Seven steps to protect Europe’s vital infrastructure

As the fastest-warming continent, Europe faces escalating temperatures and increasing heat-related mortality due to climate change. Additionally, rainfall-induced floods threaten critical infrastructure, posing significant risks to society, public health, economies and the environment. Recent severe flooding in Europe demonstrates how rainfall can shut down cities, resulting in enormous damage and costs.

Building resilience in critical infrastructure demands a holistic, interdisciplinary approach. Policymakers, project managers and cities must work together to comprehensively assess and mitigate climate risks.

Initiatives should encompass hazard exposure, asset vulnerability, cascade effects and psychological impacts, recognising that climate change and knowledge evolve over time.

“To enhance critical infrastructure resilience, we need to delve into asset-level vulnerability, considering factors such as location, construction, and design,” says co-author Martijn Steenstra, climate adaptation expert, Sweco Netherlands. “We must also acknowledge the interdependence of infrastructure systems and prevent cascade effects through cooperation among authorities and divisions.”

Resilience as a continuous journey

At Sweco, we understand from our projects that building resilience is an ongoing process. As cities evolve, so do the associated hazards. Additionally, our understanding of climate change is continually advancing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regularly releases new climate scenarios, and much of the research on hazards relies on these scenarios. These factors underscore the importance of regularly assessing risks and updating measures. Each iteration of this process generates more data and insights, helping to inform better investment decisions in resilient critical infrastructure.

Aiming for more resilient vital infrastructure involves making decisions in the face of uncertainty. The systems being managed are complex and the potential climate scenarios are countless. Therefore, our key advice is to begin the analysis while recognising that risk analyses and assessments alone are not sufficient, and additional actions are necessary. The steps outlined below can serve as a guide in this process.

Seven steps towards resilient infrastructure

1. Assessing critical infrastructure nationally and locally: On a national level, countries should assess what critical entities they have and what critical infrastructure they manage. Cities should make sure they know where this critical infrastructure is located and assess which infrastructure might not be critical on a national level but is worthy of consideration locally.
2. Sector-specific risk assessments:Each sector should perform its own risk assessment checking for 1) exposure to climate hazards; 2) vulnerability of assets; and 3) impact of asset failure. The city can assist by providing data on exposure and standardised systems and methods for assessing risks. This will also benefit comparability.
3. Analysing system interactions and cascade effects: After sector risk assessments have been completed, interaction between systems can be analysed on a system level to assess cascade effects and their impact. This can be done on a generic qualitative level during working sessions. If possible interactions are identified and are considered important enough, more precise studies can be carried out examining specific scenarios and with higher technical detail. Using this information, assets can be classified based on their associated risk.
4. Assessing protective measures for at-risk assets: The next step should be for each sector to assess possible measures to protect the identified assets that are at risk. It will become clear that the required investments to mitigate the risks can vary greatly. For example, one watertight door costing just 1,000 euros can, in some cases, prevent the failure of a complete asset and entail all associated risks. In other cases, failure can only be prevented by relocating the asset, costing millions of euros. In addition, as mentioned before, the timing of the measure can make all the difference.
5. Establishing goals and strategies: Insight into both risks and possible measures and their costs makes it possible to establish goals. For some assets, a political decision about the acceptable level of risk and a strategy to increase resilience can be made by the city itself since it directly manages the assets. For other sectors, cities will only have a limited say. However, cities should be involved in the process, as they can influence the exposure of assets through water-management measures. In addition, they can establish goals and regulations to reduce the vulnerability of assets that are yet to be built through building and zoning regulations.
6. Detailed planning and integration: When goals are set, measures can be worked out in more detail. This is also the moment to see how measures can be integrated into the asset management cycle and where synergies with other measures are possible.
7. Monitoring and reporting progress: A monitoring and reporting system should be established per sector to monitor progress. This requires logging the measures that have been taken to increase resilience. In addition, risk assessments should be updated regularly, say every four to six years. This includes changes in land use or climate scenarios that can influence exposure and should include the measures taken that influence vulnerability.