Multiscale and Multijurisdictional Geodesign: the Coastal Region of , USA

Rosanna Rivero, Alison Smith, Brian Orland, Jon Calabria, College of Environment and Design, University of Georgia, US Hrishikesh Ballal, Carl Steinitz, Geodesignhub.com Ryan Perkl, ESRI (formerly Arizona State University) Lupita McClenning and Hunter Key, Coastal Regional Commission of Georgia October 8, 2016 storm surge Sea Level Rise + Storm Surge

Population potentially displaced by a 3ft Sea Level Rise Scenario in Georgia: 90,000(1) 30% of expected population growth 2050

Hauer, Mathew E., Jason M. Evans, and Deepak R. Mishra. 2016. "Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States." Nature Clim. Change NOAA FORECAST SEA LEVEL RISE Potential Storm Surge Impacts • Population potentially impacted by storm surge scenarios: between 61% and 86% (total population in this 6-county region is 525,000 people, with Savannah as the major city in the region - pop=142,022, 2012). • The economic base of this region is supported by a total Savannah of 29,000 business and 280,000 employees, that produce a total in regional sales of $ 55,462,232,000 in annual sales (Claritas and Nilsen, 2014). Around 80% of these totals, and up to 89% of these total sales could be potentially affected under scenario 3 (hurricanes 3-5), with around 30% under a lower scenario. • More than 4,000 miles of roads, that represent a total of 67% of the total regional roads (6,100 miles of roads) could be impacted by the highest level of threat (hurricane category 3-5).

Source: University of Georgia, Hazard and Resilience Assessment, Studio @ College of Environment and Design, 2013

University of Georgia Geodesign Workshop January 26 – 28, 2015 A 3-day workshop was initiated by Professor Carl Steinitz and Dan Nadenicek, Dean of Subsystems which drive change the College of Environment and Design (CED), at the University of Georgia (UGA). Industry and Tourism Demographic/social change The issue at hand was to produce a single negotiated design, based on a series of Climate change, hurricanes constrains for long term future scenarios (2030 and 2050) for Chatham County, GA and the Wormsloe Historic Site. Vulnerable to change Climate Chatham County, Georgia, USA Wormsloe State Park & Historic Site Ecology/Nature Surface Water Groundwater Historic/Cultural Visual/Tourism

Attractive for change Agriculture/Forestry Housing Development Commercial/Industrial development Transportation development 10 Systems The Challenge: Can we come to one agreed design?

AN ALTERNATIVEAN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FUTURE FOR THEFOR THE COASTAL COASTAL ZONEZONE OF OF GEORGIA, GEORGIA, USA USA AN EXPERIMENT IN MULTI-SCALE AND MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL GEODESIGN DYNAMICS

A FRAMEWORK FOR GEODESIGN WHY WHAT? WHY? WHERE? WHEN? ASSESSMENT DATA

KNOWLEDGE

VALUES INTERVENTIONDATA DATA

KNOWLEDGE

VALUES April 20-21, 2016 INDEPENDENT RELATED INTEGRATED HOW? Lupita McLenning, Hunter Key, Georgia Coastal Regional Commission Rosanna Rivero, Alison Smith, Brian Orland, Jon Calabria, University of Georgia O Ryan Perkl, University of Arizona Carl Steinitz, Hrishi Ballal, Tess Canfield, Geodesignhub.com Pre-workshop Planning Stage The Team

• Steinitz’ Geodesign • GIS Data Framework • Stakeholders • Geodesign digital identification workflow • Logistical structure in the (geodesignhub.com) coast for workshop • Land use allocation model Coastal Geodesign Regional Hub Commission of Georgia 1. Define study area and issues University2. Identify of 10 Systems Georgia, University of College of Arizona Environment and Design • Identification of issues • • Assessment matrix + maps + GIS Analysis • Green Infrastructure Workflow • Landscape Corridor Model • Stakeholder involvement THE STUDY REGION THE REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION MODELS FOR THE TEN + - SYSTEMS

IMPACTS MODEL FOR EACH SYSTEM CROSS-IMPACTS MODEL COSTS MODEL 01 - Green Infrastructure:01 - Green Parks/Recreation/Conservation/Ecological Infrastructure: Parks/Recreation/Conservation/Ecological connectivity/Climateconnectivity/Climate Change mitigation Change as a function mitigation of asGI a function of GI System 1 System 1 Contact / Expert Name MapContact Maker / Expert Name Map Maker

Description of Evaluation: GroupDescription A of Evaluation: Group A Rosanna RosannaRosanna Rosanna

Identify habitats with high priority for Identifyconservation, habitats existing with high conservation priority for conservation, lands, improve existing conservation lands, improve connectivity among existing and futureconnectivity protected among lands existing(for vegetation, and future wildlife protected habitats, lands and (for vegetation, wildlife habitats, and associated water and land movementassociated needs, including water and surface land movement water and needs, groundwater including surface water and groundwater recharge) recharge) Green: Prime land for protection (alreadyGreen: protected Prime land by forlaw, protection or high environmental(already protected risk) by law, or high environmental risk) Light Green: Highest Priority for priorityLight for Green: conservation Highest (basedPriority onfor priorityESRI's forGR conservation (based on ESRI's GR connectivity/corridors) connectivity/corridors) Yellow: place you can build Yellow: place you can build Light red: Intermediate priority for conservationLight red: Intermediate (based on ESRI'spriority GRfor conservation connectivity/corridors) (based on ESRI's GR connectivity/corridors) Red: already on protected list Red: already on protected list

FEASIBLEMost Appropiate for Change PossibleSUITABLEMost Change Appropiate for Change CAPABLEPossible Change PossibleINAPPROPRIATE Protect MostEXISTINGPossible Appropiate Protect for ProtectionMost Appropiate for Protection

Areas to be protected by law HighestAreas priority to be on protected currently by lawRest Highest of the Areapriority (No on currently RestIntermediate of the Area priority (No for AreasIntermediate already priority protected for by Areas already protected by (or close to be) because of unprotected(or close lands to be) by because law, ofrestrictions unprotected to build) lands by law, restrictionsconservation to (basedbuild) on legallyconservation established (based property on legally established property imminent threat or but primeimminent for protection threat or but prime for protection ESRI's GR ownership,ESRI's GR managements, or ownership, managements, or environmental risk, including basedenvironmental on ESRI Green risk, including based on ESRI Green connectivity/corridors) with easement.connectivity/corridors) with easement. wetland areas protected Infrastructurewetland coreareas areas protected Infrastructure core areas next high score of core Excludesnext high scoreall military of core properties Excludes all military properties under Marshland Protection criteriaunder (overall Marshland score > Protection 2.5, criteria (overall score > 2.5, unprotected lands, based on (Fortunprotected Steward, lands, Hunter based AB, on (Fort Steward, Hunter AB, Act (1970). % of wetlandAct (1970). or forested land % of wetland or forested land ESRI GI criteria KingESRI Base, GI criteria and 3 other naval King Base, and 3 other naval FEMA 100yr floodplain within FEMAa core 100yr area, floodplain within a core area, properties) properties) Groundwater Recharge fragmentation,Groundwater Theobald Recharge fragmentation, Theobald Areas (CRC) HumanAreas Modification (CRC) - rank Human Modification - rank Sea Level Rise (3 ft) betweenSea 0 Leveland 1,Rise with (3 1ft) between 0 and 1, with 1 being higher leve of being higher leve of modification (parking lots, modification (parking lots, buildings and others) buildings and others) General guidelines suggested by Esri to establish evaluation criteria for Green Infrastructure: an informal pre-test of a National data system for the USA

OVERALL GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITY SCORE

Current score is based on the values in some of the statistics fields. For each of the fields used in scoring, the range of values are normalized to a 1 – 5 scale. This normalized rank is then multiplied by the weight for that statistic. Statistic fields and weights used: Acres, 0.4 Thickness, 0.1 Topo_STD, 0.05 Wet_AreaPerAcre, 0.05 Soil_Variety, 0.03 Compactness, 0.02 Strm_LenPerAcre, 0.1 Total weights is .75. GIC model uses three additional statistics. not readily available nationally at 30m resolution. These are not currently included in the scoring. Species Richness, 0.1 Rare/Threatened/Endangered Species Abundance, 0.05 Rare/Threatened/Endangered Species Diversity, 0.1

From Hugh Keegan’s Esri notes

HISTORY AND CULTURE FORESTRY AGRICULTURE

UTILITIES TRANSPORTATION HOUSING, LOWER DENSITY

HOUSING, HIGHER DENSITY COMMERCE INDUSTRY Defining Region-wide Design Scenario for 2050 • 320,000 new people in the region. • 95,000 people displaced by 3ft sea-level rise.

• 190,000 new housing units needed. • 2,700 acres of new commercial development. • 15,400 acres of new industrial development. • 10,000 acres of new parks, recreation and conservation. • 10,000 acres of new schools, municipal etc. development.

• The Port of Savannah doubles in capacity, creating an additional 3,000 jobs, needing 2,300 housing units. • The Camden SpacePort proceeds, creating 2,500 jobs needing 1,900 housing units. Sarah Ross, Director Lupita McClenning Center for Research & Andrew Bailey, Jacobs WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Director of Planning, Education Wormsloe Engineering, Atlanta Coastal Regional Gustavson, Nils, Liberty Jesse Wuest, Assistant Commission of GA Fordham, Jennifer, Jones, Melissa, Liberty County Planning Commission County Planning Brian Orland, Professor of Manager, Wormsloe Georgia Dept. of Commission Geodesign, College of Environment Community Affairs, Poon, Wincy, City of Hinesville and Design, UGA Bullock Hayes, Christa, Coastal Greenway, Eric, Planning Ecology Researcher Kyler, David, Center for a Miller, Susan, State of GA - Director Bryan Co. Sustainable Coast Geospatial Information Officer. Samson, Doug, Coastal Stephen Ramos, Academic, Ecology Researcher Lambert, Christi, The Nature Conservancy UGA, Planning. VanParreren, Suzanne, Avin, Uri, Professor, Rosanna Rivero, NERR University of Maryland Bursa, Karl, Glynn County - Landscape Architecture, Director of Planning College of Environment McIntosh, Patty, City of and Design, UGA Reams Dain, City of Pembroke - Savannah – Planner, Planning and Zoning Chatham Cty Washington, Clemontine, Jennings, Tara, Coastal GA Mayor of Midway, Liberty Cty Indicators Coalition Patton, Patrick, Building McMillan, Charles, Georgia Development Inspector Garden City Tibbs, Kyle, City Administrator Macleod, Kevin, SAGIS Conservancy-Coastal Director Woodbine Centeno, John, Glynn County Russell, Madeleine, Georgia Hunter Key, GIS Manager, Nyers, Robert, Glynn Sea Grant Marine Extension Coastal Regional Landon, Eric, Camden Co. Fulton, Lisa , CRC-Senior County Commission Planning Director Sudanshu Panda, Academic, Planner/GIS Analyst Wolven, Meizi, CRC - University of North Georgia Alison Smith, Landscape Jon Calabria, Landscape Clay, Batoul, Students Grant Specialist Architecture, College of Architecture, College of Geography Walton, Margaret M. , Senior Westin, Lisa, Senior GIS Specialist, Environment and Design, Environment and Design, Planner II, Land Planning, GA Dept. of Community Affairs UGA UGA Atkins The Workshop THE WORKSHOP SCHEDULE GEODESIGNHUB TUTORIAL MAKING DIAGRAMS OF POLICIES AND PROJECTS TO IMPROVE EACH OF THE TEN SYSTEMS Workshop Day 1 TEN COUNTY TEAMS MAKING VERSIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE CHANGE DESIGNS THE STUDY REGION

ZOOMED AND SYNCHRONIZED INTO ANY COUNTY VIA BOUNDARIES CONTROL VERSIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE CHANGE DESIGNS

Note how different the Decision models and the Change designs are.

• All designs based on 2050 regional and county-specific forecasts • Hrishi runs the allocation model on 3 designs (v2): • Combined 10 County individual designs • 2 Regional Team designs • 3 designs sent to Ryan Perkl in Arizona to produce corridor modeling scenarios END OF DAY 1 OF THE WORKSHOP Workshop Day 2

TEAMS PRESENTING THE DESIGNS, WITH THE INTENT OF INFORMING NEGOTIATION MAKING ADDITIONAL VERSIONS OF THE DESIGNS, INCORPORATION NEGOTIATION AS NEEDED THE FINAL VERSIONS OF THE CHANGE DESIGNS MADE WITH THE INDEPENDENT DECISION MODELS

Note how much more similar the Change designs are. THE FINAL VERSIONS OF THE TEN COUNTY CHANGE TEAMS’ DESIGNS, CLIPPED BY BOUNDARIES AND SHOWN IN CONTEXT AND ON THE AIR PHOTO BASE NEGOTIATION BETWEEN REGCON AND REGDEV REGIONAL CONSERVATION REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

COMPARING ANY TWO OF THE CHANGE DESIGNS

Note that prior to negotiation, and even after REGDEV added several green infrastructure diagrams from REGCON REGDEV has many more priority development projects. NEGOTIATION BETWEEN REGCON AND REGDEV NEGOTIATION BETWEEN REGCON AND REGDEV NEGOTIATION BETWEEN REGCON AND REGDEV NEGOTIATION BETWEEN REGCON AND REGDEV NEGOTIATION BETWEEN REGCON AND REGDEV RESULT OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN REGCON AND REGDEV

AND THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE TEN COUNTY CHANGE TEAMS Long Bryan McIntosh

Chatham Camden Liberty

Bulloch Glynn Screven Effingham NEGOTIATION WITH COUNTY TEAMS Long Bryan McIntosh

Chatham Camden Liberty

Bulloch Glynn Screven Effingham FINAL RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE REGIONAL CONSENSUS DESIGN AND THE TEN COUNTY CHANGE TEAMS REGIONAL URBAN LAND USES ALLOCATION BASED ON THE FINAL RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE REGIONAL CONSENSUS DESIGN AND THE TEN COUNTY CHANGE TEAMS by the exogenous Geodesignhub allocation model

BASELINE CONTINUITY CORRIDORS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE by the exogenous landscape structure model of Ryan Perkl, University of Arizona FUTURE 2050 CHANGES IN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTIVITY BASED ON EXISTING LAND USES, PROPOSED CONNECTIVITY CORRIDORS AND PROJECTED FUTURE LAND USE POLICIES AND ALLOCATED PROJECTS

The majority of lost connectivity in this workshop example (dark red) results from proposed agricultural projects without proposed policies to manage agriculture in a manner compatible with Corridor Change Corridors Green Infrastructure Corridor Change Analyis objectives. Status Lost Corridors Replacement corridors Replacement Corridors are proposed (bright green). Unaltered Corridors FUTURE CHANGES IN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTIVITY BY 2050 BASED ON EXISTING LAND USES, PROJECTED FUTURE LAND USE POLICIES AND ALLOCATED PROJECTS AND NEW AND REVISED PROPOSED CONNECTIVITY CORRIDORS TO REFELECT 2 FOOT SEA RISE.

There considerable loss of connectivity due to sea rise. Replacement corridors are proposed (bright green). CorridorCorridor Change Change Analyis Corridors Status Lost Corridors Replacement Corridors Unaltered Corridors