12 Cities Assessment Resilience Insight

Home , Royal Charter (ship)

RESILIENCE INSIGHT

12 CITIES ASSESSMENT

FEBRUARY 2016 RESILIENCE INSIGHT

CONTENTS

1 Foreword 3

2 Executive Summary 4

3 Acknowledgements 6

4 Introduction 8

5 A Background to Resilience 9

6 BuroHappold Resilience Process Overview 14

7 Resilience Diagnostic Approach 16

8 12 Cities Comparison Assesment 28

9 Three Cities Case Studies 33

10 Conclusion 53

Appendix A Definition of 12 Components of Resilience Framework 54

Appendix B Exposure Factors 56

Glossary 57

2 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

1 FOREWORD

Forword by Guy Hammersley, Executive The importance of the resilience agenda Director, BRE led to the creation of the BRE Centre for Resilience to act as a national and There is a growing realisation in both ultimately global resource for government, government and private sectors that cities local authorities, industry, universities and across the globe are facing unprecedented the public to support the goal of creating challenges from social, technological, a resilient built environment. This has been environmental, economic and political underpinned by the BRE Trust establishing changes. As a consequence there is an a thematic research programme on a urgent need to help cities implement “resilient built environment” to support policies, systems and solutions to build exciting and relevant research and resilience for the future. This involves innovation built on good science. In this being able to better resist stress from both capacity the BRE Trust was delighted to be short term shocks and long term change, able to make an award to BuroHappold, in as well as improving the city’s capacity partnership with the Worshipful Company to bounce back rapidly from impacts. of Constructors, to support their much The consequences of climate change are needed work on a city resilience diagnostic recognised world-wide and have been framework. Beneficial change requires highlighted in the UK by recent extreme a robust understanding of the issues, weather and flooding events, putting it metrics based on sound science and high on the political agenda. However, engagement with stakeholders, all things there are many other facets to resilience that the BuroHappold framework sets out such as population growth, urbanisation, to achieve. The BRE Trust and Worshipful energy security, resource depletion, Company of Constructors is now pleased crime and security, all with complex to be able to publish the outcome of this interdependencies. valuable work through the BRE Centre for Resilience.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTEXT The objective of the framework is to This diagnostic methodology identifies support international disaster reduction and prioritises those parts of a city facing Cities have become the prevalent living priorities such as the Sendai Framework gaps in resilience and predicts how this environment for the world’s population. for Disaster Risk Reduction by providing a will change in the future based on trend Since the beginning of civilisation the simple framework and tool to understand, data. By being able to measure resilience, freedom, opportunity, society, stability measure and manage resilience. This will; city authorities can understand and and security provided by cities have drawn manage their city’s resilience and build ever greater numbers of people. In 2007 (1) assist municipal authorities and other business cases to meet future resilience this growth reached the point where over key private/public sector stakeholders challenges. half the world’s population was living in assessing their current and future in cities rather than rural communities resilience demands and capacities, FINDINGS and this is anticipated to grow by an allowing the development of business From interviews and previous experience extra 2 billion people (70% of the World’s cases for investment in resilience building; working with cities we found there is a population) by 2050. (2) gain a holistic understanding of each tendency for cities to approach resilience The impacts of climate change pose city component’s resilience and their in a siloed way without prioritising a disproportionate threat to our cities interrelationships and; initiatives systematically. Often the major focus is the last disaster, for example because of their location, (generally (3) prioritise and measure the performance flooding, when in fact, the city may be less near the coast (sea level rise) or on river of policies and interventions that would prepared for a more urgent risk such as an crossings and deltas), high resource improve the city’s resilience. demands particularly in term of fresh epidemic. All parts of a city are dependent water and the concentration of people METHODOLOGY on one another and any shock to a city, even if it only directly impact one aspect, and assets. Other strategic challenges As part of the validation process will have ripple effects throughout. It is such as aging demographics; the growth BuroHappold assessed 12 global cities for this reason that resilience needs to be of the middle class; a growth in obesity as case studies (Bristol, Detroit, Dhaka, viewed holistically, breaking down silos and diabetes; anti-microbial resistance Glasgow, Hong Kong, London, Manchester, and understanding interdependencies. and others are all adding stress to our city Miami, Mumbai, New York, Riyadh and Traditionally there has not been one systems and could cause some cities to fail Sao Paulo). The framework was used to entity that has an overview of all these with significant harm to their populations evaluate three of these cities (Bristol, areas and that is cited as the reason for and world stability. These factors will London and Sao Paulo) in further depth this lack of joined up thinking. However, also increase the impact and severity of at a component level. The results of in the UK with more powers moving to factors that can significantly shock our these in depth studies were validated city mayors (e.g. London, Bristol), this is city systems; such as flooding, drought, in stakeholder workshops with experts changing. The Rockefeller 100 Resilient desertification, disease migration, mass from each city. The feedback from each Cities Program has introduced the concept migration, armed conflict and terrorism. workshop then informed the development of Chief Resilience Officers (CROs) – a PURPOSE of the framework. person responsible for delivering resilience In response to this unprecedented level BuroHappold’s resilience framework strategies for the city - there is now an of crises affecting the world’s urban is unique in that, unlike many other opportunity to think differently and truly population, BuroHappold has developed a assessment tools, the methodology is understand and prioritise the many issues comprehensive framework for measuring risk-based and considers long term trends. facing our cities and develop holistic the resilience of cities to a broad spectrum Furthermore, interrelationships between solutions that benefit more than one issue of shocks and stresses; from the sudden shocks and stresses are mapped; for or group. impact of flooding to the longer term example, the affect of stresses such as process of urbanisation. BuroHappold globalisation or climate change on the were the recipient of the Royal Charter current and future intensity of shocks are International Research Award from the captured.. The methodology also measures BRE Trust and the Worshipful Company of the capability of a city to counteract Constructors which contributed funding these shocks and stresses through a to validate and test the framework on 12 combination of protective mitigations as global cities. well as adaptive, response and recovery measures (adaptive capacity).

4 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

One of the key benefits noted when Out baseline assessment also enables us KEYWORDS implementing this approach with to take insight into the cost and benefit Resilience, Built environment, Framework, city leaders is that stakeholders are of different options and compare them City, Diagnostic, Prioritisation unified around a common vision. A with the cost of inaction of doing nothing. comprehensive resilience strategy will This informs the creation of business cases touch all aspects of a city and is therefore around possible programmes of activity. a great way to integrate a city and break Clients investing millions if not billions down these silos. We have found that into a development need to know their successful resilience strategies address investment is protected and the business multiple vulnerabilities and deliver case supporting that investment will benefits across a wide range of areas. remain pertinent for the necessary period They also require interventions that cross of repayment or for the development’s departmental barriers; strategy workshops lifetime. The risk management model being invaluable in successfully aligning that sets the scene for our resilience interests. This provides the co-benefits approach is focused on creating and of better collaboration and better protecting value; looking at the underlying understanding between departments assumptions upon which business which results in resilient solutions that models are based and understanding how maximise benefits across multiple strategic risk factors can both challenge agencies. these assumptions but also reveal Exploiting the capability of the Resilience previously unidentified opportunities. Diagnostic to model future trends, we are In order to simplify the process, able to test possible scenarios against the BuroHappold has subsequently developed current baseline, to assess the comparative an online resilience diagnostic tool that impact and benefits of different strategic can be used by a variety of stakeholders to options. understand their perspective on their city’s resilience.

Figure 2.1: Sao Paulo, Brazil.

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BuroHappold were the recipient of the Royal Charter International Research Award from the BRE and the Worshipful Company of Constructors which contributed funding to validate and test the framework developed by BuroHappold on 12 global cities . We would like to thank the BRE Trust and the Worshipful Company of Constructors for supporting this report. We would also like to thanks all those from the cities within this report whom gave their time and energy to contribute to the research and validate the results, in particular, those stakeholders from the organisations listed: Lloyd’s Register Consulting, Bristol UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) Figure 3.1: London, UK. London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP) London Councils University College London (UCL) Environment Agency, UK Greater London Authority (GLA), UK University of Leeds, UK Municipality of Sorocaba/Technological Park of Sorocaba Municipality of Recife, Brazil Municipality of Fortaleza, Brazil Municipality of São Bernardo dos Campos International Council for Local Environment Initiatives, Secretariat for South America (ICLEI SAMS) British Consulate General, Brazil Office of the President of Brazil Bristol City Council London Local Resilience Forum

6 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

AUTHORS

CAROLINE FIELD RICHARD LOOK THOMAS LINDSAY MSc PE CEng MICE RSES BSc MEPS MPhil/RIBA Head of Risk & Resilience Associate Resilience Consultant Resilience Consultant Caroline Field leads BuroHappold’s Risk Richard is an Associate Resilience Thomas has a background in architecture. & Resilience team. She has 20 years of Consultant within the Risk and Resilience He obtained his Master of Philosophy professional experience in the design and Team. With a background in emergency in Architecture and Urban Design from analysis of a wide range of structures for planning, business continuity and the the University of Cambridge. While there the built environment. This includes 15 military, he brings a practical, integrated he acted as a Supervisor and briefly years specialising in the field of structural approach to resilience and has spent the taught as a Visiting Fellow in Nanjing, resilience to extreme events – 12 of which last 15 years practicing in this area with China. At BuroHappold he focuses were based in the United States. In her significant experience both mitigating on assessing resilience as well as the current role she provides a more holistic community risks and responding to creation of city scale resilience and approach to resilience that balances emergencies. Richard was an officer sustainability masterplans. Before joining, physical mitigations with adaptive in the British Army for 7 years. He Thomas specialised in the relationship capacity, considers shocks and stresses underwent officer training and received between infectious disease and the built and incorporates future trends analysis. specialist training in logistics, secure environment at the London School of She is chartered with the ICE, is a licensed telecommunications and all aspects of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. His papers professional engineer in California and a ammunition and explosives and served as have since been published in several member of ASCE. both a Regimental Signals Officer and an scientific peer reviewed journals. Ammunition Technical Officer (ATO (EOD)). He led troops on operations in Oman, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and the Balkans.

4 INTRODUCTION

BuroHappold has developed the Reslience BuroHappold were joint winners of the The 12 global cities considered as case Insight, a framework for measuring 2014 Royal Charter International Research studies are Bristol, Detroit, Dhaka, the resilience of cities against a broad Award presented by the BRE Trust and Glasgow, Hong Kong, London, Manchester, spectrum of shocks and stresses; from Worshipful Company of Constructors. Our Miami, Mumbai, New York, Riyadh and Sao the sudden impact of flooding to the team of experts have spent the past year Paulo. We assessed three of these cities longer term process of urbanisation. researching and developing our resilience (Bristol, London and Sao Paulo) in further This comprehensive approach has been framework and applying this approach to depth by dividing cities into 12 functional created in response to growing challenges 12 cities around the world. Through our areas or “components”. Each component affecting the world’s urban population. The research we wanted to meet the urgent was then individually assessed and aim of the framework is to act as a tool; need to make city resilience measureable; validated with stakeholders from each city with a useful level of detail to reflect in stakeholder workshops. (1) to assist municipal authorities each cities specific circumstance, whilst and other key private/public sector still providing a consistent set of metrics stakeholders in assessing their current and against which cost/benefit cases for future resilience demands and capacities; resilience building can be made.

(2) to gain a holistic understanding of each city sector’s resilience and their interrelationships and;

(3) for prioritizing and measuring the performance of policies and physical interventions that will improve the city’s resilience. By making resilience quantifiable, the framework makes it measurable, comparable and manageable.

Figure 4.1: Edinburgh, UK.

8 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

5 A BACKGROUND TO RESILIENCE

5.1 WHAT IS 5.2 SHOCKS AND Coupled to these severe strategic RESILIENCE? STRESSES challenges are other pervasive stress factors that will impact every level At BuroHappold we have defined Shock factors are those one off events that of society such as growing obesity resilience as: cause disruption, harm or damage on such and diabetes levels, rapidly changing a scale that specific action needs to be technology, a widening gap between rich The ability to anticipate and adapt to shocks taken to respond and resources need to be and poor, anti-microbial resistance, a rise and stresses; implementing lessons learned diverted. The shock factors that are most in international terrorism, and increased to leverage emerging opportunities, and commonly considered include accidents, globalisation where greater reliance is effectively reduce vulnerabilities. flooding, disease or utility failure but can placed on elongated supply chains. This definition emphasizes the critical include terrorist attacks, land movement concepts of anticipation, adaptation, and seismic events, cyber-attack and many considering shocks and stresses and others. An example of these have been reducing vulnerability. The definition outlined in Figure 5.2. also recognizes the strong potential for Stresses are factors that continually opportunities that exist and must be change our environment and systems over identified and exploited if our cities are to time, they exacerbate existing shocks or thrive. become shocks themselves. The current Our approach to resilience is holistic and environment is forming into a perfect includes risk management and future storm of stress factors with ever increasing proofing. It is broad; combining disaster demand for resources from a growing and reduction, risk management, business ageing population; an increased scarcity continuity and emergency planning. of supply in a wide range of key resources It includes governmental, societal, including fresh water and energy; and a economic and environmental solutions rapidly changing environment as a result and encompasses all parts of a city system, of climate change. bringing together these key groups to build resilience, promote a successful city and drive successful outcomes to disruptive events.

HAZARD TYPE SHOCK DESCRIPTIONS

Human disease - Human disease - Aging population Existing disease Animal disease - Obesity & HEALTH Disease pandemic New and emerging & increased life outbreak - Epidemic Zoonotic notifiable Type 2 diabetes (e.g. influenza) infectious expectancy

Critical Automation of Financial failure/ Structural failure/ Vehicle strike INFRASTRUCTURE Power Outage component labour/structural on structure Crisis movement/instability failure unemployment

Earthquake, Land Flooding - Surface NATURAL Heat wave Climate change Flooding - Fluvial movement, Landslip Desertification water - Pluvial & Subsidence

Corporate/ Accidental or Increased criminal Organisational Security of Global Deliberate Release SECURITY technical Sovereign default Corruption/Bribery Governance/ Supply Chains of Confidential sophistication Ethics Failure Information

Explosion or Changes in Major fire/ Population explosive risk economic power Civic disorder - SOCIETAL Incendiary accident/ growth (location Terrorism (gas leak, explosive and geo-political Riots Incident & quantity) device, etc.) stability

Malicious Significant Loss of control Intellectual TECHNOLOGY Cyber crime Identity theft Software Cyber Attack of key assets Property Theft

Figure 5.1: Example of Shocks and Stress Factors by Category.

Figure 5.2: Number of Natural Disasters 1900 - 2014 (Source: EM-DAT).

10 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

5.3 WHY CONSIDER CITY RESILIENCE?

The rate of climate change, economic Cities tend to be built on trade routes Clients investing in a development need progress, the rapid pace of urbanisation which are traditionally associated with to know their investment is protected and population growth have combined river crossings, ports, estuaries and river and the business case supporting that to concentrate people, jobs and property deltas. With sea level rise and other effects investment will remain pertinent for in areas exposed to high risk from shocks of global warming this will mean that cities the lifetime of their involvement or for and stresses resulting in a growth in the will concentrate societal vulnerability like the development’s lifetime. The risk number of recorded natural disasters never before. This changing environment management model that sets the scene as shown in Figure 5.3. This has been requires cities to work proactively to for the resilience approach is focused on witnessed in recent years where the prepare for the future by understanding creating and protecting value; looking economic losses due to shocks alone have the factors that could cause disruption and at the underlying assumptions upon exceeded £60 billion/year as illustrated harm. which business models are based and in Figure 5.4. Over the past 14 years, understanding how strategic risk factors Strategies need to be developed to the earth has seen record‐breaking can both challenge these assumptions mitigate the threats and increase the temperatures and rainfall; economic losses but also reveal previously unidentified adaptive capacity within each aspect of alone reached £1 trillion. opportunities. the city sector so the challenges posed by Cities are a key concern with a growing long term stresses and a greater frequency trend towards urbanisation as shown and severity of shocks can be met. The in Figure 5.5; there are more of us living economic, social, governmental cost of 2 in cities than not. In the 1950s /3 of the not doing so is substantial. The world, 1 world’s population were rural and /3 and in particular its cities, are undergoing urban. By 2050 that ratio is set to reverse. unprecedented change and increasing ‘The Urban Turn’, when world’s population threats that are turning previously rare turned from a predominantly rural to an events into an everyday occurrence. urban population, was passed in 2007. The world’s rapidly increasing urban population and the growth in the number With continued population growth there and severity of disaster (Figure 5.3 to are more of us than ever before. Today Figure 5.7) have meant that cities’ capacity (2015) there are a total of 7.25 billion to cope with this increase is being sorely people with just over 55% living in cities. tested. By 2050 we will see 70% of people living in urban areas, an increase of approximately The Business Case for investment 2 billion people, this growth will lead The case for resilience is clear; the UNISDR to the spread of megacities. There are Sendai Framework notes, “Addressing likely to be winners and losers within this underlying disaster risk factors through scenario, with some cities becoming very disaster risk-informed public and private large indeed (megacities), whilst other investment is more cost effective than may struggle to remain relevant and primary reliance on post-disaster competitive. response and recovery, and contributes to sustainable development”. Part of the BuroHappold approach is to quantify the cost of “doing nothing”, based on an annualised cost of impact. This can then be compared to the potential cost of mitigation so that the cost-benefit of investment is clear.

Various reasons can be given for the and India, while Afghanistan and The distribution by continent reveals high total number of events in 2014. Nepal each accounted for several a similar picture to that for the period Firstly, the reporting rate for small hundred fatalities. An especially between 1980 and 2013. Asia and and very small events is steadily ris- large number of victims (66%) lost North America bore the brunt of ing in emerging economies. China their lives in hydrological events. This losses, with 46% and 29% respec- and India are notable examples of represents a substantial increase on tively. The insured portion of overall this. Another striking feature is the the 49% figure for 2013 and also on losses reached 28%, slightly under connection between the absence of the long-term average of 13%. Geo- the 30% average for the last ten mediagenic major events that often physical events were responsible for years. Here again, the most costly attract worldwide attention for 11%, meteorological events for 17% events for the global insurance weeks at a time, and the higher num- and climatological events for 6% of industry were the winter losses in ber of reported loss events. If one fatalities. Japan and the USA, followed by looks at the period between 1980 severe weather events in Europe and and the present, there have repeat- the USA, and floods in the United edly been years in which a large Losses Kingdom. number of catastrophes were docu- mented, despite the low claims bur- With US$ 110bn in overall losses and den for the insurance industry and an insured share of US$ 31bn, 2014 the economy as a whole. Such high- was the third successive year with frequency low-impact events then low losses. After adjustment for infla- dominate the statistics. This was the tion, it was slightly above the levels case in 2000, 2006 and 2007, when of 2002 and 2003. Windstorm there were no major catastrophes. In events, at 46%, represented the larg- 2014, the number of smaller events est portion of overall losses, followed also increased in comparison with by floods with 27% and climatologi- previous years. cal events with 20%. In this area, winter weather extremes in Japan Fatalities and the USA, and drought events in China, the USA and Brazil, caused A total of 7,700 people lost their lives billion-dollar losses. With US$ 20bn, in approximately 460 natural catas- the tropical storm season, featuring RESILIENCEtrophes. With INSIGHT 75% of total fatalities, some very intense systems, also Asia was the worst-affected conti- accounted for a substantial portion nent, and above the long-term aver- of the loss burden. age of 69%. Over 1,000 people died in natural catastrophes in both China

Overall losses and insured losses 1980–2014 (in US$ bn) Overall losses (2014 values)* 7

Of which insured losses 350 (2014 values)*

300 Trend in overall losses

250 Trend in insured losses

200 * V alues adjusted for Trends in urbanization inflation using the Con- 150 sumer Price Index (CPI) of each country. 100 Source: Munich Re 50 NatCatSERVICE Globally, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas. In 2007, for the first time in history,0 the global urban population exceeded the global rural population, and the world population1980 has remained1985 predominantly1990 1995 urban thereafter2000 (figure2005 2). The2010 planet has gone through a process of rapid urbanization over the past six decades. In 1950, more than two- thirds (70 per cent) of people worldwide lived in rural settlements and less than one-third (30 per cent) in urban settlements. In 2014, 54 per cent of the world’s population is urban. Munich Re Topics Geo 2014 49 Figure 5.3: Overall losses and insured losses 1980 – 2013 (in US$bn). The urban population is expected to continue to grow, so that by 2050, the world will be one- third rural (34 per cent) and two-thirds urban (66 per cent), roughly the reverse of the global rural-urban population distribution of the mid-twentieth century (also see Annex Table I). A majority of the Figure 2. world’s population Urban and rural population of the world, 1950–2050 lives in urban areas

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

Population (millions) Population 2000

1000 Urban

0 Rural

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Levels of urbanization vary greatly across regions. In 2014, high levels of urbaniza- Figuretion, 5.4: at Urbanor above and 80rural per population cent, characterized of the world, 1950 Latin – 2050 America (UN). and the Caribbean and North- ern America. Europe, with 73 per cent of its population living in urban areas, is expected 12to be12 over Cities 80 per Assessment cent urban revision by 2050 (figure01 3). Africa and Asia, in contrast, remain mostly rural, with 40 per cent and 48 per cent of their respective populations living in urban areas. Over the coming decades, the level of urbanization is expected to increase in all regions (also referred to as major areas), with Africa and Asia urbanizing faster than the rest. Nevertheless, these two regions, which are projected to reach 56 and 64 per cent urban by mid-century, respectively, are still expected to be less urbanized than other regions of the world. BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

12 Cities - Urban Exposure Map

Glasgow

Manchester Bristol London

New York Detroit

Miami Riyadh Hong Kong Mumbai

City Rating Dhaka α++

α+

α α- β+ β β- Sao Paulo γ+ Suciency

Urban Exposure Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Figure 5.5: Urban Exposure Map showing the 12 case study cities and the relative exposure of their population to natural disasters. City Rating scores are taken from the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Research Network’s ranking of cities’ international12 Cities - Growth connectedness Rate Map 2012. Urban Exposure tiers are taken from the United Nation’s WorldRiskReport 2014.

Glasgow

Manchester Bristol London

New York Detroit

Miami Riyadh Hong Kong Mumbai

City Population Dhaka <500 thousand 500-750 thousand 750-1000 thousand 1-5 million 5-10 million

10 million +

Growth Rate Sao Paulo 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Figure 5.6: Growth Rate Map. World Risk Report 2014.

6 BUROHAPPOLD RESILIENCE PROCESS OVERVIEW

Figure 6.1: The Overall Approach to Resilience.

The 3-stage methodology shown in Figure 6.1 RESILIENCE 6.2 RESILIENCE 6.1 provides a consistent framework DIAGNOSTIC STRATEGIES through which existing and future measures can be coherently managed to A risk-based Resilience Diagnostic The process uses a number of tools deliver a city that is more resilient today has been created to gain a thorough to help take a fresh look at all the key and can evolve to meet the challenges of understanding of a city’s unique vulnerabilities. The diagnostic assesses tomorrow. vulnerabilities in generic terms. This resilience demand and capacity around framework assesses long-term stresses, the following three themes: Society & It ensures cities are able to develop their as well as shocks, (examples of which can Community; Governance & Economy understanding of the shocks and stresses be found in section 5.2) and assesses the and Environment & Infrastructure. To they face; allowing adaptive solutions capabilities of the city to manage them. complement the insight that this delivers, of be implemented pre-emptively. This See section 7 for more information on our vulnerabilities can be mapped spatially in turn ensures better planning and Diagnostic Framework. to better understand the city’s overall coordination; allowing benefits across situation. stakeholder groups to be maximised, The process starts by collecting base breaking down silos and integrating a data to understand the current state of Working with a range of key city wide range of expertise. the city from a range of perspectives; stakeholders and drawing on input social, economic, environmental, the from our experts in strategic planning, However, this study is primarily focused infrastructure and systems, and how the economics, and other relevant technical on the resilience diagnostic phase of the city is organised, governed and funded. disciplines (e.g. water management, process. The city’s future vision, goals and plans are transport planning), we run a series of This approach is outlined in the following also examined. stakeholder workshops to define strategies sections. that will best address the identified key A broad cross section of stakeholders vulnerabilities. The diagnostic tool is are then engaged to develop a rich used to measure the potential impact of understanding of the key shock and stress suggested strategies in order to articulate factors that can disrupt or harm the city the cost-benefit case. and those within it; or in some cases, provide real opportunities for growth and competitive advantage. This analysis allows resilience demand to be calculated providing a baseline against which resilience capacity can be balanced. In consultation with cities authorities and relevant experts, shocks and stress factors are prioritised and the resilience focus defined.

14 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

It is important to resist the temptation 6.3 RESILIENCE to create individual strategies for the PROGRAMME different hazards, since this often results in silo’d thinking, duplication, lack of Many cities have hundreds of coordination and investments that do improvement projects underway at any not deliver maximum benefit. Successful one time. Success of these programmes is resilience strategies address multiple driven by clarity on core strategies, aligned vulnerabilities and deliver benefits across to an overarching programme and with a wide range of areas. They also require appropriate levels of funding. Governance interventions that cross departmental failings can result in projects lacking barriers. Strategy workshops have proved alignment with the core vision and this invaluable in successfully aligning interests creates duplication and wasted effort. and uniting diverse stakeholders around a In-depth quantative analysis is performed common vision. to develop and implement robust and Exploiting the capability of the Diagnostic fit for purpose strategies that support Framework to model future trends, the city resilience. These strategies include resilience process is able to test possible detailed design and procurement of scenarios against the current baseline, identified infrastructure upgrades, to assess the comparative impact and the implementation of a community benefits of different strategic options. The resilience plan and/or the development of baseline assessment also enables insight emergency response plans supported by into the cost and benefit of different training, exercise and learning. During this options and compare them with the cost process we ensure these delieverables are of inaction. in alignment with the resilience strategy and other key city objectives to maximise This informs the creation of business cases the return on investment. The Diagnostic around possible strategies for increasing Framework is updated to illustrate the resilience capacity. measurable resilience benefit obtained through the implementation of these solutions.

7 RESILIENCE DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH

The methodology is risk-based; providing 7.1 RESILIENCE 2. Governance & Economy a comparative risk score for each of the FRAMEWORK • Leadership & Government shocks and stresses identified as well as the effect on each of the components of Our resilience approach is based on • Security & Safety the framework. The risk-based approach the framework shown in Figure 7.1 • Business & Trade follows the traditional methodology which helps to ensure that complex and where risk is defined as the product of interconnected design challenges are • Skills & Innovation captured, evaluated and managed in a the likelihood of an event occurring and 3. Environment & Infrastructure the severity of the impact. The analysis holistic, integrated manner. Separated attempts to consider the full spectrum into three themes with four components • Structures & Infrastructure each, it encapsulates aspects and of hazards so as to build a complete • Systems & Technology picture of resilience demand and to then interconnectivities of a city. The themes understand gaps in the city’s capacity. and components break down as follows: • Resources It also incorporates trend analysis to 1. Society & Community • Environment simulate that cities are constantly changing and that underlying stresses • Community & Inclusion These components are further described in Appendix A. such as climate change, globalisation • Health & Wellbeing HOW RESILIENT IS LONDON? and urbanisation shift a city’s risk and An assessment using BuroHappold Engineering’s Resilience Framework ability to cope. Stresses and shocks are • Mobility & Communication London - Resilience Wheel mapped against each other to understand • LONDONSense of PlaceRESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER LOOK the effect the former has on the latter London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation allowing trend analysis for shocks basedKey Resilience Capacity Sense of Leadership & Resilience Capacity Place Government on the best possible evidence on stresses. Resilience Demand 117% This is fundamental in understandingResilience Demand the Resilience Rating Systems & Technology 38% 100% 54% Community & Inclusion Resilience Rating 102% Sense of Place Health & Wellbeing shifting risk profile over time. The tool 90% Mobility & Security ultimately helps investors and key public/ Communication 80% & Safety

70% G O private stakeholders prioritise decisions by Y V T E I 60% R N N making the impact of resilience strategies U A M N M 50% C E 52% O Environment C & measurable and comparable. 112% 40% E Security & Safety & C Y O T N E 100% I 30% O C M Top 3 Resilience Ratings O Business Health & S Y 20% The three most resilient sections of the city are as to be expected. Wellbeing & Trade 10% These are located in areas of lower exposure, they will have greater investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they will have greater adaptive capacity. In particular, Safety and Security can be 26% 20% expected to have the greatest situational awareness and coordination Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation capability, whereas Systems & Technology will have the most agility. 77 22% Health & Wellbeing 117% Systems & Technology 38% 54% Community & Inclusion 102% Sense of Place Community Health & Wellbeing Skills & & Inclusion Innovation

52% 112% Environment Security & Safety

Structure & 100% Environment Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings Infrastructure Sense of Place and the Environment include all those areas of the city where people can come together or are under community ownership. It is for this reason that these areas are often at the margins and have greater exposure, for example, they are often seen as sacriﬁ cial areas ENV RE IRONM RUCTU for ﬂ ood. Community26% & Inclusion also has20% lower resilience ratings. ENT & INFRAST Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology Systems & Resources This illustrates the strong need for community resilience programmes Technology to build capacity. 22% Health & Wellbeing

Figure 7.1: BuroHappold’s Resilience Wheel. This diagram is part of an informationRESILIENT dashboard LONDON detailing London’s challenges and opportunities.

TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS London’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt and 16 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors of the city. Climate change not only creates direct challenges to the Bridge/Building Collapse city, such as overheating, water stress and ﬂ ooding, but also indirect challenges which potentially increase the severity and/ Flooding - Fluvial

or likelihood of other hazards. The impact of ﬂ ooding on London, Major Stoppage - for example, is likely to be further exacerbated by poor housing Communications Estimated annualised cost of impact quality, aging infrastructure and many other factors. Public Health Hazard e.g. Legionella, Asbestos

we make London more resilient’ must therefore aim for a holistic, Major Incident - multi-layered approach that recognises London as an intricate Biological Explosion or Explosion network of systems. This is why BuroHappold Engineering have Risk (Gas leak, Explosive developed a framework to measure resilience that is being tested Device etc.) Major Fire/Incendiary in collaboration with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Device/Incident and the Worshipful Company of Constructors. Heat Wave Shocks and Stresses Shocks

Our framework helps to ensure that complex and interconnected Heavy Snow design challenges are captured, evaluated and managed in a Flooding - Surface systematic, integrated manner. By measuring resilience, we can Water - Pluvial then make informed decisions as to the areas of greatest need, Financial Failure/ where more detailed strategies are needed and in what sectors Crisis

(be it Governance & Economy, Environment & Infrastructure or Major Stoppage Society & Community) these should be focussed. For example, - Electricity Existing Disease the adjacent chart indicates the cost of not considering resilience Outbreak - Epidemic by ranking and quantifying some of the key fi nancial impacts on 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 London. It also shows that climate change a ects some of the £ Millions top fi nancial impacts such as fl ooding events and heat waves. BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

7.2 ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGIES A number of contemporary indicator systems were reviewed and compared against the BuroHappold Resilience Framework as shown in Table 7.1. A separation can be made between those systems used as tools and those which are indices. The latter may identify hazards and resilience but the former prioritises suitable action to increase resilience. The second key feature of a tool is its ability to create a baseline measure with which future policies can be measured for their effectiveness or ineffectiveness at increasing resilience.

Table 7.1 Comparison with existing indicator systems.

Name Author Tool/ Baseline Multi- Multi- Exposure Capacity Risk- Trend- Mapped Index Tool sector hazard based based interrelationships

Hyogo UNISDR Index N Y Y Y Y N N N Framework

Urban World Bank Index N Y N Y Y Y N N Risk-Index

Mind the Swiss Re Index N N N Y N Y N N Risk

Resilient Grosvenor Index Cities N N Y Y Y Y Y N Research Report

Resilience BuroHappold Tool Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Framework

7.3 THE RESILIENCE DIAGNOSTIC PROCESS

The resilience rating process is shown in Figure 7.2 below and further detailed in the sections below. As shown in Figure 7.3, the resilience assessment process can be broken down into six main steps. The following is a description of how these steps are formulated and the sub-components from which they are constructed.

Figure 7.2: Resilience Rating Flowchart.

18 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

Royal Charter International Research Award - 6 Step Process

STEP 6

• Current & Future STEP 5 Resilience Gaps • Resilience STEP 4 Rating

• Resilience STEP 3 Capacity

• Resilience STEP 2 Demand

• Initial STEP 1 Prioritisation

• Identify Shocks & Stresses

Figure 7.3: The resilience assessment process.

7.4 STEP 1: IDENTIFY 7.5 STEP 2: INITIAL 7.6 STEP 3: RESILIENCE SHOCKS & PRIORITISATION DEMAND STRESSES It is likely that the initial broad scope shock The framework calculates resilience At its core resilience is based on the and stress factor identification process will demand as a combination of; (i) multi- development of a very thorough result in a list with potentially hundreds of hazard events and (ii) the city’s exposure understanding of the operational hazards. The initial prioritisation process to these and (iii) the probability of their environment taking into account a broad refines the list of hazards into to those that occurrence or, in the case of stresses, the range of factors both internal and external. are most important to consider using a rate of growth of that trend. quick methodology known as MoSCoW. BuroHappold has and continues to Calculate Exposure develop a comprehensive shock and stress MoSCoW asks the user to categorise the factor data set and this is used as a starting shocks and stresses by the following Cities consist of layers of complex point for stakeholder engagement. These criteria: integrated systems that are mutually supporting and dependant. Assessing are subsequently narrowed down and • Must consider - Shocks and stresses a city’s resilience needs to take into prioritised. Examples of shock and stress that must be considered or can be account the baseline parameters of these factors are shown in Figure 5.2. considered critical. systems as well as the complexity of • Should consider - Shocks and stresses interrelationships that exist. that should be considered and are The assessment establishes two baselines; second in priority for the resilience of the city or the client’s needs. Baseline 1: the relative importance of each of the 12 components in terms of value • Could consider - These are shocks and systemic importance. and stresses that, capacity of the client permitting, could be considered. Baseline 2: the exposure (i.e. the total potential for harm or disruption). Each • Won’t consider - These shocks and component of the framework is assessed stresses are either outside of the on financial exposure as well as other client’s scope or not pertinent to the factors relevant to each component e.g. city e.g. snow storms in Dakar. The residents for community and inclusion won’t consider options allows the or transport systems for mobility and shock or stress to be reconsidered at a communication. later date if the situation changes. Exposure factors are further discussed in Appendix B.

7.7 STEP 4: RESILIENCE A comprehensive resilience strategy will CAPACITY touch all aspects of a city. It is therefore a useful strategy for integrating a city Resilience capacity is the city’s capacity and breaking down silos. Providing to deal with shocks and stresses and is an overview for resilience means that broken down into two aspects; mitigation the city is integrated around this goal and adaptive capacity. These aspects which provides the co-benefit of better reduce the impact or probability; or deal collaboration and better understanding with the consequences, as shown in Figure between departments which results in 7.4. Mitigations can remove or reduce resilient solutions that maximise benefits exposure, provide immunity, implement across multiple areas and agencies. Resilienceprotective - Overarching measures, increase robustness,Themes The following are measurable strategies provide redundancy and design in fail for resilience captured within our safes. Contingencies are a key component São Paulo - Resilience Gap framework: RESILIENCE GAP - CURRENT/2030 of adaptive capacity providingRESILIENT response SÃO PAULO systems with specific prepared response capabilities such as warning & informing, Current Gap Projected 2030 Gap deployable preventative and Aprotective balance between Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation measures, emergency shelter, evacuation, public safety measures, business 140% continuity, resolving the source hazards e.g. firefighting, recovery and the ability to learn and adapt. 130% D NCE The overarching themes are important LA properties that a good resilience strategy A 120% B C should include; TIVE CAPA O P C -O 1. A good balance of both mitigation A IT 110% D Y R and adaptive capacity measures A D across all components of the city; I 100% Prepare, Respond, Recover, N 2. Well coordinated and integrated A T to provide the maximum benefits Learn & Improve 90% E and; D 3. The output will be sustainable and 80% I future focussed. N T Protect, Robust, 70% E G Redundant, Fail-Safe R 60% A T E D M N 50% ITIGATIO LE AB 40% IN SUSTA 30% Figure 7.4: The core aspects of adaptive capacity (prepare, respond, recover, learn & 20% improve) and mitigation (protect, robust, redundant, fail-safe) as well as the desirable London - Cities Resilience Rating approaches to each (balanced, co-ordinated, sustainable and integrated).

10% Adaptive Capacity São Paulo - Adaptive CapacityAdaptive and capacity Mitigation is the capacity of people, organisations, cities, regions, nations and trans-national 0% 20 12 Cities Assessmentorganisations revision 01 to adapt to the changing environment. Adaptive capacity can be characterised by the ability to observe the environment, detect changes, research and understand those Skills & Security Business Health & Sense Placeof changes, formulate options on how to deal with those changes, decide on a course of action and & Safety & Trade Resources Systems & Structure & Mobility & Leadership & Environment Community Wellbeing Innovation Technology & Inclusion Government Infrastructure its implementation. Furthermore, these actions must also be understood for their impact and Communication effectiveness. To ensure the situation develops and we achieve progress in the future, lessons must be learnt in order that we do not revert back to the original set of circumstances. HOW DOES SÃO PAULO COMPARE WITH OTHER CITIES? Mitigation

Resilience Rating Mitigations can remove or reduce exposure, provide immunity, implement protective measures, increase robustness, provide redundancy and design in fail safes.

100%

90% 80% 25% 25% 50% 70% Mitigation Adaptive Capacity Resilience Rating

60%

50% 40% + = 30%

20%

10% 33% 40% 50% 67% 73% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 88% 89%

* Figures rounded Dhaka Detroit Bristol Riyadh Miami Mumbai London Sao Paulo Glasgow New York Hong Kong Manchester

WHICH PARTS OF SÃO PAULO’S CITY SYSTEM WILL BE AFFECTED BY FLOODING?

Primary Hazard Secondary Hazard BristolTertiary - Flood Hazard Scenario High Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Medium Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Low Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Potential Positive Effect

Shock & Stress Factors Inputs Functions/Processes/Change Outputs Expectations Stakeholders

• Mitigation & Immigration Sense of Sense of Sense of Sense of Place Place Place Place

• Displacement • Residents Socio-Economic Groupings Community Community Community Community & Inclusion & Inclusion & Inclusion & Inclusion

• Public Health Hazard e.g. legionella, • Health Care Providers asbestos, contamination Health & Health & Health & Health & • Social Care Providers Wellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing Society & Community • Highways Network Failure • Transport Companies • Bridge/Building Collapse Mobility & Mobility & Mobility & Mobility & • Passengers • Rail Network Failure Communication Communication Communication Communication • Users • Network Providers

• Reputational (PR) Disaster • National Government • Local Government Leadership & Leadership & Leadership & Leadership & • Politicians • Community Leaders Governance Governance Governance Governance • Business Leaders

• Theft (physical) • Police • Physical Security of Employees Security & Security & Security & Security & • Emergency Services • Litigation Safety Safety Safety Safety • Prosecution

• Disruption to Critical Supplies • Competitors • Producers • Manufacturers • Litigation • Prosecution • Reputational Business & Business & Business & Business & • Retailers • Service Providers • Investors (PR) Disaster • Corporate/Organisational Trade Trade Trade Trade • Workers • Business Leaders • Businesses Governance Failure • Lobbyists • Tourists • Customers Media & Social Media

Governance & Economy Governance • Business Skills & Skills & Skills & Skills & • Students Innovation Innovation Innovation Innovation • Education

• Major Stoppage (electricity) • Major Stoppage • Visitors (water & sewage) • Major Stoppage Structure & Structure & Structure & Structure & • Tourists (telecommunications) • Dam Failure or Inundation Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure • Residents • Unsafe or contaminated Water Supply • Businesses • Infrastructure Capacity (congestion) & Quality • Flooding • Business • Farmers & Land Owners • Land Movement, Earthquake, Landslip & Environment Environment Environment Environment • Visitors • Tourists • Residents Subsidence • Dam Failure or Inundation

• Businesses Systems & Systems & Systems & Systems & • Utility Companies Technology Technology Technology Technology

• Critical Buildings Out-of-Use • Disruption to Critical Supplies Environment & Infrastructure Environment • Bridge/Building Collapse Resources Resources Resources Resources BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

7.7.2.3 REDUNDANCY 7.7.3 ADAPTIVE CAPACITY 7.7.1 EXPOSURE PREVENTION MEASURES MEASURES The addition of components or capacity which are not necessary to functioning Adaptive capacity is the capacity of A shared situational awareness, risk but are included in case of component people, organisations, cities, regions, analysis and vulnerability assessment failure. An example of this is designing nations and trans-national organisations allows a holistic understanding to the utilities in loops and with extra capacity to anticipate, respond, learn and adapt to types of measures needed to prevent so that if there is a break or interruption the changing environment. Measurable exposure from the outset and reduce at any point, supplies can be re-routed strategies for adaptive capacity include an resilience demand. Exposure prevention to ensure continuity. Redundancy is effective response system that provides measures are those external to the city assessed against the ability to continue to good preparation, response capability, or project (i.e. off-site measures). Specific operate despite partial loss of systems or recovery and the ability to learn and examples may include stores and spares infrastructure. improve as discussed below. in a global supply chain, regulation to ensure safe and secure operation of key 7.7.2.4 FAIL-SAFES 7.7.3.1 EFFECTIVE COMMAND infrastructure, or coastal defences outside AND CONTROL (C2) the city. In the event of a failure, the failure is proportionate and does not propagate During an incident command & control 7.7.2 MITIGATION MEASURES within the system or to other connected refers to the people, facilities and systems systems resulting in disproportional that ensure the overall management Mitigation measures mitigate exposure failure or loss. An example of this would of an incident including situational and reduce vulnerability. The effectiveness be to understand the failure modes of a awareness, leadership & governance, of existing mitigation measures is structure and making sure that loss of one controls, coordination, communication, evaluated for the identified shocks and member does not cause disproportionate and appropriate escalation. During stresses on a 5 point scale which are or progressive collapse. normal business these activities would categorised into the following mitigation be delivered through good governance strategies: and management systems. C2 is terminology taken from the military and 7.7.2.1 PROTECTION can be expanded to include all computer, Protective measures can be physical or communication and information systems. procedural. They usually form a protective barrier between an identified hazard 7.7.3.2 PREPARE and areas that are vulnerable. Famous An entities ability to adapt to a situation examples include the Thames Barrier and is greatly improved with planning, the Great Wall of China; but on a small understanding (modelling), testing, scale protective measures would include exercising, pre-positioning of resources/ property level flood protection. capabilities and preparing facilities. These activities can be coordinated through 7.7.2.2 ROBUSTNESS states of readiness where there is an ability A system’s ability to resist an impact to anticipate a shock. These preparations without changing its form. An example greatly improve the chance that, when would be a structure that has been triggered, the response to the hazard is enhanced to withstand specific extreme swift, effective and coordinated. The level shock factors such as wind, flooding, blast, of preparation needs to be in line with the heat, dust, collision, et al; where a threat level & nature of the threat, the complexity has been identified. The assessment of and the necessary speed of the response. robustness is based on the likelihood of failure if the entity is impacted by the specific shock or stress.

São Paulo - Resilience GapRESILIENCE GAP - CURRENT/2030 RESILIENT SÃO PAULO

Current Gap Projected 2030 Gap A balance between Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation

140% RESILIENCE INSIGHT

130% D NCE LA 120% A C B IVE CAP O PT AC - A IT O 110% D Y R A D I 100% Prepare, Respond, Recover, N A Learn & Improve T 90% 7.7.4 RESPOND 7.7.6 LEARN, IMPROVE & 7.8 E STEP 5: RESILIENCE ADAPT D Emergency response is the organizing, RATING 80% coordinating, and directingI of available N Resilience is greatly aided by a culture Resilience rating is the resilience resources in order to respond to the of continuous learning and the learning T Protect, Robust, capacity divided by resilience demand. event and bring the emergencyE under 70% organisation (Senge, 1990). At every So effectively is the percentage of the control. Primarily, the goals ofG an stage,Redundant, opportunities to Fail-Safe learn and adapt R demand that is met either through emergency response is the protection need to be taken; allowing a more A mitigation measures or adaptive capacity 60% of life and property, however, in recent T complete understanding of the city/ measures. This breakdown is illustrated in time the minimisation of mental E D organisationsMI and the environmentN within Figure 7.5. 50% and physical impacts and reducing which is residesTIG (environmentATIO used in E disruption are equally important. Key to a the broadest sense). Learning, improvingB L successful response is the gathering and and adapting can be challenging as theyA 40% IN management of information; to detect the result in change, which canS causeTA some to problem; generate situational awareness be fearful, disconcertedSU and threatened 30% which in turn allows the right decision to resulting in change resistance. The ability be made; coordination of resources; and of a city or organisation to understand, 20% the development of learning to ensure acknowledge and overcome or take London - Cities Resilience Rating systems continually improve. account of these concerns is key to

10% Adaptive Capacity continued resilience. 7.7.5 RECOVER São Paulo - Adaptive CapacityAdaptive and capacity Mitigation is the capacity of people, organisations, cities, regions, nations and trans-national 0% Recoveryorganisations strategies toformulate adapt theto the changing environment. Adaptive capacity can be characterised recommendedby the ability ways to and observe means throughthe environment, detect changes, research and understand those Skills & which an entity recovers from adverse Security Business Health & Sense Placeof changes, formulate options on how to deal with those changes, decide on a course of action and & Safety & Trade Resources Systems & Structure & Mobility & Leadership & Environment Community Wellbeing Innovation Technology & Inclusion impacts. The principle of bounce back Government Infrastructure its implementation. Furthermore, these actions must also be understood for their impact and Communication better is key, and to understand what effectiveness. To ensure the situation develops and we achieve progress in the future, lessons must better means takes effective engagement withbe those learnt effected. in order Recovery that we is aided do not revert back to the original set of circumstances. HOW DOES SÃO PAULO COMPARE WITH OTHER CITIES? by well-designed mitigation measures andMitigation in particular fail safe’s, redundancy and robustness which will have reduced Resilience Rating negativeMitigations impacts can and removemade remediation or reduce exposure, provide immunity, implement protective measures, actionincrease cheaper robustness, and quicker. provide redundancy and design in fail safes.

100%

90% 80% 25% 25% 50% 70% Mitigation Adaptive Capacity Resilience Rating

60%

50% 40% + = 30%

20%

10% 33% 40% 50% 67% 73% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 88% 89%

* Figures rounded Dhaka Detroit Bristol Riyadh Miami Mumbai London Sao Paulo Glasgow New York Hong Kong Manchester Figure 7.5: .Example calculating mitigation, adaptive capacity and resilience rating.

WHICH PARTS OF SÃO PAULO’S CITY SYSTEM WILL BE AFFECTED BY22 FLOODING?12 Cities Assessment revision 01

Shock & Stress Factors Inputs Functions/Processes/Change Outputs Expectations Stakeholders

• Mitigation & Immigration Sense of Sense of Sense of Sense of Place Place Place Place

• Displacement • Residents Socio-Economic Groupings Community Community Community Community & Inclusion & Inclusion & Inclusion & Inclusion

• Theft (physical) • Police • Physical Security of Employees Security & Security & Security & Security & • Emergency Services • Litigation Safety Safety Safety Safety • Prosecution

Governance & Economy Governance • Business Skills & Skills & Skills & Skills & • Students Innovation Innovation Innovation Innovation • Education

• Businesses Systems & Systems & Systems & Systems & • Utility Companies Technology Technology Technology Technology

7.9 STEP 6: CURRENT & The report has already indicated that risk of heavy snow or prolonged freezing FUTURE RESILIENCE the exposure assessments are used to temperatures. These assessments are project shock and stress factor growth used to measure the changing resilience GAPS or reduction. Within the tool there is also demand over a set time period. For the The resilience gap is simply the resilience a map of shocks and stress, how they purposes of this study, the time period demand minus the resilience capacity. relate and how their interrelationships has been set at 15 years, 2015 to 2030, are likely to cause associated growth or and it is well understood that the further When designing resilient systems it is not reduction. An example of this is climate into the future the projection is made, sufficient to gauge the resilience demand change which, depending on location the less confidence can be placed in the for the here and now. The information (UK example), is likely to increase the risk results. Projections are based in various gathered by the framework can be used of flooding, drought, heatwave, invasive models provided by governmental and to project onto the future and understand species, new diseases etc., but reduce the intergovernmental bodies such as the how shocks and stresses are likely to IPCC, IMF, WHO, United Nations, OECD, change over time. HM ONS etc. Figure 7.6 illustrates how the resilience gap now and in 2030 can be Bristol - Resilience Gap mapped against components of the city. Current Resilience Gap Projected 2050 Gap

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

-10%

-20%

Skills & Security Business Health & Sense Placeof & Safety & Trade Resources Systems & Structure & Mobility & Leadership & Environment Community Wellbeing Innovation Technology & Inclusion Government Infrastructure Communication Figure 7.6: Current resilience gap (blue) versus future (2050) resilience gap (Yellow) per framework component.

London - Resilience Wheel LONDON RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER LOOK London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation

Key Resilience Capacity Sense of Leadership & Resilience Capacity Place Government Resilience Demand 117% Resilience Demand Resilience Rating Systems & Technology 38% 100% 54% Community & Inclusion Resilience Rating 102% Sense of Place Health & Wellbeing 90% Mobility & Security Communication 80% & Safety

70% G O Y V T E I 60% R N N U A M RESILIENCE INSIGHT N M 50% C E 52% O Environment C & 112% 40% E Security & Safety & C Y O T N E 100% I 30% O C M Top 3 Resilience Ratings O Business Health & S Y 20% The three most resilient sections of the city are as to be expected. Wellbeing & Trade 10% These are located in areas of lower exposure, they will have greater investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they will have greater adaptive capacity. In particular, Safety and Security can be 26% 20% expected to have the greatest situational awareness and coordination Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation capability, whereas Systems & Technology will have the most agility. 77 22% Health & Wellbeing 117% 7.10 ANNUALISED FigureSystems 7.7& Technology below shows the 15 hazards This provides the38% baseline for developing 54% Community & Inclusion 102% with the greatest annualisedSense cost of Place of the business case for action and Community FINANCIALHealth & Wellbeing Skills & & Inclusion impact forInnovation London. This is calculated by investment. The next step is to develop IMPACTS dividing the estimated cost of impact strategies and evaluate their effectiveness Clients investing millions if not billions by the return period (based on the 95th and cost compared to doing nothing. into a development need to know their percentile scenario). The probability and investment is protected and the business cost of impact are assessed using a five case supporting that investment will point scale as shown in Table 7.2 and Table 52% 112% 7.3. Environment remain pertinent for the necessary periodSecurity & Safety of repayment or for the development’s Structure & 100% Environment Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings Infrastructure lifetime. If investors are also looking to Sense of Place and the Environment include all those areas of the city invest in building resilience as a means of where people can come together or are under community ownership. protecting the value of a development, It is for this reason that these areas are often at the margins and have greater exposure, for example, they are often seen as sacrifi cial areas ENV RE IRONM the annualisedRUCTU value of financial impacts for fl ood. Community26% & Inclusion also has20% lower resilience ratings. ENT & INFRAST Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology Systems & become key to buildingResources the business case. This illustrates the strong need for community resilience programmes Technology The risk management model that sets to build capacity. the scene for our resilience approach is 22% Health & Wellbeing focused on creating and protecting value; looking at the underlying assumptions upon which business models are based and understanding how strategic RESILIENT LONDON risk factors can both challenge these assumptions but also reveal previously unidentified opportunities. TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS London’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt and protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors of the city. Climate change not only creates direct challenges to the Bridge/Building Collapse city, such as overheating, water stress and fl ooding, but also indirect challenges which potentially increase the severity and/ Flooding - Fluvial or likelihood of other hazards. The impact of fl ooding on London, Major Stoppage - for example, is likely to be further exacerbated by poor housing Communications Estimated annualised cost of impact quality, aging infrastructure and many other factors. Public Health Hazard e.g. Legionella, Asbestos

Major Road A solution to these problems is not easy as interventions will Accident/Incident need to address the future uncertainty of risks in addition to the Major Incident - layered complexity of cities. Any answer to the question ‘how do Chemical we make London more resilient’ must therefore aim for a holistic, Major Incident - multi-layered approach that recognises London as an intricate Biological Explosion or Explosion network of systems. This is why BuroHappold Engineering have Risk (Gas leak, Explosive developed a framework to measure resilience that is being tested Device etc.) Major Fire/Incendiary in collaboration with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Device/Incident and the Worshipful Company of Constructors. Heat Wave Shocks and Stresses Shocks

24 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

Table 7.2 Probability Scale.

Quantitative Measure Quantitative Measure

Scale Qualitative Measure Chance of Occurrence every 5 years Annual Probability of Occurrence

5 Extremely Likely 1:1 33%

4 Likely 1:5 6%

3 Unlikely 1:20 2%

2 Very Unlikely 1:50 1%

1 Exceptionally unlikely 1:200 0.16%

Table 7.3 Cost of Occurrence Scale.

Scale Qualitative Measure Quantitative Measure

5 £100 million + 500,000,000

4 Between £10 & £100 Million 55,000,000

3 Between £1 & £10 Million 5,500,000

2 Between £100 thousand & £1 million 550,000

1 Less than £100 thousand 50,000

7.11 MAIN OUTCOMES Provides a means for stakeholder Provides a basis for engaging the OF THE APPROACH engagement in order to build capital: insurance industry. The framework helps to answer the question “what is the cost a. Political capital – makes The key benefits and outcomes of the of not considering resilience?” and what evidenced case to politicians to approach we have developed are as are the potential future losses to a broad back investment and support follows: range of hazards (perils). programmes of resilience capacity A multi-factor environmental analysis development. A means to future-proof. By that identifies opportunities and understanding the key trends shaping b. Social capital – provides a common threats. Systems thinking is an essential the city, a stakeholder can understand the basis for broad engagement and part of the resilience approach and future needs for resilience and prospects developing resilience networks. It not just the system itself but also the for the city. can provide a community unity of environment within which it resides. This purpose. Engagement to build the The key issues of complexity and allows for effective horizon scanning and communities resilience capacity. uncertainty and their interrelationships are a truer understanding of the operational illustrated in Table 7.4. risks that the future can pose. c. Human capital – provides the basis for investment in skills and Quantifies the need for action and capabilities. indicates what action should be taken. If you can’t measure it, you can manage it, d. Manufactured capital – business and you certainly can’t improve it. If we cases to support capital investment are to build resilience within our cities, we in engineered solutions. will need an approach that can measure e. Financial capital – key to developing what we are trying to improve. A journey business cases for resilience needs a start and a finish, without a means building investment using tools and of measuring resilience, how do we know techniques recognised by investors. where to start and when our goal has been achieved? Baselining tool. The tool provides a baseline against which progress can be measured. It then allows hypotheses and scenarios to be tested against this baseline level of resilience to ascertain the effects on a city’s resilience.

Table 7.4 The importance of mapping interrelationships. The Resilience Framework’s methodology (non-bold) and the issues of resilience that they address (bold).

Mapped Interrelationship

Complexity

Hazard (Impact) City (Impacted)

Multi-hazard Analysis Multi-sector Analysis Mapped Interrelationship Uncertainty

Shocks (short-term) Stresses (long-term)

Risk Analysis Trend Analysis

26 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

7.12 CONFIDENCE LEVELS

The validity of the data provided by the Decisions based on the output of the tool tool is greatly influenced by the data input. should have an appropriate confidence The following five point scale as show in level applied. Small, low risk decisions Table 7.5 indicates the confidence level can be made with information of a lower that can be applied to the output of the confidence; however, significant, high risk diagnostic tool. decisions should be based on information with a high confidence level. Table 7.5 Confidence Level Scale.

Scale Qualitative Measure Description

Multiple corroborating data sets including key stakeholder groups, modelled and 5 Very High independent peer reviewed

Multiple corroborated data sets including key stakeholder groups supported by 4 High independent peer review

3 Medium Multiple corroborating data sets including key stakeholder groups

2 Low Assessment corroborated by informed stakeholder engagement

1 Very Low Uncorroborated assessment supported by open source data

7.13 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A sensitivity analysis was carried out to Ultimately, the result of the analysis assess the interrelationships between showed that the tool behaved as different variables across the 12 sectors. anticipated with all the key elements Analysis was based on a generic city such as exposure, impact, probability, model where all 5-point scales were set at vulnerability all having a proportionate 3 to gain an ‘average’ score. Variables were but significant impact on the tool’s then set to ‘High’ (a rating of 5) or ‘Low’ outputs. (a rating of 1). Other than the probability sensitivity analysis, the variables tested did not include those relating to hazards. Instead they focused on the notional city’s resilience demand and capacity. Initially the analysis did produce some areas of improvement that were corrected in an iterative process coupled with the testing of results with stakeholder groups.

8 12 CITIES COMPARISON ASSESMENT

8.1 INTRODUCTION 12 cities were chosen from a variety of countries in order to test the methodology on cities with a broad range of differing capacities and demands. A more simplified, high-level assessment was completed resulting in a single score attributed to each city rather than for each city component. At this level of analysis the output is primarily used to compare cities, as shown in Figure 8.1, rather than assess a city’s resilience demands and capacities in depth.

Figure 8.1: 12 Cities Comparison Graph of Resilience Ratings.

28 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

8.2 RISK Table 8.1 12 Cities Shocks & Stresses. IDENTIFICATION &

PRIORITISATION Health Hazards Shocks and stresses were chosen to be as generic as possible to allow comparison Infrastructure Hazards between the 12 cities. Shocks were therefore compiled into their base Shocks Natural Hazards categories (i.e. Health, Infrastructure, Societal Hazards Natural, Security and Societal*) while stresses were chosen based on their Security Hazards universal nature. *At the time of the assessment, Climate change Technological Hazards were not included as a separate category but were instead Urbanisation incorporated into Security Hazards). Migration

Peak oil & other fossil fuel depletion

Globalisation

Stresses Terrorism

Obesity & Type 2 Diabetes

Anti-microbial resistance

Criminal Sophistication

Workforce replacement

Mental Degenerative Disease

8.3 RESILIENCE 8.4 RESILIENCE RATING, Mitigating the impact before the event is DEMAND MITIGATION highly beneficial as this prevents adverse impacts as far as possible, but can have Figure 8.2 illustrates the resilience demand AND ADAPTIVE high capital cost implications. Conversely, of the 12 cities ordered by resilience rating CAPACITY over-reliance on mitigation measures can from left to right. This shows that the most result in complacency and ill-preparedness Figure 8.3 illustrates a general pattern; the resilient are not necessarily the ones facing making the impacts of the one off top six resilient cities have a strong score the most serious effects of shocks and extreme event that breaches protections in both mitigation and adaptive capacity. stresses. New York and Miami, for example, all the more severe. Even if the known In the less resilient cities the ratio begins are prone to severe flooding but their high threats are mitigated, there is always to slip with varying relationships between adaptive capacity and mitigation scores the need for situational awareness and the two scores. Hong Kong, for example, (see Figure 8.3) reduce the demand for contingencies to deal with operational and constrained by its geographical location resilience. This shows the importance of logistics requirements, along with those and with little flexibility to expand or considering the resilience capacity in the unforeseen events that may occur. These renew its ultra-dense urban form has a low context of the demands it faces. ratings do highlight the importance of mitigation score but a significantly higher cities to consider both aspects of resilience adaptive capacity score recognising the in order to make themselves fully prepared ability of the Hong Kong government to and protected and it is clear that most manage the city effectively. Conversely, cities put less effort into mitigation and Sao Paulo’s mitigation score is higher than more into response capabilities, which its adaptive capacity due to many of its may not be the most cost effective problems being rooted in its relatively strategy and could also mean disruption ineffective political system to manage and harm are more likely even if the and adapt to change. Riyadh is another response is effective. example where the mitigation score is higher than its adaptive capacity largely due to the high level of investment put into the city (improving its mitigation score).

Figure 8.2: Resilience demand for 12 cities.

30 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

Manchester New York London

Miami Bristol Glasgow

Hong Kong Detroit Riyadh

Sao Paulo Mumbai Dhaka

Figure 8.3: Mitigation (green), Adaptive Capacity (blue) and Resilience Capacity (yellow) scores for 12 cities from most to least resilient.

8.5 CURRENT AND Looking at a specific example, Dhaka’s FUTURE RESILIENCE population increase of 60% (a figure far higher than any of the other city growth GAPS projections) will expose even greater While Figure 8.3’s information allows us numbers of people to shocks and stresses to plot the current resilience, of greater facing the city. For Sao Paulo, the poor importance when prioritising decisions governance structure makes it difficult affecting the resilience of a city are the to adapt and implement mitigation future resilience needs. Figure 8.4 indicates strategies. the gaps between resilience demands and capacities for each city. This shows that the top eight most resilient cities are predicted to have only moderate growth in their resilience gap; whereas the bottom four cities are likely to experience significant growth in the gap between resilience demand and capacity. It is important to note that this is based on the assumption that the current resilience capacity remains static; which in reality is unlikely to be true.

Figure 8.4: Current and future resilience gaps for 12 Cities.

32 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

9 THREE CITIES CASE STUDIES

9.1 INTRODUCTION The following three cities were assessed at component level for a more in depth assessment of the individual components’ capacities and demands. Each assessment was then discussed in a workshop with informed stakeholders from each city. The workshop’s aim was to review the framework methodology and its outputs to assess validity and value. After each city’s assessment the framework’s methodology was developed to incorporate learning. NOTE: Due to the assessments for the three cities being more in depth i.e. at Figure 9.1: Bristol, UK. a component level, their scoring also changes and are no longer comparable with the high level review of the 12 cities.

Figure 9.2: London, UK.

Figure 9.3: Sao Paulo, Brazil.

9.2 BRISTOL Bristol has the worst car congestion of Supermarkets account for 75% of all food COMPONENT any core UK city and the worst congestion brought in Bristol, causing an overreliance of any English city (DOT, 2015). Between on global supply chains that are out of ASSESSMENT 2001 and 2011 the number of cars in Bristol City Council’s jurisdiction and the city increased by 25,200 cars. As car therefore control. Additionally, a lack of 9.2.1 INTRODUCTION ownership increases, peak time vehicle infrastructure for local distribution to Bristol is a unitary authority covering 110 speeds are set to decrease to 15.7mph. By the estimated 70% of retailers that are km2 which is located in the southwest of 2016 traffic congestion could cost the local independent makes it difficult to reduce England. The city itself is developed along economy £600 million a year. Even with the risk of a highly centralised supply the River Avon and up to the coastline on an increase in cars, a disparity remains system. This is captured under “Resources” the Severn Estuary which in turn flows into between households as 29% do not own in Figure 9.4 with a high demand and gap the Bristol Channel. It is England’s sixth or have access to a car. However, Bristol in this area. citizens do employ sustainable alternatives most populous city, with a population of Bristol is a rapidly growing and relatively such as commuting by foot and by bicycle. 437,500 in 2014 and a projected increase affluent city but continues to have Bristol has the highest rate of commuting to 528,200 by 2037. Bristol is one of the deprivation ‘hot spots’ which are amongst by foot or bicycle of any Local Authority fastest growing cities in the UK. some of the most deprived areas in the in England or Wales. This is illustrated in country yet are adjacent to some of the Figure 9.4 with a high demand in “Mobility 9.2.2 RESILIENCE DEMAND most wealthy. This is illustrated in the and Communication” as well as a high AND CAPACITY large demands under “Sense of Place” “Environmental” demand due to poor air and “Community & Inclusion” and the Due in part to its own success and quality. underlying global trends, Bristol is corresponding large gaps between undergoing an increasing amount of demand and capacity in these areas as chronic stresses testing the city’s capacity shown in Figure 9.4. to cope and adapt in changing times. Bristol City Council has taken the initiative in a move towards future proofing the city and its citizens. 2014 saw the appointment of Bristol’s Strategic (Chief) Resilience Officer as part of a wider strategy set out and funded by Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative. In 2015 Bristol became the UK’s first ever European Green Capital, setting the standard for other cities and councils within Europe.

34 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

HOW RESILIENT IS BRISTOL? An assessment using BuroHappold Engineering’s Resilience Framework

Bristol - Resilience Wheel BRISTOL RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER LOOK Bristol - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation

70% G O Y V T E I 60% R N N U A M N M 50% C E 53% O Sense of Place C & 110% 40% E Systems & Technology & C Y O T N E 100% I 30% O C Top 3 Resilience Ratings M O Business Health & S 20% Y The three most resilient sections of the city are as to be expected. & Trade Wellbeing These are located in areas of lower exposure, they will have greater 10% investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they will have greater adaptive capacity. In particular, safety and security can be 26% 20% expected to have the greatest situational awareness and coordination Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology capability, whereas Bristol’s burgeoning Systems & Technology sector is Bristol - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation typically able to quickly formulate solutions to threats. 82 22% Health & Wellbeing 64% 137% Skills & Innovation Security & Safety Community 52% 109% Skills & Environment Health & Wellbeing 64% & Inclusion Innovation Community & Inclusion

53% 110% Sense of Place Systems & Technology Structure & Environment Infrastructure 100% Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings Bristol’s low Environment rating is largely due to the city’s exposure to ﬂ ooding. Its low Community & Inclusion rating is due to its deprivation E ‘hot spots’ which are amongst some of the most deprived areas in the NVIR TURE ONMENT & INFRASTRUC country yet are adjacent to some of the least deprived. These disparities Systems & Resources in wealth can be a cause26% for social unrest20% as well as having an impact on Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology Technology health outcomes and the overall resilience of the city. 22% Health & Wellbeing Figure 9.4: Bristol’s Resilience Wheel.

Bristol’s total resilienceRESILIENT rating BRISTOLis reasonably high with 82% of demands met through either mitigations (38%) or adaptive Bristol - Top Shocks and Stresses in Monetary Terms capacity measures (44%), as illustrated in TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS Bristol’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt and Figure 9.5. Civil Disorder/ protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors of the city. Riots

Due to a mixture of its own success and underlying global trends, Bridge/Building Estimated annualised cost Collapse the city is undergoing an increasing amount of shocks and of impact stresses that test its capacity to adapt in changing times. Major Stoppage - High levels of congestions, inadequate infrastructure, ﬂ ooding Communications Public Health Hazard as well as societal hazards are just some of the issues that test e.g. Legionella, Asbestos Bristol’s resilience. Major Road Accident/Incident A solution to these problems is not easy as interventions will Major Incident - need to address the future uncertainty of risks in addition to Chemical

the layered complexity of the city. Any answer to the question Major Incident - ‘how do we make Bristol more resilient’ must therefore aim Biological for a holistic, multi-layered approach that recognises Bristol Explosion or Explosion Risk (Gas leak, Explosive as an intricate network of systems. This is why BuroHappold Device etc.) Engineering have developed a framework to measure resilience Major Fire/Incendiary Device/Incident that is being tested in collaboration withCopyright the Building ©Research 1976-2016 BuroHappold Engineering. All Rights Reserved 35 Flooding - Ground Water Establishment (BRE) and the Worshipful Company and Stresses Shocks of Constructors. Flooding - Fluvial Our framework helps to ensure that complex and interconnected design challenges are captured, evaluated and managed in a Heat Wave

systematic, integrated manner. By measuring resilience, we can Flooding - Surface then make informed decisions as to the areas of greatest need, Water - Pluvial where more detailed strategies are needed and in what sectors Major Stoppage - Electricity (be it Governance & Economy, Environment & Infrastructure or Existing Disease Society & Community) these should be focussed. For example, Outbreak - Epidemic the adjacent chart indicates the cost of not considering resilience 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 by ranking and quantifying some of the key ﬁ nancial impacts £ Millions on Bristol. RESILIENCE INSIGHT HOW RESILIENT IS BRISTOL? An assessment using BuroHappold Engineering’s Resilience Framework

Bristol - Resilience Wheel BRISTOL RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER LOOK Bristol - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation

Key Resilience Capacity Sense of Leadership & Resilience Capacity Place Government 64% Resilience Demand 137% Skills & Innovation Resilience Demand Resilience Rating Security & Safety 52% Resilience Rating 100% 109% Environment Health & Wellbeing 64% Community & Inclusion 90% Mobility & Security Communication 80% & Safety Figure 9.5: Mitigation, Adaptive Capacity and Resilience Rating Scores. 70% G O Y V T As shown in Figure 9.6, Ethe top three Systems and Technology scores high for These disparities in wealth and health I 60% R N resilience ratings are not particularlyN Bristol because of its burgeoning high- outcomes can be a cause for social unrest U A M surprising. Security and SafetyN is a top tech business sector and innovative as well as having an impact on health M 50% C priority in cities with large investmentE and culture. It supports and encourages new outcomes and the overall resilience of the 53% O Sense of Place C & excellent adaptive capabilities. Likewise, and local business. city. The city 110%also has limited community 40% E Systems & Technology & C Y healthcare is a high priority with universalO resilience and that which there is, is largely T N Figure 9.7 shows that Bristol has a low E access to citizens. 100% associated with high risk flood areas such I 30% O C Environment rating.Top 3 This Resilience is due to the Ratings M as Brislington. O Businesscity’s exposure to flooding, as well as Health & S 20% Y The three most resilient sections of the city are as to be expected. & Tradepoor air quality due to congestion. Its low Wellbeing These are located in areas of lower exposure, they will have greater HOW RESILIENT IS10% BRISTOL? Community & Inclusion rating is due to investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they will have An assessment using BuroHappold Engineering’s Resilience Framework its high health and wealth inequalities associated withgreater deprivation adaptive ‘hot spots’ capacity. In particular, safety and security can be 26% 20% which are amongstexpected some of to the have most the greatest situational awareness and coordination Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology deprived areascapability, in the country whereas yet are Bristol’s burgeoning Systems & Technology sector is Bristol - Resilience Wheel Bristol - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation adjacent to some of the most affluent. BRISTOL RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER LOOK typically able to quickly formulate solutions to threats. 82 Bristol - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation 22% Health & Wellbeing Key 64% Resilience Capacity Sense of Leadership & Skills & Innovation Resilience Capacity Place Government 137% 64% Resilience Demand Security & Safety 137% Skills & Innovation Resilience Demand Resilience Rating Community Security & Safety 52% 109% Skills & Environment52% & Inclusion 100% Health & Wellbeing 64% Environment Resilience Rating 109% Innovation Community & Inclusion Health & Wellbeing 64% Community & Inclusion 90% Mobility & Security Communication 80% & Safety

70% G O Y V T E I 60% R N N U A M N 50% C M E O 53% & Sense of Place C 40% E 110% 53% Systems & Technology & C Sense of Place Y O 110% T N Systems & Technology E 100% I 30% O C Top 3 FigureResilience 9.6: Top Ratings3 ResilienceEnvironment ratings. Figure 9.7: Bottom 3 resilience ratings Structure & M O Business Health & S Infrastructure 20% 100%Y The three most resilient sections of the city are as to be expected.Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings & Trade Wellbeing These are36 located12 Cities in areas Assessment of lower exposure,revision 01 they will have greater 10% Bristol’s low Environment rating is largely due to the city’s exposure to investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they ﬂwill ooding. have Its low Community & Inclusion rating is due to its deprivation greater adaptive capacity. In particular, safety and security can be ‘hot spots’ which are amongst26% some of the20% most deprived areas in the E expected to have the greatest situational awareness and coordination Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology NVIR TURE ONMENT & INFRASTRUC capability, whereas Bristol’s burgeoning Systems & Technologycountry sector yetis are adjacent to some of the least deprived. These disparities BristolSystems - Adaptive & Capacity and Mitigation Resourcestypically able to quickly formulate solutions to threats. in wealth can be a cause26% for social unrest20% as well as having an impact on Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology 82 Technology health outcomes and the overall resilience22% of the city. Health & Wellbeing 64% 137% Skills & Innovation 22% Security & Safety Health & Wellbeing Community 52% 109% Skills & Environment Health & Wellbeing 64% & Inclusion Innovation Community & Inclusion

RESILIENT BRISTOL

Bristol - Top Shocks and Stresses in Monetary Terms53% 110% Sense of Place TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS Systems & Technology Structure & Bristol’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt and Environment Infrastructure 100% Civil Disorder/Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors of the city. Bristol’sRiots low Environment rating is largely due to the city’s exposure to fl ooding. Its low Community & Inclusion rating is due to its deprivation Due to a mixture of its own success and underlying global trends, Bridge/Building Estimated annualised cost E ‘hotCollapse spots’ which are amongst some of the most deprived areas in the the city is undergoingNVIR an increasing amountTURE of shocks and ONMENT & INFRASTRUC country yet are adjacent to some of the least deprived. These disparities of impact Resources stresses thatSystems test & its capacity to adapt in changing times. Major Stoppagein wealth - can be a cause26% for social unrest20% as well as having an impact on Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology High levelsTechnology of congestions, inadequate infrastructure, fl ooding Communicationshealth outcomes and the overall resilience of the city. as well as societal hazards are just some of the issues that test Public Health Hazard e.g. Legionella, Asbestos 22% Bristol’s resilience. Health & Wellbeing Major Road Accident/Incident A solution to these problems is not easy as interventions will Major Incident - RESILIENT BRISTOL need to address the future uncertainty of risks in addition to Chemical the layered complexity of the city. Any answer to the question Major Incident - ‘how do we make Bristol more resilient’ must therefore aim Biological for a holistic, multi-layered approachBristol - Top that Shocks recognises and Stresses Bristol in Monetary Terms Explosion or Explosion Risk (Gas leak, Explosive TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS as an intricate network of systems. This is why BuroHappold Device etc.) Bristol’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt and Engineering have developed a framework toCivil measure Disorder/ resilience Major Fire/Incendiary protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors of the city. Riots Device/Incident that is being tested in collaboration with the Building Research Due to a mixture of its own success and underlying global trends, Bridge/Building Estimated annualised cost Collapse Flooding - Ground Water the city is undergoing an increasingEstablishment amount of shocks (BRE) and and the Worshipful Company and Stresses Shocks of impact stresses that test its capacity to adaptof Constructors. in changing times. Major Stoppage - Communications High levels of congestions, inadequate infrastructure, fl ooding Flooding - Fluvial as well as societal hazards are just some of the issues that test Public Health Hazard Our framework helps to ensure that complexe.g. Legionella, andAsbestos interconnected Bristol’s resilience. Heat Wave design challenges are captured, evaluated andMajor managed Road in a Accident/Incident A solution to these problems is notsystematic, easy as interventions integrated will manner. By measuring resilience, we can Flooding - Surface Major Incident - Water - Pluvial need to address the future uncertaintythen make of risks informed in addition decisions to as to the areas Chemicalof greatest need, the layered complexity of the city. Any answer to the question where more detailed strategies are needed Majorand Incident in - what sectors Major Stoppage Biological - Electricity ‘how do we make Bristol more resilient’(be it Governancemust therefore & aim Economy, Environment & Infrastructure or for a holistic, multi-layered approach that recognises Bristol Explosion or Explosion Risk (Gas leak, Explosive Existing Disease as an intricate network of systems.Society This is why& Community) BuroHappold these should be focussed.Device etc.) For example, Outbreak - Epidemic Engineering have developed a frameworkthe adjacent to measure chart resilienceindicates the cost of notMajor Fire/Incendiaryconsidering resilience Device/Incident 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 that is being tested in collaborationby withranking the Building and quantifying Research some of the key fi nancial impacts Flooding - Ground Water £ Millions Establishment (BRE) and the Worshipfulon Bristol. Company and Stresses Shocks of Constructors. Flooding - Fluvial Our framework helps to ensure that complex and interconnected design challenges are captured, evaluated and managed in a Heat Wave systematic, integrated manner. By measuring resilience, we can Flooding - Surface then make informed decisions as to the areas of greatest need, Water - Pluvial where more detailed strategies are needed and in what sectors Major Stoppage - Electricity (be it Governance & Economy, Environment & Infrastructure or Existing Disease Society & Community) these should be focussed. For example, Outbreak - Epidemic the adjacent chart indicates the cost of not considering resilience 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 by ranking and quantifying some of the key fi nancial impacts £ Millions on Bristol. BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

9.2.3 ANNUALISED FINANCIAL IMPACTS Figure 9.8 indicates the annualised financial impact of key shocks and stresses on the city. This can then be compared to the cost of mitigation strategies to build the business case for capacity building in Bristol and therefore attracting the necessary investment. As can be seen the cost of epidemics is substantial due to loss of productivity and the cost of medical treatment.

Figure 9.8: Top estimated financial impacts.

9.2.4 CURRENTBristol AND - Resilience FUTURE Gap RESILIENCE GAPS Current Resilience Gap Projected 2050 Gap

The current and future predicted 50% resilience gaps for Bristol are shown by component in Figure 9.9. Environment, Health & Wellbeing and Sense of Place 40% are all expected to have substantial future demands due to stresses such as population growth, inequality, congestion and air quality. The data illustrated in 30% Figure 9.9 does not reflect the anticipated cut to local government and policing announced following the completion 20% of this assessment. This could impact on Security & Safety and Leadership &

Government in particular and result in 10% the future gap being greater that shown below if the assessment was to reflect subsequent policy decisions. 0%

-10%

-20%

Figure 9.9: Bristol’s current and 2030 resilience gap.

38 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

9.2.5 WORKSHOP FEEDBACK On the subject of the merging of scores 9.2.6 FRAMEWORK hiding low (or high) scoring areas, the DEVELOPMENT Framework refinement suggestions and workshop suggested it was of high general comments • The framework was developed importance for separate communities, to incorporate a more detailed The workshop group agreed that three neighbourhoods or districts to be assessed assessment of exposure that would sectors were easier to comprehend than independently. The rationale behind this differentiate between shocks and four. The addition of Sense of Place as was that, using income inequality as an stresses that had a negative or positive a theme was also seen as an important example, a city level assessment of income impact on exposure. component as it meant the framework inequality could give an acceptable encapsulated the human element of cities. score. This would not reflect that Bristol • Health inequality has been added has an acute problem with income into model to affect exposure and It was suggested that not all shocks and inequality between adjacent wards. A vulnerability. stresses necessarily had negative effects high level assessment would not identify on Bristol’s resilience and there would • “Skills & Innovation” has changed to these specific areas but assessing each need to be some way for the framework “Skills & Education” neighbourhood would. This would then to recognise this. Additionally, the allow actions to be targeted at the correct participants recognised that while the neighbourhoods to improve those that are risk based approach was pertinent, it least resilient. This would be our preferred may be useful to include a confidence approach for city assessment. rating per shock or stress so that a user of the framework would recognise how accurate their assessment was. In a similar vein, it was suggested that in order for the framework to be a successful method of prioritising hazards there should be a distinction made between the acceptable outcome from each of the shocks and stresses, since this may be different for each. When discussing the successfulness of the three themes and 12 categories of creating a holistic view of the city, participants largely agreed they were suitable categories. They did, however, query the use of the term ‘Health & Wellbeing’, suggesting ‘Health Services’ may be more accurate as health & wellbeing was incorporated into Community & Inclusion and arguably Sense of Place. Furthermore, a suggestion was made to separate Skills & Innovation into two separate themes as the two were very different. For example, Bristol City has arguably a good level of innovative practices but has a considerable skills gap. A higher score in only one area i.e. Skills or Education could therefore skew the overall score for that sector.

9.3 LONDON COMPONENT ASSESSMENT

9.3.1 INTRODUCTION London is the largest city in Europe and the UK’s capital city. Inner London is by far the most economically productive region of the country. More than one third of new jobs created in Britain since the recession have been based in the capital. It makes a significant contribution to the wealth and prosperity of the country.

Figure 9.10: London’s resilience wheel.

40 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

9.3.2 RESILIENCE DEMAND Around 40,000 properties in London are As the UK’s capital city London is relatively AND CAPACITIES likely to flood in part due to their density well prepared in order to protect such a and placement on floodplains. London is crucial city to the country’s prosperity. London’s current population is 8.6 million, also vulnerable to surface water flooding. It has in the past experienced security but an estimated 11.3 million people will After intense storms, the impervious threats and expects more in the future call London home by 2050. In the past urban surfaces prevent water from which is why its security services have decade the number of homes in London being absorbed into the ground and the been well drilled to expect the worst. has grown by just 8%. High house prices drainage system can be overwhelmed by Additionally, as a hub for innovation and are pushing people in lower paid work out the additional volume. The area of garden a relatively technologically advanced city, of London causing a potential structure vegetation in London has declined from it realises and prepares for technological employment problem in the future, with 25,000 ha to 22,000 ha since 1998-99, as hazards. The factors contribute to strong the city needing workers to complete lawns and flowerbeds are replaced with resilience ratings in the areas Systems & low paid work but with no one on low hard surfaces, such as patio and parking Technology, Security & Safety and Health & pay able to afford to live in or travel to areas. Wellbeing as shown in Figure 9.12. London. From 2005 to 2014 the number of people commuting into London rose London is particularly vulnerable to high Figure 9.13 identified the lowest by 32%. There will be a 80% increase in temperatures – most existing homes, performing component of the city. Sense demand on London’s rail network by workplaces, public buildings, public of Place and the Environment include all 2050, while airports are already reaching realm and transport infrastructure were those areas of the city where people can capacity. Transport capacity will need not designed for high temperatures. come together or are under community to grow by 70% to cope with increasing Hot weather places additional stress ownership. It is for this reason that these population. London’s red buses are now on the body, raising health risks for the areas are often at the margins and have dealing with 6.25m passenger journeys vulnerable. It is estimated that the 2003 greater exposure, for example, they are every day, the highest demand since the heatwave caused 3000 extra deaths in often seen as sacrificial areas for flood. late 1950s according to Transport for the UK and 30,000 across Europe. Climate Community & Inclusion also has lower London. This is illustrated in Figure 9.10 change is likely to increase the frequency resilience ratings. This illustrates the with the large demand in the “Mobility & and intensity of such events. strong need for community resilience programmes to build capacity. Communication” component, along with London’s total resilience rating is the large shortfall in capacity in this area. reasonable with 77% of demands met Climate change is perhaps London’s most through either mitigations (35%) or serious stress factor. It not only creates adaptive capacity measures (42%), as direct challenges to the city, such as illustrated in Figure 9.11. overheating, water stress and flooding, but also indirect challenges which increase the severity and/or likelihood of other shocks and stresses. The impact of flooding on London, for example, is likely to be further exacerbated by poor housing quality and aging infrastructure. The housing issue is a large factor in the large demand and shortfall in the “Community & Inclusion” category, shown in Figure 9.10. Climate change is also likely to exacerbate migration and compound the rate of population growth.

Current Gap Projected 2030 Gap HOW RESILIENTA balance IS between LONDON? Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation An assessment using BuroHappold Engineering’s Resilience Framework 90% Adaptive Capacity London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation 80% Adaptive capacity is the capacity of people, organisations, cities, regions, nations and trans-national London - Resilience Wheel RESILIENCEorganisations INSIGHT to adapt to the changing environment. Adaptive capacity can be characterised LONDON RESILIENCE WHEEL by the ability to observe the environment, detectA CLOSER changes, research LOOK and understand those 70% changes, formulate options on how to deal with those changes,London decide - Adaptive on a course Capacity of action and Mitigationand its implementation. Furthermore, these actions must also be understood for their impact and Key e ectiveness. To ensure the situation develops and we achieve progress in the future, lessons must 60% Resilience Capacity Sense of Leadership & be learnt in order that we do not revert back to the original set of circumstances. Resilience Capacity Place Government Resilience Demand 117% Resilience Demand 50% Resilience Rating Mitigation Systems & Technology 38% 100% Mitigations can remove or reduce exposure, provide immunity, implement protective measures, 54% Community & Inclusion Resilience Rating 102% Sense of Place increase robustness, provide redundancy and design in failHealth safes. & Wellbeing 40% 90% Mobility & Security Communication 80% & Safety 30% 70% 35%G 42% 77% Mitigation O Adaptive Capacity Resilience Rating Y V T E I 60% R 20% N N U A M N 50% C M E O 52% 10% & Environment C + = 112% 40% E Security & Safety & C Y O T N E 30% 100% 0% I O C M Top 3 Resilience Ratings HOW RESILIENTO IS LONDON? Business Health & S Y 20% The three most resilient sections of the city are as to be expected. Wellbeing & Trade London - Cities ResilienceAn -10%assessment Rating using BuroHappold Engineering’s Resilience Framework 10% * Figures rounded These are located in areas of lower exposure, they will have greater investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they will have greater adaptive capacity. In particular, Safety and Security can be -20% 26% 20% Figure 9.11: Mitigation, adaptive capacity and resilience rating scores.expected to have the greatest situational awareness and coordination Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology London - Resilience Wheel London - Adaptive WHATCapacity IS andBUROHAPPOLD Mitigation DOING TO INCREASE LONDON’S RESILIENCE? Skills & LONDON RESILIENCE WHEEL Security Business Health & A CLOSERSense Placeof LOOK capability, whereas Systems & Technology will have the most agility. & Safety & Trade Resources Systems & Structure & Mobility & Leadership & Environment Community Wellbeing Innovation Technology & Inclusion Peabody Trust Climate Change Adaptation & Mitigation Government Infrastructure London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation 77 Communication Peabody is a Registered Social Landlord managing 33,000 properties in London including 6,000 22% Health & Wellbeing Key homes on the Thamesmead estate. BuroHappold was commissioned to help support Peabody’s Resilience Capacity Sense of HOW DOES LONDONLeadership COMPARE & WITH OTHER CITIES? identifi cation and adaptive117% response to climate change including ways to evaluate the risk of summer Resilience Capacity Resilience Demand Place Government overheating, water stressSystems and &fl Technology ooding and integrate into corporate risk management strategy. 38% A methodology was developed to identify117% and prioritise54% the properties and residents most at risk Community & Inclusion Resilience Demand Resilience Rating 102% Systems & Technology Sense of Place CommunityResilience Rating Health & Wellbeing from climate change and to evaluateSkills & ways to combine low and no cost adaptation measures with 38% 100% 54% Community & Inclusion Resilience Rating & Inclusion 102%current maintenance and repairInnovation programmes. Sense of Place Health & Wellbeing 100% 90% Security The project built on our award winning Retrofi t for the Future project to refurbish a pre-cast Mobility & 90% Communication 80% & Safety concrete end terrace located in Thamesmead to deliver 80% CO reduction whilst also being resilient 80% to fl ood risk through ground fl oor insulation systems that can be removed and replaced in the event 70% G of a fl ood. 70% O Y V T E I 60% 60% R N N After extensive retrofi t works following Passivhaus principles, the property has been transformed U 50% A 52% M N from a 4 to 6-bedroom house, super-insulated with external cladding, triple glazed and highEnvironment levels of M 50% C 112% 40% E air tightness.Security & Safety Fresh air is provided by mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR). Photovoltaic52% O Environment C & panels and vacuum112% tube collectors provide renewable electricity and water heating. & 30% 40% E Security & Safety C 100% Environment Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings Y Structure & O 20% T N E Infrastructure 100% Sense of Place and the Environment include all those areas of the city I 30% O BuroHappold were also responsible for designing, commissioning and monitoring a fully functional C 10% M Top 3 Resilience Ratings where people can come together or are under community ownership. O solar air collector, incorporating aerogel insulation integrated into the external insulation on the 35% 41% 50% 64% 69% 73% 81% 84% 87%Y Business87% 87% 88% Health & S 20% The threeFigure most 9.12: resilientsouth Top 3 resiliencefacade, sections preheatingratings. of the city the areMVHR. as to This be product expected.It is for won this ‘PassiveFigure reason 9.13: Product Bottomthat these of 3 resiliencethe areasYear’ ratings at are the often 2013 at the margins and have Wellbeing & Trade CIBSE Building Performance Awards. greater exposure, for example, they are often seen as sacrifi cial areas Dhaka Riyadh Detroit Bristol Miami These are located in areas of lower exposure, they will have greater Mumbai 10% GlasgowEN London E Sao Paulo VIR New TYorkUR Hong Kong ONM RUC Manchester for fl ood. Community26% & Inclusion also has20% lower resilience ratings. ENT & INFRAST investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they will have Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology Systems & greaterResources adaptive capacity. In particular, Safety and SecurityThis can illustrates be the strong need26% for community resilience20% programmes Technology expected to have the greatest situational awareness and coordinationto build capacity. Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology WHICH PARTS OF LONDON’SLondon - Adaptive CITY Capacity SYSTEM and Mitigation WILL BE AFFECTED BY FLOODING? capability, whereas Systems & Technology will have the most agility. 22% Health & Wellbeing Primary77 Hazard 22% Health & Wellbeing Secondary Hazard BristolTertiary - Flood Hazard Scenario High Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences117% Medium Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Low Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Potential Positive E ect Systems & Technology 38% 54% Community & Inclusion Shock & Stress Factors 102% Inputs Functions/Processes/Change Sense of Place Outputs Expectations Stakeholders Community Health & Wellbeing Skills & RESILIENT• Mitigation & Immigration LONDON & Inclusion Sense of InnovationSense of 42 12 Cities AssessmentSense of revision 01 Sense of Place Place Place Place

• Displacement • Residents Socio-Economic Groupings Community Community Community CommunityTOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS London’s future resilience resides on its capacity& Inclusion to adapt and & Inclusion & Inclusion & Inclusion protect• Public Health against Hazard e.g. legionella,shocks & stresses across all sectors of the • Health Care Providers asbestos, contamination Health & Health & Health & Health & • Social Care Providers city. Climate change not only creates direct challenges to the Bridge/Building Wellbeing CollapseWellbeing Wellbeing 52% Wellbeing city, such as overheating, water stress and fl ooding, but also Environment Society & Community 112% Security & Safety • Highways Network Failure Flooding - Fluvial • Transport Companies indirect• Bridge/Building challenges Collapse which potentially increase theMobility severity & and/ Mobility & Mobility & Mobility & • Passengers • Rail Network Failure 100% CommunicationEnvironment CommunicationBottom 3 Resilience RatingsCommunication Communication • Users Structure & or likelihood of other hazards. The impact of fl ooding on London, Major Stoppage - • Network Providers Infrastructure Communications Sense of Place and the Environment include all those areas of the city for• Reputational example, (PR) Disaster is likely to be further exacerbated by poor housing • National Government • Local Government Leadership & Leadershipwhere & people can come togetherLeadership or are & under community ownership.Leadership & • PoliticiansEstimated • Community annualised Leaders cost of impact quality, aging infrastructure and many other factors.Governance Public Health HazardGovernance Governance Governance • Business Leaders e.g. Legionella, Asbestos It is for this reason that these areas are often at the margins and have • Theft (physical) greater exposure, for example, they are often seen as sacrifi cial areas • Police EN RE Major Road AV Isolution•R PhysicalO Security to of Employees these problemsCTU is not easy as interventionsSecurity & will Accident/IncidentSecurity & Security & Security & • Emergency Services • LitigationNM STRU for fl ood. Community26% & Inclusion also has20% lower resilience ratings. ENT & INFRA Safety Safety Structure & InfrastructureSafety Systems & Technology Safety Systems & need• Prosecution to address the future uncertaintyResources of risks in addition to the Major Incident - This illustrates the strong need for community resilience programmes Technology Chemical layered• Disruption complexity to Critical Supplies of cities. Any answer to the question ‘how do to build capacity. • Competitors • Producers • Manufacturers • Litigation • Prosecution • Reputational Business & Business & Business & Business & • Retailers • Service Providers • Investors we(PR) make Disaster • Corporate/OrganisationalLondon more resilient’ must thereforeTrade aim for a holistic, Major IncidentTrade - Trade Trade • Workers • Business Leaders • Businesses Governance Failure Biological 22% • Lobbyists • Tourists • Customers multi-layered approach that recognises London as an intricate Health & Wellbeing Media & Social Media

Governance & Economy Governance Explosion or Explosion • Business network of systems. This is why BuroHappold EngineeringSkills & have Risk (Gas leak, ExplosiveSkills & Skills & Skills & • Students Device etc.) developed a framework to measure resilience thatInnovation is being tested Innovation Innovation Innovation • Education Major Fire/Incendiary in •collaboration Major Stoppage (electricity) with• Major Stoppage the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Device/Incident • Visitors (water & sewage) • Major Stoppage Structure & Structure & Structure & Structure & • Tourists and(telecommunications) the Worshipful • Dam Failure orCompany Inundation of Constructors.Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure • Residents • Unsafe or contaminated Water Supply Heat Wave • Businesses RESILIENT LONDON • Infrastructure Capacity (congestion) & Quality and Stresses Shocks Our• Flooding framework helps to ensure that complex and interconnected • Business • Farmers & Land Owners • Land Movement, Earthquake, Landslip & Environment Heavy SnowEnvironment Environment Environment • Visitors • Tourists • Residents Subsidence design• Dam Failure challenges or Inundation are captured, evaluated and managed in a Flooding - Surface systematic, integrated manner. By measuring resilience, we can Water - Pluvial TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS • Businesses London’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adaptthen make and informed decisions as to the areas ofSystems greatest & need, Systems & Systems & Systems & • Utility Companies Technology Financial Failure/Technology Technology Technology protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors ofwhere the more detailed strategies are needed and in what sectors Crisis • Critical Buildings Out-of-Use Bridge/Building city. Climate change not only creates direct challenges• Disruption to the to Critical Supplies Major Stoppage (be it Governance & Economy, & Infrastructure Environment Environment & Infrastructure or Collapse Resources Resources Resources Resources city, such as overheating, water stress and fl ooding, Societybut• Bridge/Building also & Community) Collapse these should be focussed. For example, - Electricity indirect challenges which potentially increase the severity and/ Flooding - Fluvial Existing Disease the adjacent chart indicates the cost of not considering resilience Outbreak - Epidemic or likelihood of other hazards. The impact of fl ooding on London, by ranking and quantifyingMajor Stoppage -some of the key fi nancial impacts on for example, is likely to be further exacerbated by poor housing Communications 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 London. It also shows that climate change a ects some of the Estimated annualised cost of impact quality, aging infrastructure and many other factors. Public Health Hazard £ Millions top fi nancial impactse.g. Legionella, such Asbestos as fl ooding events and heat waves.

London - Resilience Wheel LONDON RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER LOOK London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation

70% G O Y V T E I 60% R N N U A M N M 50% C E 52% O Environment C & 112% 40% E Security & Safety & C Y O T N E 100% I 30% O C M Top 3 Resilience Ratings O Business BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING Health & S Y 20% The three most resilient sections of the city are as to be expected. Wellbeing & Trade 10% These are located in areas of lower exposure, they will have greater investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, they will have greater adaptive capacity. In particular, Safety and Security can be 26% 20% expected to have the greatest situational awareness and coordination Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology London - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation capability, whereas Systems & Technology will have the most agility. 77 22% Health & Wellbeing 117% Systems & Technology 38% 54% Community & Inclusion 102% Sense of Place Community Health & Wellbeing Skills & & Inclusion Innovation 9.3.3 ANNUALISED FINANCIAL COSTS Figure 9.14 indicates the cost of unmitigated inaction; the annualised financial impact of key shocks and stresses 52% 112% Environment on the city. This can then be comparedSecurity &to Safety Structure & the100% cost of mitigation strategies to build Environment Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings Infrastructure the business case for capacity building Sense of Place and the Environment include all those areas of the city in London and therefore attracting the where people can come together or are under community ownership. It is for this reason that these areas are often at the margins and have necessary investment. As can be seen, the E greater exposure, for example, they are often seen as sacriﬁ cial areas NVIR TURE ONMENT & costINFR ofAS TepidemicsRUC is substantial due to loss for ﬂ ood. Community26% & Inclusion also has20% lower resilience ratings. Resources Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology Systems & of productivity and the cost of medical This illustrates the strong need for community resilience programmes Technology treatment. to build capacity. 22% Health & Wellbeing

RESILIENT LONDON

TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS London’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt and protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors of the city. Climate change not only creates direct challenges to the Bridge/Building Collapse city, such as overheating, water stress and ﬂ ooding, but also indirect challenges which potentially increase the severity and/ Flooding - Fluvial or likelihood of other hazards. The impact of ﬂ ooding on London, Major Stoppage - for example, is likely to be further exacerbated by poor housing Communications Estimated annualised cost of impact quality, aging infrastructure and many other factors. Public Health Hazard e.g. Legionella, Asbestos

Figure 9.14: Top estimated financial impacts.

9.3.4 CURRENT AND FUTURE RESILIENCE GAPS The current and future predicted resilience gaps for London are shown by component in Figure 9.15. Community & Inclusion is expected to have substantial future demands due to stresses such as population growth, inequality and the growing lack of affordable housing. This supports the case for greater effort in London - Resilience Gap developing community resilience.

Current Resilience Gap Resilience Gap 2030

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

-10%

-20%

Figure 9.15: London’s current and 2030 resilience gap.

44 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

9.3.5 LONDON WORKSHOP A number of participants queried if certain Overall participants saw it as useful to FEEDBACK initiatives enacted to combat risk e.g. validate data, for mayoral strategies and flood defences and their effectiveness producing scoping documents for the Framework refinement suggestions and would be clearly presented using the tool. future mayoral candidates. They also general comments An important and proactive initiative, saw the value in allowing users to think Participants included several members they reasoned, should be clearly shown outside of their typical perception of risks of London’s Climate Change Partnership in relation to the overall resilience of the and the ability for greater exploration of (LCCP). city so that it would be obvious how the interdependencies inherent in a city. initiative contributed to the resilience of The workshop began with a discussion different sectors. The workshop facilitators on how the framework chose to define explained that it was possible to assess the some of its terminology. No significant city with and without the intervention in issues was raised, however, simply that order to quantify its impact on citywide clear definitions were important aids. resilience. For example, participants were keen to highlight that the framework’s definition Finally, the discussion ended on the topic for ‘mitigation’ may be eclipsed or assumed of the framework’s applicability in other to be the same as ‘climate mitigation’; cities and the importance of context. It a currently more widely used term. was questioned as to how the framework Again, participants agreed that the three included national resilience strategies to themes and 12 components were an which it was explained this was considered accurate breakdown of a city with some in the exposure measure (a factor of the suggestions on how to refine the naming resilience demand rating). Furthermore, it or indicators of certain components. was agreed by participants and facilitators For example, the participants were that certain indicators would have to keen that the Business & Trade sector change depending on the city being should measure economic diversity and assessed. For example, to properly assess how interconnected prime economies Health & Wellbeing, the range of indicators in London were connected to other would have to change as countries and economies. cities’ health issues change dramatically (e.g. between developed and developing Interconnectedness and countries where psychological health interdependencies of systems and sectors issues are of greater concern in the seemed to be a key area of discussion former). The facilitators explained that the and interest for the participants. They indicators would be chosen based on the noted the tool was allowing users greater shocks and stresses that users prioritised in exploration of interdependencies as well the initial stages of the assessment. as making users aware of risks outside their typical departmental scope. The latter point was suggested as of particular importance considering government department’s tendency to act in a ‘silo’ fashion.

9.4 SAO PAULO

9.4.1 INTRODUCTION a public health risk. The stress of water scarcity is also exposing the problems Sao Paulo is a state, metropolis and global in the system which would otherwise city located in the southeast of Brazil. It is be tolerated. The city’s aging water the 7th most populous city in the world distribution network is contributing to and the 21st largest urban agglomeration more than 30% of São Paulo’s drinking at 2,849 km2. Sao Paulo’s population is water being lost (the rest of the 30% is 19 million inhabitants if including the 38 due to theft). This is shown in the high cities which make up its metropolitan demands and shortfalls in the “Resources” area. Its city proper population alone is 11 and “Structure & Infrastructure” million. components in Figure 9.16. 9.4.2 RESILIENCE DEMAND AND CAPACITIES Internal rural to urban migration is mainly from the poor Brazil’s northeast region. These migrants are arriving in a city already struggling to cope. 20% of inhabitants live in shanty towns (favelas) and as such suffer from inadequate and aging housing, infrastructure, services; and the city receives a further 2,000 migrants per week. This is evidenced by the high demands and shortfalls in all aspects of the “Society & Community” components shown in Figure 9.16. Climate change is having a significant effect on the demands and coping capacity of the city. Since the 1950s the average temperature in the city has risen by 1.5°C. During the summer months it is common to have thunderstorms at least four days per week. Sao Paulo has seven lightning strikes per square kilometre per year. The city is also undergoing severe water shortages. For example, the five reservoirs in the Cantareira system provide almost half the Sao Paulo’s drinking water but are only at 13% capacity. Considering the strain that the 2016 Olympics will have on this limited resource the city is working to find solutions. It has been estimated that the drought could shave 2% off of Brazil’s GDP. The unresolved situation is being further exacerbated by inhabitants and businesses growing fear of a lack of water. Unregulated drilling to access groundwater threatens to pollute and deplete difficult to replace underground supplies which in turn is swiftly becoming

46 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

Transport & infrastructure Energy scarcity Income inequality São Paulo also suffers from severe traffic Sao Paulo relies heavily on hydropower. In 2001, São Paulo’s richest 10% earned congestion with the average traffic At least six other cities have been hit by around 15 times more than the poorest jams on Friday evenings being from blackouts due to weak hydroelectricity 40%; The unemployment rate is 10.9%. 180km to 295km long. Despite the traffic generation and high demand for air The poor citizens of the city are situated congestion, São Paulo is experiencing conditioning as temperatures soar. In on the outskirts and hence face long increasing numbers of vehicles. Pollution response to the demand, utilities are commutes. Consequently, air pollution of air, land and water are resulting issues. burning more fossil fuels, adding to from idling buses and cars takes a toll on The wealthy within the city have opted to the cost of energy (and pollution). The environmental and human health. use helicopters to avoid the jams giving Brazilian government has previously had Technology Sao Paulo the largest helicopter fleet in the to import power from Argentina to try to world. cover the shortfall. São Paulo nurtures one of Brazil’s top tech hubs. Leading the country in GDP, it is the Societal issues nation’s financial capital and the base of The protests in Brazil that have caused many Latin American corporations. Dilma Rousseff’s (Presedent), approval Sao Paulo’s resilience wheel shows rate to drop hugely. These started as a HOW RESILIENT IS SÃOconsistence PAULO? issues across all components. local protest against public transport An assessment using BuroHappold Engineering’s ResilienceThis typically Framework illustrates a problem with the fare increases in Sao Paulo. The city has city’s governance. continued to be at the epicentre of many São Paulo - Resilience Wheel of Brazil’sSÃO PAULO protests. RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER LOOK São Paulo - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation

Key Resilience Capacity Sense of Leadership & Resilience Capacity Resilience Demand Place Government Resilience Demand Resilience Rating 59% 200% 54% Structure & Infrastructure 43% 45% Resilience Rating Systems & Technology Environment Health & Wellbeing 180% Mobility & Security Communication 160% & Safety

140% G O Y V T E I 120% R N N U A M N 100% C M E O 55% 43% & Business & Trade Resources C 80% E & C Y O T N E 100% I 60% O C M Top 3 Resilience Ratings O Business Health & S Y 40% The three most resilient sections of São Paulo are to be expected. Wellbeing & Trade 20% These are located in areas of lower exposure, will have greater investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, have greater adaptive capacity. For example, São Paulo’s global position as a business 26% 20% hub means it has the ability to capitalise on strong economic growth. Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology Additionally, the 645 municipalities mean a relatively good balance of governance evenly distributed that makes governing a city as large 50 as São Paulo more manageable. Lastly, its burgeoning Systems & 22% Health & Wellbeing São Paulo - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation Technology sector helps drive innovation and improvement (although perhaps it remains untested compared to other sectors).

Community Skills & & Inclusion Innovation 59% 54% Structure & Infrastructure 43% 45% Systems & Technology Environment Health & Wellbeing

Structure & Environment55% 43% Infrastructure Business & Trade Resources

100% Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings EN RE São Paulo’s problems are interconnected and due to several trends; VIRON UCTU MENT & INFRASTR climate change, the growing population and urbanisation are Systems & Resources Technology putting a severe strain on the city’s Environment, its Resources and fundamentally the Health & Wellbeing of its citizens. The continued inability to cope in 26%these areas will exacerbate20% problems in other Figure 9.16: Sao Paulo’s resilience wheel. Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology sectors e.g. in the form of social unrest, consequently reducing São Paulo’s overall resilience. 22% Copyright © 1976-2016 BuroHappold Engineering. All Rights ReservedHealth & Wellbeing 47 RESILIENT SÃO PAULO

TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS São Paulo’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt and protect against shocks & stresses across all sectors of the city. Due to a mixture of its own success and underlying global Structural Failure/ Movement/Instability trends, the city is undergoing an increasing amount of shocks and Unsafe or Contaminated stresses that test its capacity to adapt in changing times. Water Supply

High levels of congestion, poor and overcapacity infrastructure, Major Stoppage water scarcity as well as societal hazards are just some of the - Fuel Human Disease - Estimated annualised cost of impact issues that test its resilience. Disease New & Emerging Infectious Human Disease - A solution to these problems is not easy as interventions will Disease Pandemic (e.g. In uenze) need to address the future uncertainty of risks in addition to Financial Failure/ the layered complexity of the city. Any answer to the question Crisis

‘how do we make São Paulo more resilient?’ must therefore aim Drought & for a holistic, multi-layered approach that recognises Sao Paulo Desertication Major Stoppage as an intricate network of systems. This is why BuroHappold - Water & Sewage Engineering have developed a framework to measure resilience Civil Disorder - that is being tested in collaboration with the Building Research Riots Establishment (BRE) and the Worshipful Company Explosion or Explosion Risk (Gas leak, Explosive of Constructors. Device etc.) and Stresses Shocks

where more detailed strategies are needed and in what sectors Major Stoppage (be it Governance & Economy, Environment & Infrastructure or - Electricity Existing Disease Society & Community) these should be focussed. For example, Outbreak - Epidemic the adjacent chart indicates the cost of not considering resilience 0 50 100 150 200 250 by ranking and quantifying some of the key financial impacts on £ Millions São Paulo. Resilience - Overarching Themes

São Paulo - Resilience GapRESILIENCE GAP - CURRENT/2030 RESILIENT SÃO PAULO

Current Gap Projected 2030 Gap A balance between Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation

140%

130% D NCE LA 120% A C B IVE CAP O PT AC - A IT O 110% D Y R A D I 100% Prepare, Respond, Recover, N A Learn & Improve T 90% E

80% I N HOW RESILIENT IS SÃOT PAULO?Protect, Robust, 70% E G Redundant, Fail-Safe An assessment using BuroHappoldRESILIENCE Engineering’s INSIGHT R Resilience Framework 60% A T E D M N 50% ITIGATIO São Paulo - Resilience Wheel LE AB SÃO PAULO40% RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSERA ILOOKN São PauloSU -S AdaptiveT Capacity and Mitigation 30% Key 20% London - Cities ResilienceResilience Capacity Rating Sense of Leadership & Resilience Capacity Place Government Sao Paulo’s total resilience rating is low Figure 9.19 shows the three least Sao Paulo’s problems are interconnected Resilience10% Demand Adaptive Capacity São Paulo - Adaptive Capacitywith just 50% ofand demands Mitigation met through resilience components of the city. Given and due to several trends; climate Resilience Demand Resilience Rating an evenAdaptive split between capacity mitigation is the capacityand ofthe people, consistent organisations, low score over cities, most regions, nationschange, theand growing trans-national population and 0% adaptiveorganisations capacity measures, to adapt as illustratedto the changing components environment. and corresponding Adaptive feedbackcapacity canurbanisation be characterised severe strain is placed59% on 200% 54% Structure & Infrastructure 43% 45% Resilience Rating in Figureby the 9.17 ability below. to observe the environment,from Sao detect Paulo stakeholders, changes,Systems research it & is Technology clear that and understandthe city’s Environment, those Resources and Environment Health & Wellbeing Skills & Security Business Health & Sense Placeof changes, formulate options on howthere to deal are issueswith thosewith the changes, city’s governance decide on fundamentallya course of action the Health and & Wellbeing of & Safety & Trade Resources Systems & Structure & 180% Mobility & Leadership & Environment Community Wellbeing Figure 9.18 shows the three most Innovation Technology & Inclusion structure that are hampering efforts to its citizens. The continued inability to cope GovernmentMobility & Infrastructure resilienceits implementation. componentsSecurity of the Furthermore, city. Since these actions must also be understood for their impact and Communication improve the city’s resilience. in these areas will exacerbate problems in Communication 160% the resultseffectiveness. are& rather Safety even, To ensureit is difficult the situation to develops and we achieve progress in the future, lessons must other components e.g. in the form of social pick beout learnt specific in components order that aswe strengths do not revert back to the original set of circumstances. unrest, consequently reducing Sao Paulo’s HOW DOES SÃO PAULO COMPARE WITH OTHER CITIES?140% or weaknesses.G However, it is clear that Sao O overall resilience. Y V T Paulo is prominentE as a business hub and I 120% MitigationR N that entrepreneurshipN in the communities U was Mitigationsstrong. canA remove or reduce exposure, provide immunity, implement protective measures, ResilienceM Rating N 100% increase robustness,C provide redundancy and design in fail safes. M E O 55% 43% & Business & Trade Resources 100% C 80% E & C 90% Y O T N E 100% 80% I 60% O C 25% M 25% 50% Mitigation AdaptiveTop Capacity 3 Resilience RatingsResilience Rating 70% O Business Health & S Y 40% The three most resilient sections of São Paulo are to be expected. Wellbeing 60% & Trade These are located in areas of lower exposure, will have greater HOW50% RESILIENT IS SÃO20% PAULO? 40% investment in mitigating measures and by their nature, have greater + adaptive capacity. For= example, São Paulo’s global position as a business An assessment30% using BuroHappold Engineering’s Resilience Framework 26% 20% hub means it has the ability to capitalise on strong economic growth. Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology 20% Additionally, the 645 municipalities mean a relatively good balance of 10% São Paulo - Resilience Wheel 33% 40% 50% 67% 73% 81% 82% 83% 84% 85% 88% 89% governance evenly distributed that makes governing a city as large 50 as São Paulo more manageable. Lastly, its burgeoning Systems & 22% SÃO PAULO RESILIENCE WHEEL A CLOSER* Figures LOOK rounded Health & Wellbeing Dhaka Detroit Bristol Riyadh Miami Mumbai London Sao Paulo Glasgow São Paulo -New Adaptive York Capacity and Mitigation Technology sector helps drive innovation and improvement (although Hong Kong Manchester São Paulo - Adaptive Capacity and Mitigation Figure 9.17: Mitigation, adaptive capacity and resilience ratingperhaps scores. it remains untested compared to other sectors). Key Resilience Capacity Sense of WHICH PARTS OF SÃOLeadership PAULO’S & CITY SYSTEM WILL BE AFFECTED BY FLOODING? Community Resilience Capacity Place Government Skills & Resilience Demand & Inclusion Innovation Resilience Demand Resilience Rating Primary Hazard 59% Secondary Hazard 54% Structure & Infrastructure59% 43% 45% 200% Systems & Technology 54% Structure & Infrastructure Environment 43% Health & Wellbeing45% Resilience Rating Systems & Technology Environment Health & Wellbeing BristolTertiary - Flood Hazard Scenario High Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Medium Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Low Risk of Disruption & Adverse Consequences Potential Positive Effect 180% Security Mobility & Shock & Stress Factors Inputs Functions/Processes/Change Outputs Expectations Stakeholders Communication 160% & Safety • Mitigation & Immigration Sense of Sense of Sense of Sense of 140% G Place O Place Place Place Y V T E I 120% R N • Displacement N • Residents Socio-Economic Groupings U Community A Community Community Community M & Inclusion N & Inclusion & Inclusion & Inclusion Structure & 100% C Environment M E O 55% 55% 43% 43% Infrastructure & Business & Trade Business & Trade Resources Resources C • Public Health Hazard e.g. legionella, • Health Care Providers 80% E & asbestos, contamination Health & C Health & Health & Health & • Social Care Providers Y Wellbeing O Wellbeing Wellbeing Wellbeing T N E 100% Figure 9.18: Top 3 resilience ratings. Figure 9.19: Bottom 3 resilience ratings. I 60% 100%O Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings C Society & Community • Highways Network Failure M Top 3 Resilience Ratings • Transport Companies O • Bridge/Building Collapse E Mobility & Y BusinessMobility & 48 12 Cities AssessmentMobility & revision 01 Mobility & • Passengers Health & S 40% NVIR TURE São Paulo’s problems are interconnected and due to several trends; • Rail Network Failure CommunicationONMENT & INFRASTRUC& TradeCommunicationThe three most resilient sectionsCommunication of São Paulo are to be expected.Communication • Users Wellbeing Resources climate change, the growing• Network population Providers and urbanisation are 20% Systems & These are located in areas of lower exposure, will have greater • Reputational (PR) Disaster putting a severe strain on• National the Governmentcity’s Environment, • Local Government its Resources and Technology Leadership & Leadershipinvestment & in mitigating measuresLeadership & and by their nature, haveLeadership greater & • Politicians • Community Leaders fundamentally the Health• Business & Wellbeing Leaders of its citizens. The continued Governance Governanceadaptive capacity. For example,Governance São Paulo’s global positionGovernance as a business 26% 20% inability to cope in 26%these areasStructure will & Infrastructure exacerbate20% problemsSystems & Technology in other • Theft (physical) hub means it has the ability to capitalise on strong economic growth. Structure &• Infrastructure Police Systems & Technology • Physical Security of Employees Security & Security & Additionally, the 645 municipalitiesSecurity & mean a relativelysectors goodSecurity balancee.g. in& the of form of• Emergency social Services unrest, consequently reducing São • Litigation Safety Safety Safety Safety • Prosecution governance evenly distributed that makes governingPaulo’s a city overallas large resilience. • Disruption to Critical50 Supplies as São Paulo more manageable. Lastly, its burgeoning Systems & • Competitors • Producers • Manufacturers22% • Litigation • Prosecution • Reputational Business & Business & Business & Business & • Retailers • Service Providers22% • InvestorsHealth & Wellbeing (PR) Disaster • Corporate/Organisational São Paulo - AdaptiveTrade Capacity and Mitigation Trade Technology sector helps driveTrade innovation and improvementTrade (although • Workers • Business LeadersHealth &• BusinessesWellbeing Governance Failure perhaps it remains untested compared to other sectors). • Lobbyists • Tourists • Customers Media & Social Media

Governance & Economy Governance • Business RESILIENT SÃO PAULO Skills & Skills & Skills & Skills & • Students Innovation Innovation Innovation Innovation • Education Community Skills & & Inclusion • Major Stoppage (electricity) • Major Stoppage Innovation • Visitors (water & sewage) • Major Stoppage Structure & Structure & Structure & Structure & • Tourists (telecommunications) • Dam Failure or Inundation Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure • Residents • Unsafe or contaminated Water Supply 59% 54% Structure & Infrastructure 43% 45% TOP ESTIMATED• Businesses FINANCIAL IMPACTS • Infrastructure Capacity (congestion) & Quality Systems & Technology Environment Health & Wellbeing São Paulo’s future• Flooding resilience resides on its capacity to adapt • Business • Farmers & Land Owners • Land Movement, Earthquake, Landslip & Environment Environment Environment Environment • Visitors • Tourists • Residents and protect againstSubsidence shocks & stresses across all sectors of the • Dam Failure or Inundation city. Due to a mixture of its own success and underlying global Structural Failure/ Movement/Instability • Businesses trends, the city is undergoing an increasing amount of Systemsshocks & and Systems & Systems & Systems & • Utility Companies Unsafe or Technology Contaminated Technology Technology Technology stresses that test its capacity to adapt in changing times. Water Supply • Critical Buildings Out-of-Use High levels of• Disruption congestion, to Critical Supplies poor and overcapacity infrastructure, Major Stoppage Environment & Infrastructure Environment • Bridge/Building Collapse Resources - Fuel Resources Resources Resources Structure & water scarcity as well as societal hazards are just some of the Environment 55% 43% Estimated annualised cost of impact Infrastructure BusinessHuman & DiseaseTrade - Resources issues that test its resilience. Disease New & Emerging Infectious Human Disease - A solution to these problems100% is not easy as interventions will Disease Pandemic Bottom 3 Resilience Ratings (e.g. In uenze) EN RE São Paulo’s problems are interconnected and due to several trends; need to addressVIRON the future uncertaintyUCTU of risks in addition to MENT & INFRASTR Financial Failure/ climate change, the growing population and urbanisation are theSystems layered & complexity of the city. Any Resourcesanswer to the question Crisis Technology putting a severe strain on the city’s Environment, its Resources and ‘how do we make São Paulo more resilient?’ must therefore aim Drought & Desertication fundamentally the Health & Wellbeing of its citizens. The continued for a holistic, multi-layered approach that recognises Sao Paulo inability to cope in 26%these areas will exacerbate20% problems in other Structure & Infrastructure Systems & Technology Major Stoppage as an intricate network of systems. This is why BuroHappold - Water & Sewage sectors e.g. in the form of social unrest, consequently reducing São Engineering have developed a framework to measure resilience Paulo’s overall resilience. Civil Disorder - that is being tested in collaboration with the Building Research Riots 22% Establishment (BRE) and the Worshipful Company Explosion or Explosion Health & Wellbeing Risk (Gas leak, Explosive of Constructors. Device etc.) and Stresses Shocks RESILIENT SÃO PAULO Heat Wave Our framework helps to ensure that complex and interconnected Major Stoppage - design challenges are captured, evaluated and managed in a Communications systematic, integrated manner. By measuring resilience, we can TOP ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACTS São Paulo’s future resilience resides on its capacity to adapt Flooding - Surface Water - Pluvial and protect against shocks & stresses acrossthen all make sectors informed of the decisions as to the areas of greatest need, where more detailed strategies are needed and in what sectors Major Stoppage city. Due to a mixture of its own success and underlying global Structural Failure/ Movement/Instability - Electricity trends, the city is undergoing an increasing(be amount it Governance of shocks & and Economy, Environment & Infrastructure or Unsafe or Existing Disease stresses that test its capacity to adapt in changingSociety & times. Community) these shouldContaminated be focussed. For example, Outbreak - Epidemic the adjacent chart indicates theWater cost Supply of not considering resilience High levels of congestion, poor and overcapacity infrastructure, Major Stoppage 0 50 100 150 200 250 water scarcity as well as societal hazards areby rankingjust some and of quantifying the some of- Fuel the key financial impacts on Estimated annualised cost of impact£ Millions São Paulo. Human Disease - issues that test its resilience. Disease New & Emerging Infectious Human Disease - A solution to these problems is not easy as interventions will Disease Pandemic (e.g. In uenze) need to address the future uncertainty of risks in addition to Financial Failure/ the layered complexity of the city. Any answer to the question Crisis

Heat Wave Our framework helps to ensure that complex and interconnected Major Stoppage - design challenges are captured, evaluated and managed in a Communications systematic, integrated manner. By measuring resilience, we can Flooding - Surface then make informed decisions as to the areas of greatest need, Water - Pluvial where more detailed strategies are needed and in what sectors Major Stoppage (be it Governance & Economy, Environment & Infrastructure or - Electricity Existing Disease Society & Community) these should be focussed. For example, Outbreak - Epidemic the adjacent chart indicates the cost of not considering resilience 0 50 100 150 200 250 by ranking and quantifying some of the key financial impacts on £ Millions São Paulo. BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

9.4.3 ANNUALISED FINANCIAL COSTS Figure 9.20 indicates the annualised financial impact of key shocks and stresses on the city. This can then be compared to the cost of mitigation strategies to build the business case for capacity building in Sao Paulo and therefore attracting the necessary investment. Considering Sao Paulo’s status as a financial hub of Brazil, it is no surprise that a financial failure would be significantly costly. Other shocks features include major stoppages – highly likely in a city where services and infrastructure are stretched to capacity.

Figure 9.20: Top estimated financial impacts.

9.4.4 CURRENT AND FUTURE RESILIENCE GAPS The current and future predicted resilience gaps for Sao Paulo are shown by component in Figure 9.21. Community & Inclusion is expected to have the highest increase in future demands due to stresses such as population growth, inequality and the lack of affordable housing. These stress factors will exacerbate the increasing São Paulo - Resilience Gapthreat of natural disasters such as flooding.

Current Resilience Gap Projected 2030 Gap

140%

130%

120%

110%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Figure 9.21: Sao Paulo’s current and 2030 resilience gap.

50 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

9.4.5 SAO PAULO WORKSHOP One of the factors that exacerbated Group 2 – floods & droughts problems was that public policies were FEEDBACK The discussion opened up the interesting decentralised but funds were not. Federal Framework refinement suggestions and idea that flooding was treated very government provides funding while general comments differently among Brazilian cities. The municipal governments enact policies representative from Fortaleza, the Participants from various institutions and and were seen to get the blame for poor capital city of the North East Brazilian municipal departments in Sao Paulo as decisions which arguably were partially state of Ceará, argued that the city did well as other cities in Brazil were invited to the fault of federal level decisions. This not recognise floods as rare events and discuss the impact of several shocks and increased public distrust of municipal instead were expected and to some stresses. These shocks and stresses were governments ability to cope and provide extent tolerated by its citizens. Flooding, prioritised by the participants themselves. effective recovery solutions. Additionally, he suggested, was no longer considered The top two stresses (urbanisation and government initiatives were too slow to be a shock but instead a stress on the city. In congestion) and top two shocks (financial effective, often creating results a year after contrast, Sao Paulo was considered to lack crisis and flooding & droughts) were then implementation. Cities such as Sao Paulo the infrastructure to collect rainfall and discussed in two separate groups. The are now looking for alternative initiatives. was coping poorly with what it saw as a discussions centred on how each shock With population growth, people are sudden escalation in the number of floods and stress impacted the city, what was the demanding better public services which (and droughts) in recent years. response and what was learnt. municipal governments are struggling to provide. Sao Paulo’s struggle with managing Group 1 – financial crisis discussion floods and droughts is partly attributed Local people were seen to be frustrated The financial crisis in the early 2000s to the majority of the responsibility of at the lack of pace and progress from effected federal and municipal water management being at state rather their municipal governments and government. The latter, it was noted, than municipal level. In the last 20 years were seen to take matters into their had to adapt to a worsening financial there has been competition between the own hands, showing a high degree of situation which severely limited many governor and mayor due to this. Partly personal & community resilience. They municipalities ability to provide basic as a consequence investment in Sao were even praised and acknowledged services. In St. Bernardo, a metropolitan Paulo‘s water management has not been for their ‘creativity’. A loss of jobs due to area in the south of Sao Paulo, vehicle sufficient. Where it cannot be proactive the financial crisis meant a growth in industry, manufacturing, infrastructure it has been reactive; its municipal the informal sector. Sao Paulo municipal and many municipal services relied government did produce an emergency governments (and universities) were on federal government funding. Many plan (the wet season also helped combat able to capitalise on this phenomenon programmes were therefore interrupted the problem of droughts) which it by encouraging entrepreneurship and leading to high unemployment. As banks disseminated to the populace through creating places for innovation such as had no guarantees that the construction educational plans. technological parks. Many of the informal companies could pay the whole sector businesses, it was noted, eventually Again, the root problems were seen faced collapse. It was mentioned became formalised through such as political with a lack of coordination during the workshop that spending on initiatives and became solutions on Sao between state, municipality and public maintaining the environment was seen as Paulo’s path to recovery. The workshop seen as a particularly pressing issue. an afterthought in tough economic times. found no easy solutions or ways to When asked if participants saw a political completely prepare for further future solution or at least a manageable financial crises and suggested reforms at ‘normalisation’ of the situation, state level were needed in order to make participants were doubtful. They did, any effective preparations. however, mention that, like the citizens of Fortaleza, the population were beginning to change their habits to manage such as reducing their daily water intake.

Group 3 – Urbanisation Group 4 - Congestion Feedback Sao Paulo’s population growth was seen to As a major issue for Sao Paulo’s In regards to Sao Paulo and its shocks and be steady while the expansion of the city government, congestion is tackled stresses, participants felt that the political is high (in the surrounding conurbation). through several initiatives including issues needed to be addressed before Most of the people entering the city are cycling lanes, priority lanes and greater anything else could be. For example, water from other parts of Brazil. Even though its investment in public transportation. There management was found to be of top metropolitan region is growing at a higher has been some resistance, however, from priority but a solution could not be found rate than its Central Business District, it is those that are used to commuting by car. because of the politics involved. not as developed or well connected. The Participants recognised this as not a simple The feedback on the framework was very current transport system is overcapacity, issue as there are cultural, historical and positive. The participants identified it as unreliable and unsafe. These conditions economic issues involved not to mention a useful method for identifying different are forcing more people to buy cars to strong lobbying from the car industry. solutions to their problems. The following commute. This is further exacerbated by Owning a car is seen as a status symbol; are some comments made by the the way cities are planned to encourage Brazilians are seen as idealising and delegates: car use. aspiring to what they see as the American way of life. Often the first thing they buy • The framework forces the user to Unlike the issue of water management, when they save enough money is a car. consider different solutions local authorities have a huge say in what goes on as opposed to regional regulatory Overall participants were complementary • The methodology was found to be bodies. Coordination, however, between and positive about the initiatives clear and objective the city centre and the suburban areas instigated by the government but were • In order for this tool to be useful for is not has good as expected. This is was critical of the lack of integration. They a city, participants suggested Mayors suggested as partly being due to mayors pointed out that the strain on the central and all Department Secretaries should having different interests and therefore transport network would be slightly be gathered and a workshop similar to everyone prioritises different issues. It alleviated were the metro lines extended this should be held was stressed that it is not that officials did into the outer conurbation. San Bernardo not want to agree but due to the huge will be the first city to have the metro • The participants felt that an online inequalities between city areas each extend into it from the centre. version of the tool would be useful but faced different priorities at different times that using the framework as part of making consensus very difficult. workshops with key stakeholders was vital. When asked about major issues connected with urbanisation, participants saw security and sewage as two main issues. Participants also highlighted the fact that Sao Paulo’s huge inequality among its populace meant that the poorer citizens were far more affected by the disadvantages of urbanisation.

52 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

10 CONCLUSION

From interviews and experience we found Exploiting the capability of the Resilience there is a tendency for cities to approach Diagnostic to model future trends, we are resilience in a siloed way without able to test possible scenarios against the prioritising initiatives systematically. Often current baseline, to assess the comparative the major focus is the last disaster, for impact and benefits of different strategic example flooding, when in fact, the city options. Our baseline assessment also may be less prepared for a more urgent enables us to get insight into the cost risk such as an epidemic. All parts of a and benefit of different options and city are dependent on one another and compare them with the cost of inaction any shock to a city, even if it only directly – of doing nothing. This informs the impact one aspect, will have ripple effects creation of business cases around possible throughout. It is for this reason that programmes of activity. resilience needs to be viewed holistically, breaking down silos and understanding 10.1 FURTHER interdependencies. Traditionally there has DEVELOPMENT not been one entity that has an overview of all these areas and that is cited as the In order to refine the process, reason for this lack of joined up thinking. BuroHappold has subsequently developed However, in the UK with more powers an online resilience diagnostic tool that moving to city mayors (e.g. London, can be used by a variety of stakeholders to Bristol), this is changing. The Rockefeller understand their city’s resilience from their 100 Resilient Cities Program has perspective. This is a powerful stakeholder introduced the concept of Chief Resilience engagement tool that can easily acquire Officers (CROs) – a person responsible the insights of key stakeholders within a for delivering resilience strategies for couple of hours. It is available for free via the city - there is now an opportunity to our website. think differently and truly understand and http://www.burohappold.com/think- prioritise the many issues facing our cities again/specialism/risk-resilience/ and develop holistic solutions that benefit more than one issue or group. Future plans include adapting the process for businesses and buildings. One of the key benefits noted when implementing this approach with city leaders is that stakeholders are unified around a common vision. A comprehensive resilience strategy will touch all aspects of a city and is therefore a great way to integrate a city and break down these silos. We have found that successful resilience strategies address multiple vulnerabilities and deliver benefits across a wide range of areas. They also require interventions that cross departmental boundaries; strategy workshops being invaluable in successfully aligning interests. This provides better collaboration and understanding between departments which results in resilient solutions that maximise benefits across multiple agencies and groups.

APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF 12 COMPONENTS OF RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

Title Description

Community & Communities are the living heart of a city made up of all the citizens, businesses and regular visitors; people who Inclusion consider the city to be theirs and themselves to be part of the city. Some communities are very strongly bound to their city and each other; with a united and inclusive sense of belonging and collective ownership.

Mobility & Movement and communication are essential parts of human society and commerce. Concepts such as Communication Sustainable Urban Mobility and the “Human Scale” indicate a move away from traditional transport planning to people focused mobility strategies. This needs to be coupled with effectively integrated communication and technology to reduce demands on transport infrastructure even further.

Health & Health is the level of functional or metabolic efficiency of a living organism. In humans, it is the general condition Wellbeing of a person's mind and body, usually meaning to be free from illness, injury or pain (as in "good health" or "healthy"). Health can also refer to the systematic activities to prevent or cure health problems and promote good health in humans. In addition to health care interventions and a person's surroundings, a number of other factors are known to influence the health status of individuals, including their background, lifestyle, and economic, social conditions, and spirituality; these are referred to as "determinants of health."

Sense of Place Designing, building and coordinating the communities assets and public spaces to promote people’s health, happiness and wellbeing as well as providing opportunities and inspiration for economic growth. Capitalising on the communities shared sense of place to create innovative and unique spaces.

Leadership & Governance is the system by which a state ,community or organisation is structured and governed. Government Governance normally consists of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. Governance Within a city context all three are necessary to prevent anarchy and promote fairness. Governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). It refers to all processes of governing and regulations are used to control conduct in line with desired behaviour. Governance is implemented by the management apex of an organisation and as such, needs to be underpinned by robust leadership to ensure the right standards of behaviour are enforces as well as providing impetus to see difficult decisions and programmes through.

Security & Safety Safe from the threat of criminal activity such as terrorism, theft or espionage. Security is the degree of resistance to, or protection from, harm. It applies to any vulnerable and valuable asset, such as a person, dwelling, community, nation, or organization. It is a form of protection where a separation is created between the assets and the threat. These separations are generically called "controls," and sometimes include changes to the asset or the threat.

Business & Trade Commerce is the entire environment for business. The system includes legal, economic, political, social, cultural and technological systems that are in operation. Thus, commerce is a system that affects business and economic prospects. It can also be defined as a component of business which includes all activities, functions and institutions involved in transferring goods from producers to consumers.

Skills & The aspects of human activity involved in the acquisition, maintenance and transfer of knowledge as well as Innovation the development of skills, new discoveries, the generation of new ideas and the development of engineered solutions.

Environment The term environment is the universe that lies outside the boundaries of the system. It is also known as the surroundings, and in thermodynamics, as the reservoir. The environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species. Climate, weather, and natural resources that affect human survival and economic activity.

54 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

Title Description

Resources A resource is a source or supply from which benefit is produced. Typically resources are materials, energy, services, staff, knowledge, or other assets that are transformed to produce benefit and in the process may be consumed or made unavailable. Benefits of resource utilization may include increased wealth, meeting needs or wants, proper functioning of a system, or enhanced well-being. In this context, resources are all the city system inputs from a macro perspective.

Systems & Technology is the product and determiner of engineering and science, bringing both benefit and risk to natural Technology and built environments, influenced by and influencing the creativity of the world’s cultures. A modern example is the rise of communication technology, which has lessened barriers to human interaction and, as a result, has helped spawn new subcultures; the rise of cyber culture has, at its basis, the development of the Internet and the computer. Not all technology enhances culture in a creative way; technology can also help facilitate political oppression and war via tools such as weapons, indeed, times of war are often when there is the greatest technological advancement.

Structure & Infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structure needed for the operation of a society or Infrastructure enterprise, or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function. It can be generally defined as the set of interconnected structural elements that provide a framework supporting an entire structure of development.

APPENDIX B EXPOSURE FACTORS

Layered on top of the baseline exposure Security & Safety Structure & Infrastructure assessment are a number of factors • Effective Law Enforcement • Designed Infrastructure Over-capacity that can reduce or exacerbate exposure depending on an assessment of the city’s • Independence from Political • Effective Maintenance Regimes effectiveness. These factors are as follows: Interference • Appropriate levels of Investment Community & Inclusion • Effective Security Services • Looped or cellular networks • Large population size • Effective Health & Safety Enforcement • Effective Flood Defences • High population density • Very Low Priority Terrorism Target Systems & Technology • Low income inequality Leadership & Government • Rapid uptake of technological • Very little poor condition housing • Good Adherence to Human Rights advances stock • Good Transparency & Anti-corruption • Effective Systems Integration • No ghettoization • Effective Leadership • Effective Cyber security • Good social mobility • Good Public Representation • High Automation • Good community cohesion • Effective Checks and Balances • Effective information infrastructure • Good Community Coordination & • Effective Financial Security • Resources Governance • Effective Regulation & Legislation • Sustainable Resource Management Mobility & Communication • Very Capable State • Self sufficient • Little Congestion Business & Trade • Resource Security • High sustainability • Effective Governance • Robust Supply Chains • Increasing Automation • Growing corporate influence • Diverse Sources & Distribution Health & Wellbeing Networks • Stringent Market Regulation • Very little Health Inequality Environment • Good Workforce relations • Good Nutrition • Effective Environmental Protection • Effective Security • Extended Life Expectancy • Robust planning regulation • Appropriate levels of Investment • Excellent Quality of Life • High Productivity • Effective Health & Social Care infrastructure • Strong customer base • Effective Health Improvement Policies • Effective Trading Standards • Effective Metal Health Care Provision Skills & Education • Very little Substance Misuse • Low Educational Inequalities • Very little domestic violence • Competitive in the global marketplace Sense of Place • Strong Skills base • Group Held Unique City Concept • Low Skills inequality • Good Sense of belonging (Civic pride) • Strong Sense of ownership • Strong Sense of history (Heritage) • Strong Sense of future

56 12 Cities Assessment revision 01 BUROHAPPOLD ENGINEERING

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Resilience The ability to anticipate and adapt to shocks & stresses; implementing lessons learned to leverage emerging opportunities, and effectively reduce vulnerabilities.

Risk Risk is a product of a hazard's severity and its probability.

Shocks Any event or circumstance (happening with or without warning) or combination of events that cause or threaten immediate death or injury, disruption to the community, or damage to property or to the environment on such a scale that the effects cannot be dealt with as part of normal, day-to-day activities of the affected community. Shocks are short term and end when the underlying cause stops.

Stresses A trend that over time change the circumstances and environment under which cities and buildings operate. Incrementally, these factors will challenge the base assumptions upon which many business models are founded; and challenge the norms, values and standards underpinning communities.

Demand Numerical measurement of the strain placed on city’s systems and components due to various shocks and stresses. This is based on a risk calculations and is the product of 1) a city's exposure to a risk and 2) the severity and (3) the probability of occurrence. This value is rather arbitrary since the important measure is the percentage that is mitigated i.e. rating.

Vulnerability Vulnerability is the susceptibility of a body (building, people, environments, assets, etc) to a hazard.

Mitigation Mitigations can remove or reduce exposure, provide immunity, implement protective measures, increase robustness, provide redundancy and design in fail safes. This are implemented prior to a shock occurring.

Measures

Protect The action of protecting and often preserving the status quo.

Robust A system’s ability to resist an impact without changing its initial stable form.

Redundant The addition of components which are not necessary to functioning but are included in case of failure in other components.

Fail-Safe In the event of a failure, the component fails in a way that prevents or mitigates the impact on the wider system.

Adaptive Capacity Adaptive capacity is the capacity of people, organisations, cities, regions, nations and trans-national organisations to adapt to the changing environment. Adaptive capacity can be characterised by the ability to observe the environment, detect changes, research and understand those changes, formulate options on how to deal with those changes, decide on a course of action and its implementation. Furthermore, these actions must also be understood for their impact and effectiveness. To ensure the situation develops and progress is achieved in the future, lessons must be learnt in order that behaviours do not revert back to the original set of circumstances. Measures Prepare Proactive measures that reduce the risk of a hazard. Respond The ability to respond in a timely manner. Recover Measures to ensure a recovery period is planned for. Learn & Improve Measures to make sure the city reviews, learns and adapts its measures in order to improve their resilience in time for the next event.

Resilience Rating The percentage of the resilience demand that is met through mitigation and adaptive capacity measures. Rating = resilience capacity / resilience demand.

CONTACT

Caroline Field

T: +44 (0)1225 320 600 Email: [email protected]