SVARTLAMON CONTINGENCY PLAN
Budget
Svartlamon, physical and operational strategies will also account for high proportion of total cost. Considering the similar level of development between Norway and US, the cost of labor and material is assumed to share similar level. However, given the much smaller scale of Svartlamon compared with focus area of Olympia, the minimum cost for one of Olympia’s focus area is referred to when the short-term cost for community-level actions is estimated. The budget will range from 1.5 to 10 million taking into consideration the financial support for newly built houses. The community-level mid-term cost could range from 25 to 50 million NOK, but the city-level actions proposed in our plan will require for more substantial investment, and Trondheim is also larger than Olympia. The long-term cost within this century will still be uncertain, potentially ranging from 0.1 to 1 billion NOK.
The cost of actions ranges in scenarios with different scales of risks and impacts, and it will be spread out across time over decades. Requiring huge amount of human and material resources, physical and operational strategies will be the major part of expenditure. The budget will be comprised of direct costs (including expenditure for labor, equipment, permanent and temporary materials), mobilization, contractor’s markup, design engineering and permit fees, design contingency, construction contingency, contract administration and escalation (AECOM, 2019). The Olympia case gives a referential example about cost in implementing physical adaptation strategies, although the cost for governance and informational strategies remain to be decided. In the case of
Table 9: BUDGET Project Location
Short Term : 5 years
Mid Term : 5 - 30 years
Long Term : > 30 years
(2019-2024)
(2025-2050)
(2050-2100)
Svartlamon level projects
1.5-10 million NOK
25-50 million NOK
0.1-1 billion NOK
Trondheim city level projects
From 20 million NOK
From 200 million NOK
From 2 billion NOK
DISCUSSION Placing Svartlamon in the hypothetical scenario of sea level rise leading into unexpected flooding has been a strategy by itself. Understanding it’s prevailing organizational capacity to withstand external disasters as a community is utilized at quite a few steps of the proposed plan. Taking into consideration, a substantial amount of money in the project, importing expensive and successful modules like massive engineering solutions to guard the sea shores to protect the community from the unwanted disaster would have been another way to solve the problem. Cultivating the existing assets and capacities of Svartlamon, the reversed approach was obvious in our case. Reinforcing the people in the context with help of stakeholders at certain levels seemed much more realistic and optimistic. Hence our plan retains the wealth within the people and region, and to be distributed and utilized in a rationally established network.
emergency. Efforts to be invested in intensive studies regarding the sea level rise and the level of exposure of several places to the hazard risks are undeniably important and can be brought to attention with the help of regional as well as local media. The project will be supported by substantial wealth, making it possible to develop a holistic implementation plan that takes care of multiple issues at the same time. Though the plan would imply that the stakeholders mentioned will have to work in a coherent and collaborative manner at every step, concurrent and overlapping capacities between each other ensures the continuity of the implementation even if one of them withdraws. Responsibilities of further monitoring and evaluation are subjected to upcoming results of the formation of the disaster management team. It may appear to be a prolonged and extended plan in terms of time frames and the number of tasks, the discretely mentioned strategies can be carried out simultaneously with ease. A focus in a single prioritized strategy remains absent in this case as the association with the place and community was too little – any imposed decision on their behalf would have been extremely biased and unjustified. Hence an open-ended manual is placed as a contingency plan for further proceedings.
Dealing with “unexpected” and “unprecedented” flooding in a situation where there is no single organization answerable, the residents with their assets within the rundown social housing project turns out to be the most vulnerable – not only the urgency of a disaster management plan but the lack of realization of absence of one makes it worse. The immediate response emerges towards a social awareness within the people so that they can take control of themselves in an
17
