• Featured

How a value chain approach helps us to ‘join the dots’?

Post by

Savina Carluccio explores what we mean by resilience value, and how we are using value chains to connect the concepts of resilience and value.

We define the critical functions of infrastructure as the ability to sustain societal needs through protecting, connecting and/or providing essential services. Ensuring that these are delivered and maintained in ordinary as well as extraordinary circumstances is what we define as resilience value.

One of the biggest challenges for critical infrastructure is breaking down the silos between infrastructure providers and customers along the supply chain so that everyone is focused on delivering resilience value where they can.

At the Resilience Shift, we have found that a value chain is extremely useful for connecting the concepts of resilience and value in a context that will be familiar to everyone working on the design, delivery, operation of infrastructure systems.

This concept of “joining the dots” helps articulate the contribution of all parties in delivering the overall function and value of infrastructure systems, and also helps align stakeholders behind a common outcome.

Above all it helps us to:

  • Articulate WHY it is important that resilience value is created, enabled and protected at each stage and carried through the value chain because the resilience increases the value of the service provided, by reducing the impact of disruptions.
  • Show HOW to ‘do’ resilience by mapping tools and approaches that can be used to enhance resilience at different parts of the value chain and at a level of sophistication appropriate for stakeholder role.
  • Indicate WHERE the entry points and opportunities to create, enable and protect resilience value are for different stakeholders in the value chain and explain how they are connected.


Find out more about how we are using a value chain approach in our  work on resilience tools and approaches.

Categories: Featured

Whose responsibility is it to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure?

Post by

Strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure is a shared responsibility. Rob Turk looks at how this is done from an Australian perspective.

In Australia, this responsibility is shared between the owners and operators of critical infrastructure assets (mainly private companies), and all three levels of government (federal, state, and, in some cases, local).

The critical infrastructure regulatory environment has recently changed due to a new piece of federal legislation that came into force on 11 July 2018, the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act (2018) (the Act). It focuses on improving the government’s capacity to manage national security risks to critical infrastructure (defined as espionage, sabotage and coercion) and has three key elements:

  • National critical infrastructure register – this will include information on ownership and control for assets.
  • Information gathering power – this allows the federal government to obtain detailed information about assets.
  • Ministerial directions power – this allows the federal government to direct the owner and/or operator to do, or not do, certain things to mitigate risks.


The aim of the Act is to improve government visibility, and ultimately reduce the exposure, of critical infrastructure assets to national security risks. The Critical Infrastructure Centre, established in 2017 by the Australian Department of Homes Affairs, co-ordinates the register and undertakes risk assessments.

All-hazards approach

This approach is narrower in focus than the all-hazards approach usually taken to manage risks to critical infrastructure. Rather than focus on a specific threat, the all-hazards approach focuses on the consequences of asset (and broader system) failure, and how to mitigate them. The all-hazards approach is aligned with one of Council of Australian Government’s (COAG) (representative body of the Australian federal and state government leaders) principles for best practice regulation “government action should be effective and proportional to the issue being addressed”. Considering all-hazards concurrently allows the most effective actions to be taken, rather than those that focus on mitigating the risks arising from one specific threat.

Proportional action

National security risk is a familiar concept for most, front of mind due to the recent UK/US joint statement regarding Russia and/or the latest action blockbuster (i.e. Bain taking over Gotham City via the sewer network in Batman). As a tangible and seemingly imminent risk, there is unsurprisingly more effort put into managing this threat. It is however one of many potential shock or stress events that may threaten the critical infrastructure system, and subsequently, human life and welfare.

In the Resilience Shift’s recent report Critical Infrastructure Resilience: Understanding the Landscape , the most critical risks identified were: ageing infrastructure, flooding, poor planning and governance, and climate change. Terrorism and malicious attacks were considered less important. This finding aligns with The Global Risk Report 2018 (World Economic Forum, 2018) that highlights natural risks are far more likely to occur and have a greater impact than others.

The Global Risks Landscape – Impacts and Likelihood and Global Risks

The narrow focus of the Act does not accord with the COAG principles. Legislating to mandate an all-hazards approach to critical infrastructure resilience would ensure action is not disproportionately focused on one potential threat and duly recognises both human induced and natural hazards.

Patchwork regulatory environment

While the limited focus of the Act on national security is not the most effective way to strengthen resilience of critical infrastructure, it is however aligned with jurisdictional responsibilities as defined in the Australian Constitution. In Australia, state governments are responsible for most critical infrastructure sectors, transport, water, food, electricity, gas and ports, while the federal government is responsible for national security, aviation and banking. At the state government level there however is significant variance in the use of regulation to address threats to the critical infrastructure system.

Victoria is the only state that has legislation related to critical infrastructure resilience. It ranks the state’s critical infrastructure assets into three categories – vital, major and normal. Vital critical infrastructure must follow the annual ‘resilience improvement cycle’, a risk management process that must be revised if requested by the Minister. The other states play a collaboration and support role in building critical infrastructure resilience, with NSW being committed to a ‘non-regulatory’ approach.

There is no question that critical infrastructure owners and operators are best placed to manage risks to their individual assets and operations. However, resilience of the whole critical infrastructure system would be most improved with a coherent and comprehensive regulatory environment, where state and federal legislation is complementary, efficient and effective.

Further questions

The Act raises many questions around the role of legislation, and the government more broadly, in strengthening critical infrastructure resilience:

  • Will the Act provide a pathway for a broader, all-hazards approach to managing critical infrastructure?
  • Does the Act set a precedent for legislative approaches in this space?
  • What is the perspective of owners and operators about the new requirements, particularly private operators?
  • What are the next steps to build upon the momentum created by the Act?
  • How can complementary state and federal legislation be developed?
  • How ‘safe’ is the data gathered on critical infrastructure given recent high profile data management challenges faced by the federal government?
  • Should government’s role in critical infrastructure be centrally managed (say by the Critical Infrastructure Centre) or de-centralised?


As a Resilience Shift blog reader, what’s your take on The Act? Will it affect your work? We’d love to hear from you (please comment below or email us).


Thanks to Amy Cox, Consultant, Arup, for her input to this blog.

Categories: Featured

Making the case for investment in resilient infrastructure

Post by

Lisa Dickson, Associate Principal and Director of Resilience for the Americas, Arup, writes a guest blog on financing urban infrastructure and how the case for resilience can be made.

The American Society of Civil Engineers publishes a report every four years that assesses the state of infrastructure in America. In 2017, American infrastructure scored a D+. This reflects both an ever-growing backlog of deferred maintenance and the inability to invest in much needed improvements. In terms of the financial impact, this amounts to nearly 4 trillion dollars, which is more than 20% of US GDP.

Layered on top of this is the ever-increasing impact of climate change. In 2017 alone, the US experienced well over $300 billion dollars of damages that were a direct result of climate. Since 1980, the US has experienced more than 1.5 trillion of weather-based impacts. This results in monies being diverted to reactive, recovery efforts, and less that is made available for strategic development. In short, the endgame is defined by lost opportunities and not growth.

The challenge becomes how to build our way towards a more sustainable and resilient infrastructure system. How do we modify the investment scheme to encourage consideration of long-term, resilient infrastructure? What are the current barriers and how might we reconsider our approach to incentivize investment in more resilient systems? The following is a primer to spur those discussions.


Understated risk

One of the primary barriers to investment in resilience is the fact that risk is often understated. Understated risk means that resilience itself becomes fundamentally undervalued. An example of this can be found in how the insurance industry has traditionally assessed flooding risk. An asset’s risk of flooding is calculated for that particular year, then reset. However, if that risk was assessed cumulatively, let’s say over 50 years, that 1% chance of flooding translates into a 39% chance of flooding over the life cycle of the asset. An owner’s overall perception of risk and motivation to act would likely change significantly if risk were considered in this way.


Ownership of risk

Another challenge is an understanding of who actually owns that risk and how much of it may or may not be subsidized by other public agencies or insurance. This lack of clarity fundamentally undermines the sense of relevancy and personal investment. However, recently proposed federal legislation has started to introduce the concept of proactively identifying and reducing some of those vulnerabilities, or risk a reduced payout from FEMA following a natural disaster. In the larger market, both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s are starting to consider how climate preparedness (or lack thereof) may influence a city’s overall bond rating. Finally, the Task Force on Climate Disclosure is providing guidance to private entities to disclose their risks to climate change – not only with respect to emissions, but with a much more focused approach to physical adaptation and preparedness considerations. In fact, some are predicting that these disclosures may become mandatory, much in the same way that entities must now disclose their pension liabilities.


Funding versus Financing

Although often used interchangeably, there is an important difference between funding and financing. While financing focuses on how the “deal will be brokered” (e.g. will it be a long-term loan, with what type of interest rate, etc.) funding focuses on what monies will be used to pay back that debt. There is a plethora of financing options that readily exist to broker infrastructure investments. However, the challenge is to solve for the revenue stream that must be generated to pay back that debt.

Funding can be raised in many ways including tolls, taxes, availability payments and user fees. However, exacting these revenues is much more about making a convincing argument about the overall value of that benefit and, in the end, the return on investment for those that are paying into the system. Funding is essentially tied to society’s perceived value of a resource or service. Value is an inherently subjective measure – and it is not always rational. We just need to look at how water, an essential live-giving resource is priced (or valued) in relation to other non-essential resources.

This is where governance comes in. Governance plays a significant role in how that value is captured and monetized at a societal level. It is the linchpin to many of these funding challenges and must be addressed at the same time as we solve for the technical and economic challenges of investment in resilience.



The perceived revenue challenge

Finally, there is a widely held sentiment that there is insufficient funding to address the lack of resilience in our infrastructure systems. However, there is a competing school of thought which argues that public entities – cities, in particular – have sufficient revenue at their disposal to solve for all of this. The issue is more of how that revenue is captured and distributed and not about whether it even exists. In their book on The Public Wealth of Cities, authors Dag Detter and Stefan Folster argue that American cities have sufficient wealth within their jurisdictions. In their estimation, cities own 90% of the GDP (approximately 15 trillion dollars) – greatly exceeding the current $3.7 trillion in municipal debt. Examples of Singapore’s and Hong Kong’s urban wealth funds are used to illustrate how similar structures could be translated in the US. The key is to optimize the underperforming utilities and real estate holdings, while at the same time shifting attention from short-term spending to investments that are focused on improving the quality of life. If these public assets were managed in such a way, the authors argue that a city could easily generate a net yield of 3% or more to solve for other issues. In their assessment, the primary barrier to enacting this is governance.


About our guest blogger

Lisa Dickson is an expert in translating the risk of climate change into resilient solutions within the built, social, public health and natural environments, including economic considerations.  She is Associate Principal and Director of Resilience for the Americas at Arup. Lisa has led multiple climate change projects including work for the City of Boston, Washington D.C., City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Army National Guard, Logan International Airport, several coastal municipalities, in addition to her current work with Partners Healthcare and New Jersey American Water. She has been invited to the Pentagon and National Guard Headquarters in DC to advise them on her work related to climate security.


This article was first published on 5 July 2018 at NewCities

Categories: Featured

Resilience to extreme events – Hawai’i’s response to the Kilauea eruption

Post by

When a volcano erupts, constant communication between leading scientists and emergency responders and planners is absolutely essential. Guest blogger, Michael S. Bruno, from the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, shares his thoughts on the response of Hawai‘i in terms of resilience to the current events.

O’ahu is far enough away from the Big Island that we have been relatively unaffected with just some smoke when the wind shifts from that direction. The residents of the region around the volcano however are going through a very difficult time. For our university’s campus in Hilo (close to the volcano), this is a very nervous time as students are in the midst of final exams, and many of them and their families live in the vicinity of the volcano.

Our faculty is very active in the response to the eruption. Our research program in this domain of science is one of the best in the world and the State of Hawaii’s State Volcanologist is one of our senior faculty, Professor Bruce Houghton.

Professor Houghton and his research team have been on the volcano since the very early stages of the eruption, and they monitored the underground lava flows that eventually led to the fissures and damaging lava flows many km from the volcano summit. They are still there today, trying to ascertain the volcano’s next move. For the latest news from local sources see Hawaii News Now, or Vox.

In addition to our volcano experts, we have teams of meteorologists and atmospheric modellers working closely with Federal and State of Hawaii officials to predict the possible movement of dangerous sulphur dioxide gases from the eruption. The movement can change dramatically with the frequent wind shifts we see in the area, and so the danger to surrounding communities can elevate over a timespan of only minutes.

This is certainly a time when the constant communication between teams of leading scientists and emergency responders and planners is absolutely essential.

When I arrived at the University of Hawaii I was struck by the very close relationship between the university and the State. This event is demonstrating the value of the trusted relationship that has developed over years of working together. It has resulted in a well-informed response to the event, including advance evacuations from the community before the roads became impassable, and ongoing, real-time planning for further action should the conditions change or worsen.

Michael is on the Resilience Shift Board as well as being the University of Hawai‘i’s Vice Chancellor for Research, and Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Images below show shots Michael took of the volcano last year. Featured image is copyright National Parks Service Hawai’i  (nps.gov) and shows surface flows on the coastal plain.

Categories: Featured News

The engineer’s journey to resilience – what’s yours?

Post by

Xavi Aldea

How has resilience become a popular topic among engineers from different backgrounds? In our experience, engineers have followed different routes in their journey to resilience. Mostly, this is about broadening classic engineering approaches, breaking down ‘silo’ thinking and incorporating a connection with other disciplines – which, in many cases, are not necessarily close to engineering at first sight. In other words, engineers have had to think bigger in order to achieve their goals.

But what are the engineers’ goals? To put it simply, and according to the Royal Academy of Engineering, engineers ‘make things, they make things work and they make things work better’. They also ‘use their creativity to design solutions to the world’s problems’. In today’s world, the inherent complexity of infrastructure and urban systems, together with the added uncertainty arising, for instance, from climate change, raises a question on the classic boundaries of engineering, which are not enough to allow engineers to ‘make things work better’.

Breaking those boundaries, however, requires initiating a journey which can be quite different depending on the engineering experience and discipline that different people come from.

This journey begins in the top left of this diagram. This is what engineers have been taught in university – technology and safety.

Through their careers, engineers can travel through different paths which ultimately make them realise that resilience matters.

Path A:

A Civil Engineer who designs infrastructure and/or does quantified risk assessments. They become interested in resilience once they recognise future uncertainty and the limitations of sensitivity analysis/scenario modelling. In addition, they become aware of interdependencies between different systems, which adds more complexity to their usual risk assessments. Additional complexity can also be added because they realise infrastructure is part of a wider system, which includes people.  In our team, that would be Juliet Mian.

Path B:

A Civil or Structural Engineer who designs and/or plans infrastructure. They have already embraced Environmental Impact Assessments and Social Impact Assessments, and are comfortable with the role of engineering in sustainable development. In the next step, they also recognise people as part of the system, and understand the importance of equity in addressing global challenges. This means that they are already thinking in a holistic, integrated way, and they recognise that resilience is the way to approach this complex system. Because of their sustainability background, they are well aware of uncertainty resulting from climate change and planetary boundaries.   In our team, that would be Jo da Silva.

Path C:

Sustainability engineer who assesses the environmental impact of infrastructure by understanding how it connects with its surrounding environment. They have already embraced carbon footprint, water footprint, Life Cycle Assessment and/or Social Life Cycle Assessment and are comfortable with the role of engineering in sustainable development. In addition, they are also aware of the uncertainty resulting from climate change and planetary boundaries. The next step is adding the complexity of the 21st century infrastructure, which requires thinking in a holistic and integrated way, and recognising that resilience is a way to approach complex systems. In our team, that would be Xavier Aldea.

As long as you get there in the end…

In the end, we can probably say that all roads lead to Rome – incorporating complexity, uncertainty, vulnerability and essentially challenges and global change drivers of the 21st century leads to the need to expand classic engineering boundaries to allow engineers to continue to do their job, no matter where they started – and hopefully that will allow them to continue to make the world a better place.

What’s your journey?  Why not draw it and send it to us as an image so that we can see your path to resilience?

Categories: Featured

Turning theory into practice to kick off 2018

Post by

For us, 2018 is about making things happen. With exciting developments happening in our projects, we are reaching out through workshops and events to work with collaborators across the globe. We are seeking additional partners to develop proposals with through our current call for applications with more to come later this year.

Categories: Featured News

‘Almost dangerous’: let’s collaborate!

Post by

This post discusses the potential barriers to collaboration across infrastructure sectors.

Categories: Featured

Language: let’s talk some more

Post by

The language of resilience may be getting in the way of efforts to work together. This post explores the potential issues.

Categories: Featured

Infrastructure resilience: where do we start?

Post by

In setting out an ambitious programme to catalyse change in terms of how resilient critical infrastructure is planned, procured, delivered and maintained in practice – how do we know where to start, and what we really need to do?

Categories: Events Featured

Welcome Blog

Post by

Hello and thank you for visiting us at the Resilience Shift. This is our first blog post.

We are a small team of resilience “veterans” – if you can call those with experience in a field that is only a decade or so old “veteran”. We are dedicated to catalyzing a shift in how designers and engineers, asset owners and operators, insurers, investors and regulators play their role in creating a more resilient future.

Categories: Featured News

  • Sign up

  • Recent Posts