The term ‘sustainability’ is used fluidly across the natural and built environment. It can describe the manufacturing of new products using recycled materials or the management of ecological resources in a way that does not over exploit them. Moreover, we can consider sustainability as part of set of technical, administrative and practical processes that underpin contemporary approaches to infrastructure development.
This themed issue of Engineering Sustainability takes this purposefully broad view with its four papers to examine more sustainable approaches to addressing the impacts of climate change on the management of built environments, and in some cases specific built infrastructure. Three of the four papers debate how we assess the risks by way of technical methods associated with climate change using scenario modelling, climate risk and vulnerability assessments (CRVAs) and multicriteria analysis, while the fourth paper argues that an assessment of the local environmental and political context is critical to identifying effective investment in urban nature. What aligns all four papers is an understanding that reacting to climate change is a complex process. One that cannot be successfully achieved with a singular approach or by a subset of built environment specialists. Alternatively, each paper argues that a concerted effort is needed to bridge the siloed mentalities we see in engineering, urban development and environmental management to promote a more considered and integrated approach to urban sustainability.
The first paper in the themed issue (Marsland et al., 2022) focuses on a novel approach to modelling climate change to improve the resilience of transport infrastructure to variations in weather. The paper outlines a series of economic costs associated with transport disruption and the need to model options for more sustainable development and management. Within the paper Marsland et al. argue that by planning for best- and worst-case scenarios transport infrastructure providers are better equipped to proactively plan for extreme variations in weather. As both average temperatures and rainfall increase this becomes an increasingly pertinent process, especially following the heat stresses placed on road and rail infrastructure in the summer of 2022. They also outline how scenario building can act as a form of knowledge brokering between institutions. Such an approach allows infrastructure providers to share experience and help address the planned redundancies of built infrastructure. The authors conclude that resilient systems, design, operations and people are needed to ensure that rail infrastructure can future-proof itself against climate change.
The second paper, by Biosca Amat et al. (2022), compliments the work of Marsland et al. but shifts the focus to climate vulnerability in Caribbean road investments. Using the CRVA methodology they show how risk hotspots can be identified and subsequently targeted for more effective management. Working with a range of stakeholders they have trialled the use of asset mapping, vulnerability assessment and hazard analysis to validate decision making in road building and management. Given the potential damage to infrastructure by tropical storms and flooding, more effective risk assessments from small island governments are deemed essential. Using geographic information systems (GISs) they have been able to validate the robustness of the CRVA tool, but state that the system is most effective where high-quality data is available to populate its analysis. The inclusion of such data is essential to the development of high-quality evidence that can subsequently be used to support government decision making.
The third paper, by Mell et al. (2022), moves away from technical approaches to consider how institutions, collaboration and political decision making influence responses to climate change. Using evidence derived from an EU-funded Horizon 2020 Nature-Based Solutions project the paper explores the complex interplay of political decision making within multi-partner projects. Mell et al. highlight the potential contradictions of investing in research and innovation if the locations of specific projects are not aligned with local needs. Furthermore, they discuss how the overarching key performance indicators (KPIs) of EU-wide projects can dilute the focus of project work in order to satisfy strategic project outcomes. They do, however, report on the ability of innovation projects to test new approaches to climate change adaptation that can subsequently be rolled out in other locations locally and internationally.
The final paper takes on board the technical aspects of the Marsland et al. (2022) and Biosca Amat et al. (2022) papers and integrates some of the softer and more qualitative aspects of the Mell et al. (2022) work. By way of an assessment of multicriteria assessments for cycling infrastructure in Portugal, Pais et al. (2022) undertake a comprehensive analysis of cycling infrastructure in Coimbra to examine the value to the city of multiple segments of the system. By looking at the composition, permeability and legibility of the city’s infrastructure they identify the following criteria for analysis: comfort, safety, conflicts, width, intersections and lighting. With the combination of built infrastructure and bikeability criteria they were able to identify specific characteristics that limit cycling. They also propose that by reflecting on the six criteria noted above, cities can plan more effective and functional cycling infrastructure to promote sustainable transport.
Each of the papers in this themed issue takes a unique approach to its discussions of sustainability and climate change. They incorporate discussions of innovative technical solutions of climatic variation to future-proof infrastructure; a deeper understanding of the complex interactions of different institutions and the influence this has on delivering urban sustainability; and the role of liveability in promoting the functionality and use of more sustainable infrastructure. What each paper shows is that there is no singular approach to sustainable urban development and that a more integrated approach to the design, delivery and management of urban infrastructure is needed. Moreover, by examining what is needed in a specific location there is greater scope to draw on innovations in technical analysis and greener interventions to meet the challenges of urban resilience head on. This is not a simple process, and each paper suggests options but not solutions open to built environment specialists to future-proof urban areas.
