How can we determine the cost of

business interruption or system failure to

create a business case for resiliency

planning and investment?

How can we decrease the impact of school

closures on worker availability, student

learning, and child hunger?

What is the infrastructure resiliency for

energy, water, wastewater,

transportation, and communication?

Are utility choice programs resilient?

Can you change the product or service to

make climate change an opportunity?

Are there examples of restaurants

changing the menus to prepare for supply

chain disruption?

What types of foods are climate resilient?

Can West Michigan embrace adaptive

classrooms and lesson plans that keep

students learning when facilities are

closed?

How will the American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) Design Days change

with a changing climate?

How do organizations use downscaled

climate information?

How do we account for the various

people/cultural issues involved in

planning around climate change (e.g.,

climate skeptics)?

How can climate resiliency be used in

facility siting decisions?

Further, the toolkit is scalable within the region

and could be used to assess neighborhood

business districts, local industry clusters, or other

concerns.


21

Work Cited Australian Industry Group. 2015. Managing the

Risks from Climate Change: An Adaptation Checklist for Business.

DeMicco, F. 2015. Cracker Barrel: A Strategic Case

Study in Restaurant Management. Journal of Foodservice Business Research. 18 (4): pp. 426.

Department of the Environment and Heritage

Australian Greenhouse Office. 2006. Climate Change Impacts & Risk Management: A Guide for Business and Government. pp. 26-42.

Doyle, J., Hill, K., Menk, D., and Wallace, R. 2015.

Severe Weather and Manufacturing in America: Comparing the Cost of Droughts, Storms and Extreme Temperatures with the Cost of New EPA Standards. Business Forward Foundation.

Goodman, J. June 12, 2014. Flaking Out: Student

Absences and Snow Days as Disruptions of Instructional Time. Harvard University and NBER, http://www.nber.org/papers/w20221

Lowitt, E. April 2014. How to Survive Climate

Change and Still Run a Thriving Business: Checklists for Smart Leaders. Harvard Business Review. 86-93

National Restaurant Association. March 1, 2012. Weather often a barometer of sales, traffic. https://wahospitality.org/blog/weather-often-a-barometer-of-sales-traffic/

Quinlan, 2014. Health Care and Climate Change:

an Opportunity for Transformative Leadership. https://noharm-uscanada.org/

Union of Concerned Scientists. July 2009.

Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Midwest.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(USHHS). July 2014. Climate Adaptation Plan. West Michigan Environmental Action Council

(WMEAC). December 2013. Grand Rapids Climate Resiliency Report.

West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum

(WMSBF). 2017. Meta-review of local media coverage of weather-related GRPS closures for 2013 to 2016.

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Richard Rood and Evan Oswald for their contribution to this project, and Kim Channell, Jenna Jorns, and Ian Robinson for their work on this report.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20221

https://wahospitality.org/blog/weather-often-a-barometer-of-sales-traffic/

https://wahospitality.org/blog/weather-often-a-barometer-of-sales-traffic/

https://noharm-uscanada.org/


22

Appendix A: Assessment Survey Example: Supply Chain


23

Appendix B: Grand Rapids Climate Fact Sheet

Grand Rapids, MIHistorical and Future Climate Information

Extreme Heat Hot Days (92˚F) - Days with high temperatures at or above

92˚F are fairly common, and there has not been an increase in the number of days over 92˚F over the last 100 years. Multiple consecutive days experiencing max temperatures above 92˚F occur about once every other year, and the duration of extended hot days has been declining over the record. In 1897 there was a max of 9 consecutive days at or above 92˚F, but since the 1950’s these types of events are limited to 3-4 consecutive days on average. By mid-century (2050), models suggest anywhere from one week up to one month more of days over 90˚F per year.

Hot Days (103˚F) - Days with temperatures at or above 103˚F (not taking into account the heat index when temperatures can feel hotter) are rare (only 6 on record, and only one of those was since the 1930’s). The record maximum temperature was 108˚F. Geographically, the hottest temperatures are typically in the most urban parts of Grand Rapids (a result of the urban heat island effect) and locations farther away likely do not experience the same intensity of extreme heat. There are also very few (3) instances where multiple consecutive days were greater than or above 97˚F, making this level of prolonged heat rare. By mid-century (2050) models suggest up to two weeks more per year of days over 100˚F, but such hot days will not necessarily occur consecutively.

Heat Waves - Heat waves can result from a combination of different drivers including high humidity, daily high temperatures, high nighttime temperatures, stagnant air movement, etc. In the future, models project an increase in the number of days experiencing high temperatures that could lead to additional heat waves, especially since air stagnation events are projected to increase. There is greater certainty that summer nighttime low temperatures will continue to increase, thereby making it more difficult for people to cool off at night during extended heat events. In addition, periods of future drought will also contribute to extreme heat.

Extreme Cold Cold Days (-20˚F) - Days with temperatures at or below

-20˚F have only been observed 11 times in the 125-year record for Grand Rapids, MI, making it a rare event, and all but three were prior to 1900. In addition, consecutive days at or below -20˚F

have not occurred since 1900. In the future there are projected to be even fewer very cold days, so this type of event will be even more rare.

Cold Days (-10˚F) - Days with temperatures at or below -10˚F have been observed very few times in the last 30 years, but were more common during the 1960s-80s. Since 1900, there have only been three instances where a max of three consecutive days were at or below -10˚F, and the majority of cold events of this intensity were only one- or two-day events. In the future there are projected to be even fewer very cold days, so this type of event will be even more rare.

Cold Days (10˚F) - Days with temperatures at or below 10˚F are fairly common and occur on average about 23 times per year. Cold events of three or more consecutive days at or below 10˚F are also more common and occur on average about 2-3 times per year. In the future there are projected to be fewer cold days, so this type of event will likely occur less frequently.

Wind Chill (-15˚F) - Since the mid 1970’s, eight years never experienced wind chill values less than -15˚F and 10 years experienced less than 10 hours per year (1994 experienced the most number of hours totaling about 5 days worth). In general, more recent years have been characterized by fewer hours annually below this threshold, but there is great year-to-year variability. The data indicate wind chill values in Grand Rapids are driven more by cold temperatures than high wind speeds. This suggests even fewer wind chill hours in the future below -15˚F as very cold temperatures will become more rare.

Flood IndicatorsFloods can occur under a variety of conditions not necessarily caused by heavy or extended periods of rainfall. For example, relatively little rainfall could initiate flooding conditions if the ground is already saturated, or if winter snow pack melts quickly. In the future, flooding associated with winter snow melt and winter rain is more likely. In urban environments, the amount of impervious surfaces and management of runoff also plays a major role in the potential for flooding.

Heavy Rain (1-hour events) - The number of hours per year experiencing heavy rain over 0.3 inches per hour has gradually increased from 16 annual hours to 20 hours on average since 1975 with strong year-to-year variability. The projections do not explicitly provide 1-hour event information, because precipitation is reported at the daily time scale. However, extreme daily precipitation is projected to increase, so it is feasible increases may be in part due to more intense hourly events.

Heavy Rain (35-hour events) - The number of times per year experiencing over 1 inch of rain in 35 hours has increased since 1975 with strong year-to-year variability. Trends are positive but not as strong for 35-hour events receiving over 1.25 and 1.5 inches, and there is very little change in the number of 35-hour events per year receiving over 2 inches of rain. However, by mid-century (2050) up to a week more of days receiving over 2 inches of rain is projected.

Heavy Rain (2-week events) - Periods of 2 weeks receiving

Main Points• Temperatures are rising, but extremes will be moderated

(lessened) by Lake Michigan.• Winter temperatures are becoming less severe.• Winter precipitation is transitioning to more rain and

freezing rain as opposed to snow.• Intense precipitation events have increased, but the timing

of events in the future is not especially predictable.• Increased drought is possible as more precipitation is

projected to fall in shorter, intense events with longer dry periods in between.

3 or more inches of rain have increased since 1975. The years 2009 and 2013 experienced the largest number of 2-week heavy rain events in the record (since 1975). The projections do not explicitly provide consecutive 2-week event information, but they do suggest fewer days with any amount of rain in the future.

Drought IndicatorsThere are several different types of drought depending on the impacts being considered, but all depend to a certain degree on the amount of precipitation falling in a given time period.

Rain-Free Periods - Periods of 3 weeks with less than 0.45 inches of rainfall have been highly variable year-to-year. Occurrences of these dry periods decreased after peaking in the 1980s. Summer of 2011 saw the most recent peak in 3-week drought events. In the future, even though more annual precipitation is projected overall, more is anticipated to fall in shorter, extreme events leaving longer periods of time that experience no rainfall, increasing the potential for drought. Models suggest there will be up to two weeks more per year of dry days (days with less than 1mm precipitation), however those days will not necessarily occur consecutively.

Winter Storms Heavy Snowfall - The number of times per year

experiencing over 1 inch of snowfall per hour has increased since 1975, while the number of times per year experiencing over 2 inches of snowfall per hour has seen no change and remained low. The increase in 1-inch hourly snowfall is in part due to an increase in lake-effect snowfall, which in the near term may continue to increase but over the next few decades is more likely to transition to winter rain. Annual snowfall is projected to decrease 36-72 cm by mid-century.

Blizzards - Blizzards are a combination of falling or blowing snow with high winds, and Grand Rapids, MI is in a small region that has historically experienced more blizzards than other parts of Michigan (including the Lake Michigan lake-effect zone). Blizzards are most common in January for this area. With warming winter temperatures, blizzards may be replaced by high winds and rain/freezing rain/sleet events.

Freezing Rain Events - Grand Rapids, MI is in a small pocket that has historically experienced more freezing rain events than the rest of the State. Freezing rain events are most common during January and have typically occurred between 5am and noon, which can cause daily commute challenges among other impacts. There is no significant historical trend to suggest an increase in events, however there may be greater potential for freezing rain in the future (if atmospheric and surface conditions are favorable) as more winter precipitation is expected to fall as rain as opposed to snow.

Wind Storms High Winds - Wind events show a large amount of

variability from year-to-year and at different thresholds (>26mph vs >32 mph) with no consistent historic trend (>26 mph showed a slight increase, >32 mph showed a slight decrease). The future projections used do not provide information about high wind events.

Tornadoes - Tornado counts have stayed fairly constant over the last 60 years with spikes in events roughly every 10 years and

less activity in between (it is unclear why this 10-year cycle exists). Tornadoes remain low probability, high impact events.

Freeze-Thaw CyclesFreeze-thaw cycles can be defined in many ways depending on the application of the information. For general purposes, we define freeze-thaw cycles as the number of times the daily average temperature crosses (dips below and rebounds above) the 28⁰F and 32⁰F thresholds. Both thresholds have experienced a slight decreasing trend where recent years experience about two fewer cycles per year compared to the 1960s. However, there is a decent amount of variability from year to year. For example, in 1989 there were 10 freeze-thaw cycles (32⁰F), but in 1990 there were 22 cycles. The most number of cycles per year on record was 22 (32⁰F) and 19 (28⁰F), while the least number of cycles per year on record was 7 (32⁰F) and 6 (28⁰F). In the future we anticipate fewer freeze-thaw cycles especially at the lower temperature thresholds as cold temperatures become less common.

Low Visibility EventsVisibility data for Grand Rapids, MI are available for events related to fog and blizzards but, to our knowledge, do not include visibility impacts from extreme precipitation events that also impact visibility conditions. The annual number of hours where visibility conditions were poorer than the critical threshold classified by The Federal Highway Administration (300m) declined in Grand Rapids, MI since 1973 - in other words, visibility conditions have improved. There are not specific projections of fog conditions for the future, but more fog may be anticipated as winters become warmer and the air can hold more moisture. By mid-century, snowfall is projected to decline, so visibility may primarily be impacted by fog and heavy rain events.

About the DataAll future projections are based on a dynamically downscaled data set for the Great Lakes region developed by experts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. There are a total of six downscaled models that represent how a variety of different variables are projected to change (mid-century, 2040-2059, compared to the recent past, 1980-1999). The projections in this summary are applicable to the greater Grand Rapids area. The regional data (and maps) are available for download at: http://nelson.wisc.edu/ccr/resources/dynamical-downscaling/index.php.

Historical trends for Grand Rapids, MI were derived from the following data sets:

ThreadEx daily temperature observations for the Grand Rapids Area from 1892-present. (Wind chill analysis used HadISD data).

TopoWx gridded observations from 1963-2015.

HadISD quality controlled weather station found in Grand Rapids, MI (airport) that provides hourly data from 1973-2015.

ISH weather station data for Grand Rapids, MI (airport) that provides hourly data from 1973-2015.

NCEI Integrated Surface Database data from 1976-2014.

Wind - HadISD weather station found in Grand Rapids, MI that provides hourly data from 1973-2015. Tornado - NCEI Storm Events Database from 1952-2014.

Development of an Adaptation Toolkit for Resiliency...

Documents

Transcript of Development of an Adaptation Toolkit for Resiliency...