Coastal flood risk assessment guidelines for building and infrastructure design: supporting flood resilience on Canada's coasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 15 million people live within 20 km of Canada’s marine and Great Lakes coasts. The buildings and infrastructure that they rely on are vulnerable to coastal flood hazards resulting from extreme water levels, waves, tsunamis and other contributing factors. The risks associated with coastal flood hazards are escalating over time, due to development and population growth in coastal zones, and climate-driven effects, such as global sea-level rise. These growing concerns are prompting a broad re-think of how coastal flood risks can be better managed in Canada, including how building and infrastructure design practice can be enhanced to support resilience objectives. These guidelines apply to coastal flood risk assessments for building and infrastructure design (including retrofit design) applications in Canada. The document is intended to inform, and provide a technical reference for, a wide variety of users interested in building and infrastructure design in areas potentially exposed to coastal flood hazards under present-day and/or future conditions. The guidelines advocate a move toward risk-based approaches to analysis and design for flood resilience, and identify the following: • Key concepts and terminology relevant to understanding and performing coastal flood risk assessments to support building and infrastructure design. • A possible framework and methodology for conducting coastal flood hazard and risk assessments to inform the design and rehabilitation of buildings and infrastructure in areas potentially exposed to coastal flood hazards. • The different levels or tiers of analysis that can be used as the basis for risk assessments, and the circumstances in which they should be applied. • Suggestions for effective stakeholder, partner and public engagement in the coastal flood risk assessment process. • Recommendations for establishing risk-based design criteria for buildings and infrastructure. • Data requirements, and sources of data and information, to support coastal flood risk assessments. • Methodologies and key considerations for assessing coastal flood hazards. • The role of building and infrastructure design practice within the portfolio of tools and strategies available to address coastal flood risks in a changing climate. Though not the focus of the guidelines, some background information on strategic approaches to coastal flood risk management is provided. This information is provided to illustrate how the information derived from a coastal flood risk assessment can be used to support building and infrastructure design within the broader context of managing, mitigating and adapting to flood risks. Efforts have also been made to identify gaps and future needs to support coastal flood risk assessments for design applications, which include: • Expanded hazard datasets (including enhanced spatial and temporal coverage of water level, wave and other parameter measurements). • Improved vulnerability-hazard function datasets, which would enable proper consideration in risk assessments of (i) the benefits and performance of difference structural features, materials, and construction techniques; and (ii) regional differences in hazards and construction types. • New provisions in building codes and infrastructure design standards to address flood resilience objectives, and to enable integration of flood (and eventually multi-hazard) risk management practices with codes and standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".