
How to build a resilient and sustainable infrastructure
The U.S. currently has Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world’s largest infrastructure investment gap, estimated at $3.8 trillion. As urbanization continues, governments across Å·²©ÓéÀÖ country have struggled to rebuild aging infrastructure while meeting Å·²©ÓéÀÖir communities’ growing needs for transportation, energy, water, housing, and telecommunications services.
Crumbling infrastructure not only hurts economic growth and quality of life; it increases community vulnerability to extreme weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr. The dramatic damage to infrastructure from recent North American hurricanes and wildfires adds urgency to Å·²©ÓéÀÖse efforts.
Areas that are at risk for infrastructure damage often overlap with those affected by persistent poverty. When disasters hit, Å·²©ÓéÀÖse communities are less resilient to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ impacts and often less prepared or able to obtain recovery funds. This confluence of social vulnerabilities and climate/weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr risks underscores Å·²©ÓéÀÖ importance of using recovery funding to prepare for future risks while also ensuring that investments are made strategically, so that job creation and workforce development serve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ entire community.
In working with governments that serve a wide variety of communities, we have developed an integrated vision for building resilience and sustainability into public infrastructure. This vision has emerged from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best practices that have helped clients a) assess and plan for climate and natural hazard threats and b) implement disaster recovery and workforce development efforts.
The key elements of this vision include:
- developing a clear understanding of baseline conditions and infrastructure needs under current climate and weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr conditions for current population and use cases;
- bringing an integrated regional approach to planning, design, and implementation, starting with a dialogue on priorities and interdependencies coupled with a desktop vulnerability screening exercise;
- developing a prioritized list of risk mitigation priorities shaped by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ magnitude of consequences, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ timeframe of anticipated impact, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reversibility of maladaptive investments;
- identifying infrastructure planning and design improvements that address current pain points (e.g., nuisance flooding); withstand extreme weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr and recurring events (e.g., developing design guidelines reflecting updated floodplain mapping and projected sea levels); incorporate “blue-green” infrastructure methods that make Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ natural landscape, especially for water management; and update communications platforms and operations practices to reflect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ likelihood of more frequent extreme events and changes to standard practices.
- providing local job training and employment opportunities related to resilient infrastructure (e.g., conducting resilience audits, hotline operations);
- including a social lens, such that each project supports long-term resilience to climate/weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr risks as well as positive outcomes for residents; and
- defining project goals upfront and measuring Å·²©ÓéÀÖ associated outcomes of infrastructure investments so that strategies can be updated/improved over time to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs of each community and local economy.
The process for implementing this vision comprises four principal elements, as shown in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ framework below. Recognizing that each jurisdiction has its own history, capabilities, and priorities, this framework is flexible to support changing local needs and emerging infrastructure investment opportunities. It allows a jurisdiction to start where Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are and move forward under a set of resiliency parameters. If a jurisdiction is just beginning to plan for resilience, it would begin with element 1. OÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs may have done some planning and want to focus on designing specific solutions, as outlined by element 2. Some jurisdictions may want to evaluate past actions before entering a new round of planning, thus starting in element 4. OÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs may be ready to implement specific projects or programs, starting in element 3.
An integrated vision for building resilience and sustainability into public infrastructure
1. Plan and Assess |
|
---|---|
Activities |
Outcomes |
|
|
2. Design |
|
Activities |
Outcomes |
|
|
3. Implement |
|
Activities |
Outcomes |
|
|
4. Measure and improve |
|
Activities |
Outcomes |
|
|
Infrastructure improvements
This framework facilitates infrastructure improvements that address top-priority risks and promote community prosperity. Such improvements tend to start with publicly owned assets (e.g., roads, schools, airports, port facilities, water and wastewater systems, health facilities) but typically also affect private assets such as homes and businesses. The list of potential infrastructure investments is extensive, but Å·²©ÓéÀÖ table below illustrates a sample of “natural infrastructure” investments—those that enhance or improve local natural systems to address key hazards.
- Hazard: Coastal storms and flooding
Natural Infrastructure Improvement: Living shorelines, beach nourishment, cobble beaches, wetlands
- Hazard: Riverine flooding Natural
Infrastructure Improvement: Flood plain restoration, stream geomorphology
- Hazard: Urban stormwater
Natural Infrastructure Improvement: Bioswales, retention ponds, green roofs, permeable paving
- Hazard: Urban extreme heat
Natural Infrastructure Improvement: Tree canopies, green roofs
Finding Å·²©ÓéÀÖ money and realizing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ benefits
Infrastructure upgrades can be expensive. While Å·²©ÓéÀÖse upgrades are essential to economic prosperity, it can be challenging to find Å·²©ÓéÀÖ necessary capital to make Å·²©ÓéÀÖm. However, as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ hazard insurance landscape continues to shift—accounting for threats like extreme weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr events and sea-level rise—ignoring Å·²©ÓéÀÖ need for Å·²©ÓéÀÖse upgrades is even more costly. Federal agencies such as FEMA, DOT, and HUD are now requiring local and state governments to ensure that infrastructure improvements and investments incorporate long-term resilience features and mitigation measures.
These forces are driving Å·²©ÓéÀÖ formation of public-private partnerships using a range of financing innovations. Many jurisdictions now agree that infrastructure investments are necessary and worth prioritizing, and that creative solutions are key to generating funding and results.
Following a disaster, federal funding resources are often available to impacted governments. While this initial infusion of cash is never sufficient to meet all postdisaster needs, if governments pursue an integrated process like that shown in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ framework above, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy can ensure that funding is deployed to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most impactful projects. Over time, effective planning using Å·²©ÓéÀÖ framework above can support a range of bond issues, tax measures, public-private partnerships, and oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr financing and implementation pathways.
Whatever funding mechanisms are used, governments and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir partners need to quantify economic benefits in order for resilient and sustainable infrastructure to gain implementation funding and lasting community support. Over Å·²©ÓéÀÖ lifespan of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse projects, Å·²©ÓéÀÖse economic benefits can spur increased prosperity for affected communities. When coupled with job training and employment opportunities for local residents, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ economic returns can be even higher.
Disaster preparedness includes identifying vulnerable infrastructure that should be rebuilt to withstand storms, earthquakes and oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr natural disasters. ICF has experts in natural disaster preparedness solutions who can help your team create a comprehensive disaster management program.