Interdependencies and Risk to People and Critical Food, Energy, and Water Systems: 2013 Flood, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Abstract

This paper examines the interdependencies mediating the cascading negative consequences triggered by the September 2013 flood, in Boulder, Colorado, USA. By illustrating the risks to people and critical food-energy-water systems of a low probability, high-impact event, we draw lessons on what is likely to occur in the future. Other scholars have modeled the influence of interdependent infrastructures on cascading effects. But this is one of the first studies integrating stakeholders' understanding of the influence of interdependent actions, institutions, and infrastructures. These interdependencies create the conditions for vulnerability, which is a product of multiscale and dynamic sociodemographic, economic, technologic, environmental, and governance interactions. Political histories and historical decisions on where and how to design infrastructure exert a deep influence on short-and long-term capacity to manage risk. Boulder's high socio-institutional and learning capacity, while key, is not enough to influence integrative, transformative changes. Contrary to current approaches to nexus thinking, the regimes in which emergency and recovery actions are embedded are dynamically stable, thus imposing a logic for incremental change along established pathways of understanding and action. Our study offers some lessons on the challenges of bringing together diverse sectoral and jurisdictional sectors during and after an extreme event.Plain Language Summary We analyze the influence of infrastructures, institutions, and actions on cascading effects triggered by the 2013 floods in Boulder. With input from stakeholders, we connect analyses from different disciplinary lineages to examine how these conditions may lead, during an extreme event, to cascading negative consequences. While other scholars have modeled the influence of infrastructural interdependences on cascading effects, this is one of the first studies integrating stakeholders' understandings in order to examine some of the mechanisms by which critical infrastructural and socio-institutional interdependencies and actions can mitigate or amplify the cascading effects from an extreme event. Our analysis suggests that interdependent actions and governance regimes are as relevant as infrastructures in amplifying and mitigating risks. We can conclude that the high socio-institutional capacity and ability for learning from extreme events characteristic of Boulder County, while key in mitigating risk, is not enough to influence deeper, transformative changes in understanding and practices among public and private actors. On the contrary, and in support of sociotechnical transitions theories, the socio-institutional regimes in which the emergency response and recovery actions are embedded are dynamically stable, thus imposing a logic for incremental change along established pathways of what is appropriate understanding and action. ROMERO-LANKAO AND NORTON 1616Earth's Future

Risk Inequality and the Food-Energy-Water (FEW) Nexus: A Study of 43 City Adaptation Plans

“…We found that FEW-nexus thinking is not yet embedded in city officials' narrative understandings of risk and planned adaptation actions, even when unpacking interdependencies among food, energy, and water systems may help cities tackle some of the root causes of vulnerability and risk (Romero-Lankao and Norton, 2018 ). Other scholars have already pointed to the fact that, while promising, FEW-nexus thinking faces many practical challenges.…”

An Analysis of Resilience Planning at the Nexus of Food, Energy, Water, and Transportation in Coastal US Cities

“…In total, the cities designed 51 actions with a primary focus on flood risks (either through a flood event or sea-level rise) and only 8 actions with a primary focus on some aspect of their coastal location outside of the context of a flood event. Miami, New York City, New Orleans, and Honolulu each had the most actions with a primary focus on flooding (13,8,6, and 6 actions, respectively), while Seattle had no actions relating to flooding. Seattle had four actions (1 primary focus, 3 partial focus) relating to non-flooding related aspects of the coastal environment related to the economic importance of their maritime lands and redoing their waterfront.…”

Exploring the food–energy–water nexus approach to enhance coastal community resilience research and planning

“…There are many other factors outside of food-energy-water systems that can impact security in the face of hazards. As such, two studies advocate for using a framework that integrates the connections between the socio-demographic, economic, technological, environmental, and governance (SETEG) domains (Romero-Lankao & Norton, 2018;. Considering SETEG domains and their interdependencies allows cities to 'begin to anticipate and avoid cascading effects on WEF [water-energy-food] systems and resources' (Romero-Lankao et al, 2018, p. 221).…”

“…Combining systems offers advantages such as, passing along waste, water, or nutrients for use in another system, combining resources and reducing demand for additional inputs thereby creating efficiencies. Redundant systems are important due to the cascading impacts that damage to one FEW system can have on the other (so that if one was damaged there was a redundant system available to keep operations running), such as was highlighted during the 2013 flood in Boulder, CO (Romero-Lankao & Norton, 2018). They highlight that since the city had backup generators (energy) they were able to keep the water treatment plant functional even though the broader energy system had been damaged by the flood (Romero-Lankao & Norton, 2018).…”