Final Project: Topic Proposal
CEVE 421/521
Overview
Due: Friday of Week 3
This proposal confirms your team and document choice. The goal is to ensure your chosen plan contains enough decision-relevant content for a meaningful audit.
A good topic proposal sets you up for success on all subsequent deliverables. Spending time now to find the right document will make Memos 1-3 much easier to write.
Choosing a Plan: The Key to Success
The single most important decision you’ll make is which plan to audit. A well-chosen plan will give you rich material for analysis; a poor choice will leave you struggling to find content for your memos.
What Makes a Good Plan?
Your document should be:
Decision-Relevant: The plan should contain specific, concrete decisions—not just aspirational goals. Look for plans that answer “what will we build?” or “how much will we invest?” rather than just “what do we hope to achieve?”
Analytically Rich: The plan should contain enough technical detail for you to critique. You need to be able to identify models, data sources, and assumptions.
Appropriately Scoped: The plan should be substantial enough for a semester-long project (typically 50+ pages) but focused enough to analyze thoroughly.
Publicly Available: You must be able to share the document and cite specific page numbers.
Types of Documents That Work Well
| Document Type | Why It Works | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Flood Risk Management Plans | Clear decisions (levee heights, buyouts), quantified metrics (damages avoided), explicit models (hydraulic, economic) | US Army Corps feasibility studies |
| Coastal Resilience Strategies | Multiple levers (seawalls, living shorelines, retreat), scenario analysis, benefit-cost calculations | State coastal master plans |
| Climate Action Plans with Infrastructure Components | Specific projects with costs, timelines, and expected outcomes | City infrastructure adaptation plans |
| Hazard Mitigation Plans | Required to include risk assessment, mitigation actions, and benefit-cost analysis | FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plans |
Types of Documents That Do NOT Work Well
| Document Type | Why It Fails | Red Flags |
|---|---|---|
| Aspirational Climate Pledges | Goals without actions; no analysis to critique | “Net zero by 2050” with no implementation pathway |
| Policy Frameworks | Describes what others should do, not what the organization will do | “Stakeholders should consider…” |
| Short White Papers | Not enough depth for sustained analysis | Under 30 pages; no technical appendices |
| Purely Qualitative Reports | No models or quantitative analysis to evaluate | No numbers, maps, or projections |
| Academic Papers | Already peer-reviewed; your role is to audit practitioners | Published in journals |
Where to Find Good Plans
Federal Sources:
- USACE (Army Corps): Feasibility studies, post-flood reports, and flood risk management plans are excellent choices. Search “USACE [city name] feasibility study” or browse the USACE Digital Library.
- FEMA: Hazard Mitigation Plans are publicly available. Check your state’s emergency management agency website.
State Sources:
- Louisiana Coastal Master Plan: A gold-standard example of decision-relevant climate planning.
- Texas General Land Office: Coastal resilience studies
- State climate adaptation plans: Quality varies; look for ones with specific projects and costs.
City/Regional Sources:
- Major cities often have climate action plans, but quality varies widely.
- Look for plans that include infrastructure investments with cost estimates.
- Regional planning agencies (e.g., Houston-Galveston Area Council) often produce more technical documents.
International Sources:
- Netherlands Delta Programme
- UK Environment Agency flood risk assessments
- World Bank climate adaptation project appraisals
A Decision Checklist
Before committing to a document, verify you can answer “yes” to all of these:
The XLRM Framework: Finding the Structure
The XLRM framework helps you systematically analyze any decision problem:
- X (Uncertainties): Factors outside the decision-maker’s control that affect outcomes
- L (Levers): Decisions or actions the decision-maker can take
- R (Relationships): Models, assumptions, and causal links connecting levers to outcomes
- M (Metrics): Quantifiable measures used to evaluate success
Your proposal should demonstrate that your chosen plan contains all four components.
Identifying Uncertainties (X)
Uncertainties are factors that:
- Affect outcomes but are not controlled by the decision-maker
- Could take on different values or unfold in different ways
- May be acknowledged explicitly or hidden in assumptions
Examples of Uncertainties:
| Category | Examples | What to Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Climate | Future sea level rise, storm intensity, precipitation patterns | Scenario tables, climate projections, “under RCP 4.5…” |
| Socioeconomic | Population growth, land use change, economic development | Demographic projections, development scenarios |
| Technical | Infrastructure performance, model accuracy, failure modes | Sensitivity analyses, uncertainty ranges, caveats |
| Economic | Discount rates, future costs, property values | Assumptions stated in BCA, “assuming 3% discount rate” |
How to Find Them:
- Look for words like “scenario,” “projection,” “assumption,” “uncertainty,” “may,” “could”
- Check appendices for sensitivity analyses or scenario descriptions
- Note when the plan uses single values vs. ranges
Common Mistake: Listing “climate change” as an uncertainty. Be more specific: which aspect of climate change? (e.g., “sea level rise between 1-4 feet by 2100”)
Identifying Levers (L)
Levers are actions that:
- The decision-maker can choose to take (or not take)
- Have associated costs and consequences
- Come in different options or magnitudes
Examples of Levers:
| Category | Examples | What to Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Structural | Levee heights, seawall design, drainage capacity | Engineering specifications, design parameters |
| Non-structural | Buyouts, zoning changes, building codes | Policy recommendations, program descriptions |
| Financial | Insurance requirements, grant programs, tax incentives | Budget allocations, program designs |
| Operational | Warning systems, evacuation plans, maintenance schedules | Operational protocols, trigger levels |
How to Find Them:
- Look for “the plan recommends,” “we will construct,” “the preferred alternative”
- Find chapters on “alternatives considered” or “options analysis”
- Note any decision points where different choices were possible
Common Mistake: Confusing goals with levers. “Reduce flood risk” is a goal; “construct a 12-foot levee” is a lever.
Identifying Relationships (R)
Relationships describe:
- How levers connect to outcomes (causal mechanisms)
- Models used to predict consequences
- Assumptions about how systems behave
Examples of Relationships:
| Category | Examples | What to Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard Models | Flood frequency analysis, storm surge models, climate downscaling | Model names (ADCIRC, HEC-RAS), data sources |
| Exposure Models | Building inventories, population projections, land use maps | GIS data, parcel databases, census data |
| Vulnerability Models | Depth-damage curves, fragility functions, casualty rates | HAZUS, custom damage functions |
| Economic Models | Benefit-cost analysis, present value calculations | Discount rates, project lifetimes, valuation methods |
How to Find Them:
- Look for methodology sections, technical appendices, model descriptions
- Find references to software tools or analytical frameworks
- Note how the plan goes from “if we build X” to “we expect Y reduction in damages”
Common Mistake: Describing data as relationships. “FEMA flood maps” is a data source; the relationship is “we assume the 100-year floodplain represents 1% annual probability of flooding.”
Identifying Metrics (M)
Metrics are:
- Quantifiable measures of outcomes
- Used to compare alternatives or evaluate success
- Defined with specific units and calculation methods
Examples of Metrics:
| Category | Examples | What to Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Risk Metrics | Annual expected damages, lives at risk, properties flooded | Dollar amounts, counts, probabilities |
| Economic Metrics | Net present value, benefit-cost ratio, internal rate of return | BCA results, ranking of alternatives |
| Performance Metrics | Level of protection, residual risk, reliability | Design standards, performance targets |
| Equity Metrics | Distribution of benefits, vulnerable populations protected | Demographic analysis, spatial distribution |
How to Find Them:
- Look for tables comparing alternatives
- Find “success criteria” or “evaluation criteria” sections
- Note any targets or thresholds the plan sets
Common Mistake: Confusing metrics with goals. “Resilient communities” is a goal; “properties removed from the 100-year floodplain” is a metric.
Proposal Requirements
Submit a 1-page document (PDF) containing:
1. Team Information
- Team member names and whether each is enrolled in CEVE 421 or 521
- Brief statement of how you plan to divide work (e.g., “Team member A will lead Memo 1; member B will lead Memo 2…”)
2. Document Selection
Provide complete citation information:
- Title: Full title of the document
- Organization: Who published it (agency, city, consultant)
- Year: Publication date
- URL: Direct link to the PDF or landing page
- Summary: 2-3 sentences describing what the plan addresses and why you chose it
3. Initial XLRM Mapping
Identify at least two examples of each XLRM component. For each example, provide:
- A brief description (1-2 sentences)
- A page number reference so we can verify
| Component | Example 1 | Example 2 |
|---|---|---|
| X (Uncertainties) | e.g., “Sea level rise scenarios of 1, 2, and 4 feet by 2100 (p. 23)” | e.g., “Population growth projections from 1.2M to 1.8M by 2050 (p. 45)” |
| L (Levers) | e.g., “Structural alternatives: 100-year vs. 500-year levee design (p. 67)” | e.g., “Non-structural: voluntary buyout program for repetitive loss properties (p. 89)” |
| R (Relationships) | e.g., “HEC-RAS hydraulic model to estimate flood depths (Appendix C)” | e.g., “HAZUS-MH depth-damage curves for residential structures (p. 112)” |
| M (Metrics) | e.g., “Annual expected damages in $ millions (Table 5-1)” | e.g., “Benefit-cost ratio for each alternative (Table 6-2)” |
4. Confirmation Statement
A brief statement (1-2 sentences) confirming that:
- The document is publicly available (provide URL)
- The document contains concrete decisions (not just aspirational goals)
- Your team has reviewed the full document (not just the executive summary)
Example: Strong vs. Weak Proposals
Strong Proposal Example
Document: Harris County Flood Control District, Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Resiliency Study (2021). [Link to document]
Summary: This USACE feasibility study evaluates structural and non-structural alternatives for reducing flood risk in the Buffalo Bayou watershed following Hurricane Harvey. We chose this document because it contains detailed BCA for multiple alternatives and explicitly addresses climate uncertainty.
Component Example 1 Example 2 X Sea level rise scenarios (0.5-2.0 ft by 2085, p. 34) Future land use scenarios (p. 67) L Tunnel alternative vs. channel modification (p. 89) Voluntary buyout of 2,300 structures (p. 102) R HEC-HMS rainfall-runoff model (Appendix D) USACE depth-damage curves (p. 156) M Expected annual damages ($890M baseline, p. 45) BCR ranging from 0.8 to 3.2 (Table 7-1)
Weak Proposal Example
Document: City of Houston Climate Action Plan (2020)
Summary: Houston’s plan to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.
Component Example 1 Example 2 X Climate change Future weather L Reduce emissions Build resilience R City analysis Expert input M Net zero by 2050 More resilient city
Why is this weak?
- No page numbers (evidence team didn’t read document carefully)
- Examples are too vague to verify
- “Reduce emissions” is a goal, not a specific lever
- “Net zero by 2050” is a target, not a metric for evaluating alternatives
- No URL provided
Submission
Submit your proposal as a PDF to Canvas by 11:59 PM on the due date.
Filename format: TeamName_TopicProposal.pdf
Grading
This proposal is graded Complete/Incomplete.
A Complete proposal demonstrates:
An Incomplete proposal will be returned for revision if:
- Examples are too vague or cannot be verified
- The document appears to lack decision-relevant content
- Page references are missing
- The document is not publicly accessible
You will have one opportunity to revise an incomplete proposal within 48 hours.
Tips for Success
Start Early: Finding the right document takes time. Don’t wait until the night before to search.
Skim Before Committing: Read the executive summary AND flip through the full document. Many plans have great summaries but thin analysis.
Check the Appendices: The best material is often in technical appendices. A plan with detailed appendices is usually a good sign.
Look for Tables: Plans with tables comparing alternatives (costs, benefits, BCRs) are usually analytically rich.
Consider Your Interests: You’ll spend the semester with this document. Pick something you find genuinely interesting—your hometown, a hazard you care about, an engineering solution that fascinates you.
Ask Early: If you’re unsure whether a document will work, email the instructor before the deadline. We can quickly tell you if it’s a good choice or suggest alternatives.