Urban Systems As Place-Based Foci For Infrastructure Interactions - Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities - page 46

the hydrologic cycle, the various types of infrastructure most closely tied together are
related to water and wastewater management. For example, if storm water can be man-
aged through increasing infiltration through the surface, then drainage, water quality,
and water supply can be improved.
There are also ties of water infrastructure to other types of infrastructure. Of these,
the most widely researched is the energy-water nexus. For example, if water demands
decrease, energy demands will also decrease because there will be less water to supply
and wastewater to treat. Another well-known interaction is the impacts of impervious
road networks on local drainage and water quality. Floods and intense precipitation
events can disrupt most infrastructure systems.
Non-water infrastructure systems also interact. Communication networks rely upon
energy to relay information, some of which is used to manage the energy sources. Trans-
portation networks require energy and also transport some energy sources.
These interactions present management challenges but also opportunities for ad-
aptation because if impacts on one type of infrastructure can be managed, then other
infrastructure systems may benefit if the adaptation is well planned. Unfortunately,
management structures for infrastructure do not reflect the interaction of some types of
infrastructure and these opportunities for adaptation may be lost.
Infrastructure and its users can involve both increasing and decreasing vulnerabili-
ties due to climate change, but increasing vulnerabilities are of concern then they involve
flooding associated with rising sea levels and intense precipitation as well as persistent
heat from rising temperatures, and there are other outcomes also such as wind damage.
Infrastructure design, operation and use have to adapt to these conditions by combining
characteristics of infrastructure with underlying population characteristics that contrib-
ute to vulnerability. The following paterns and trends are contributing to the vulner-
ability of infrastructure and its users.
Related to a number of different driving forces according to the sector, the concentra-
tion of infrastructure in the US often tends to be increasing in many areas. For example,
about half of the nation's oil refineries are located in only 4 states, about half of the elec-
tric power plants are located in only 11 states (Zimmerman, 2006, pp. 531-532), and a
large percentage of roadway travel and transit trips occur in and around only a few met-
ropolitan areas. Within urban areas, transfer points and intersections reflect even greater
concentrations of transportation infrastructure and activity (INRIX, Inc., 2011) and in
and around urban areas distribution systems for electric power and water are similarly
concentrated where relatively few transmission lines connect resources to urban areas.
Where such concentrations are co-located with areas of climate change impact vulner-
abilities, infrastructure vulnerabilities are affected as well.
Meanwhile, people are concentrated and are continuing to concentrate in areas where
coastal and inland flooding is a threat (Zimmerman, 2012); for example, according to
Wilson and Fischeti, (2010, p. 3), between 1960 and 2008 population increased by 84%
in coastal counties compared to a population increase of 70% nationwide. Moreover,
population density in coastal counties is twice the density in non-coastal counties, and
density in coastal counties increased faster than in non-coastal counties between 1960
and 2008 (101% vs. 62% when Alaska is included) (Wilson and Fischeti 2010, p. 11). Re-
gardless of coastal location, sprawl is still rampant with smaller areas growing at a faster