Infrastructure is key to a well-functioning society by enabling the circulation of people, goods and information. However, storms, floods or wildfires induced by climate change have led to widespread infrastructure failure and damages. Projections suggest that infrastructure will be increasingly exposed to climate impacts. This chapter introduces the rationale for building climate-resilient infrastructure as part of fostering broader sustainability and quality of infrastructure. It demonstrates how social and economic resilience to climate change hinge on the ability of infrastructure to adapt to and absorb climate impacts. Finally, it provides an overview of how planning, financing and design need to consider climate resilience, topics covered in more detail in the other chapters.
Infrastructure for a Climate-Resilient Future
1. Closing the climate resilience gap in infrastructure
Abstract
Key policy insights
Infrastructure – like other economic assets – is exposed to the growing impacts of climate change. The climate resilience of infrastructure plays a fundamental role in the ability of society and economies to adapt to and absorb negative impacts of climate variability and extreme weather events.
Climate-resilient infrastructure describes infrastructure that is planned, designed, constructed and operated in a way that anticipates, prepares for and adapts to a changing climate. Such infrastructure can withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions caused by changing climatic conditions throughout its lifetime. It concerns both new assets, as well as existing ones, which may need to be retrofitted or operated differently to account for climate change impacts.
Building climate-resilient infrastructure creates significant opportunities. Climate resilience can increase the lifespan of infrastructure, protect investment returns and ensure business continuity. It has been shown to lower the cost of damages and repairs throughout the lifetime of infrastructure.
Ensuring infrastructure is climate resilient involves several distinct steps. It starts by assessing current and future risks to assets and operations under climate change, followed by integrating climate risks into planning and decision making. Climate resilience investments require adequate financing and technical capacity. Since climate risks evolve continuously, performance measurement of resilience measures is needed to adjust operation and maintenance over time.
Introduction
Infrastructure is key for supporting a well-functioning society by enabling the circulation of people, goods and information. It provides connectivity and key resources such as water or energy, which sustain critical functions for society. As such, it has an essential role in ensuring the well-being of people and the functioning of the economy.
Infrastructure is significantly exposed to the impacts of climate change. Storms, floods or wildfires induced by climate change have led to widespread infrastructure failure and damages. The costs of damage incurred by infrastructure due to extreme weather events account for two-thirds of government contingency (OECD/The World Bank, 2019[1]). In light of projections, infrastructure will likely be increasingly exposed to climate impacts.
At the same time, infrastructure can play an essential role in building more resilient economies and societies by reducing their vulnerability to current and future climate shocks. If infrastructure continues to operate despite an adverse weather event, communities and businesses can continue functioning and better absorb shocks to their assets.
Climate-resilient infrastructure is planned, designed, constructed and operated in a way that anticipates, prepares for and adapts to the changing climate. As such, it can withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions from changing climatic conditions throughout its lifetime. This concerns both new assets, as well as existing ones, which may need to be retrofitted or operated differently to account for climate change impacts (OECD, 2018[2]).
Infrastructure is capital intensive and long-lived, with some assets lasting decades or centuries. Decisions today about the location, design and nature of infrastructure have long-term effects. This includes whether investments deliver objectives and anticipated benefits over their lifetime, as well as whether they need to be retrofitted in the context of climate change.
This chapter introduces the rationale for building climate-resilient infrastructure, demonstrating the opportunities it provides. It briefly identifies the steps to mainstream climate resilience into planning, developing and operating infrastructure over its life cycle. Subsequent chapters explore these issues in more depth. While the report draws primarily on experiences from OECD countries, it dedicates Chapter 5 to exploring insights from resilience building in developing countries.
Box 1.1. Climate resilience as a vital element of resilient, sustainable and quality infrastructure
Climate-resilient infrastructure is an essential element of the broader efforts to achieve resilient infrastructure. Broader infrastructure resilience includes resilience to natural hazards unrelated to climate (such as earthquakes) but also to human-induced risks (such as terrorist attacks or industrial accidents) (OECD, 2021[3]). The OECD defines this broader resilience as the “ability to resist, absorb, recover from or successfully adapt to adversity or a change in conditions” (OECD, 2014[4]).
Resilience is an essential part of both sustainable and quality infrastructure investment and development. While the concepts of sustainable and quality infrastructure overlap, they both represent broader concepts than climate-resilient infrastructure.
Sustainable infrastructure includes built and/or natural systems that provide a range of services. These ensure economic, social and environmental sustainability throughout the entire infrastructure life cycle (from planning to decommissioning and repurposing), in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (OECD, 2021[3]). Sustainable infrastructure is thus a broader concept than resilience, encompassing considerations of usefulness, viability, efficiency, technical stability, financial sustainability and good governance. At the same time, it is environmentally and socially sustainable, contributing to both climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Quality infrastructure represents an even broader concept. Apart from aligning with the SDGs and contributing to their delivery, it aims to maximise the economic, social, environmental and development impacts of infrastructure (OECD, 2021[5]). Furthermore, it focuses on raising the economic efficiency of infrastructure throughout its life cycle, while integrating environment and social considerations, and enhancing resilience. The OECD has been championing quality infrastructure through several initiatives, including support for the development of the G20 concept for quality infrastructure investment.
The rationale for building climate-resilient infrastructure
Climate change is causing increasingly severe damages and disruptions to infrastructure
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere to date have already led to considerable warming and, as a consequence, intensified climate risks. Global mean temperatures exceeded pre-industrial levels by over 1.4°C in 2023 (Copernicus, 2023[6]). Most land areas have experienced an increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events since 1950 (IPCC, 2021[7]). Similarly, the duration, frequency and intensity of droughts have increased in many regions of the world since the middle of the past century (Spinoni et al., 2014[8]). In Europe, the areas and people affected by droughts rose by nearly 20% between 1976 and 2006 (European Commission, 2007[9]). The duration of the fire weather season1 also increased by 27% globally between 1979 and 2019, with notable increases in western North America, southern Europe, Australia, western and central Asia, and most of Africa (Jones et al., 2022[10]; OECD, 2023[11]). Average sea levels to date have risen by 21-24 cm compared to pre-industrial levels (Lindsay, 2022[12]).
There are important spatial variations in the manifestation of these hazards. Although temperatures are rising across the globe, the impact of extreme heat differs across and within countries. There are large territorial disparities in the exposure of both people and assets to heat stress (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. Warming temperatures create unequal heat stress impacts within countries
Additional days of strong heat stress per year in OECD large regions (TL2), 2017-21 compared with 1981-2020
Source: OECD (2023[13]), Territorial Approach to Climate Action and Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1787/9d143ae1-en.
In the past five decades, the number of climate-related extreme events increased fivefold (WMO, 2021[14]). In parallel, economic losses from disasters increased sevenfold between the 1970s and the 2010s from an average USD 198 billion to USD 1.6 trillion (Figure 1.2). Infrastructure assets make up an important share of the economic damages. This, in turn, multiplies the losses (e.g. forgone income) for businesses whose operations are disrupted.
Figure 1.2. The number of reported extreme events and economic losses have grown
Note: Monetary value calculated in USD, adjusted for inflation with 2021 as the base year.
Mass movements include avalanches, landslides, mudslides, rockfalls and sudden subsidence.
Source: Based on EM-DAT (2023[15]), International Disasters, https://www.emdat.be/publications/.
Climate change affects infrastructure assets and their operations from both slow and rapid onset events. Climate change impacts from slow onset events result from hazards that occur and are sustained over long periods (e.g. limited water availability due to drought). Conversely, a rapid onset event, such as storms disrupting telecommunications networks, can damage and disrupt infrastructure in a matter of days or hours.
Different infrastructure sectors are threatened by different climate hazards (Table 1.1). For example, while droughts can severely hinder riverine transport, they have limited effects on rail, air and road transport. In contrast, high temperatures may affect road infrastructure at highways and airports, as well as railway lines, while leaving sea and river transport routes largely unaffected (although workers may be substantially affected by extreme heat). Overall, the potential impact of climate change on infrastructure depends on the type of climate hazard, and its interaction with the vulnerability and exposure of infrastructure to it.
Table 1.1. Climate risks affecting selected types of infrastructure in different ways
Note: This table illustrates potential climate hazards and impacts for various infrastructure types but does not provide an all-encompassing list of infrastructure types, climate hazards and impacts.
Source: Based on OECD (2018[2]). Climate-resilient infrastructure, https://doi.org/10.1787/4fdf9eaf-en; IISD (2021[16]), Advancing the Climate Resilience of Canadian Infrastructure: A Review of Literature to Inform the Way Forward, https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2021-07/climate-resilience-canadian-infrastructure-en.pdf.
Infrastructure damages caused by extreme weather events in recent years provide concrete examples of how climate change is affecting infrastructure. Due to Hurricane Sandy, for example, regional infrastructure networks in the greater New York and New Jersey areas suffered around USD 17.1 billion in direct damages (Martello and Whittle, 2023[17]). Disruptions caused by extreme events are increasing. In the United States, the number of blackouts caused by extreme weather events increased from 5 to 20 annually in the 1990s to between 50 and 100 in the early 2010s (Castillo, 2014[18]; Chang, 2016[19]). Table 1.2 provides a non-exhaustive overview of examples of recent infrastructure damage induced by extreme weather events caused by climate change.
Table 1.2. Selected events induced by climate change and their damage to infrastructure
Source: CCNR (2023[29]), CCNR Market Observation – Annual Report 2023, https://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/cpresse/cp20231006en.pdf.
Climate impacts on infrastructure can be even more consequential in developing countries, due to limited resources and adaptive capacity, as well as inadequate infrastructure design (Chapter 5). Furthermore, inequalities – manifesting, for example, in unequal housing conditions and access to health care and infrastructure services – exacerbate vulnerabilities in many developing countries to infrastructure disruptions. In 2019, following a drought in India, reservoirs dried up in the city of Chennai, which had disproportionate effects on impoverished residents (Sebastian, 2022[30]). In 2023, two major dams collapsed after heavy storms around the city of Derna, Libya, leaving at least 4 300 people dead and 40 000 displaced (Zachariah, 2023[31]).
Climate change impacts can have more consequential impacts on particular places within countries. For example, heatwaves particularly affect cities. This occurs because the temperature tends to be higher in cities than in surrounding areas due to the urban heat island effect. In the past five years, almost half of OECD cities witnessed a summer daytime heat island effect of more than 3°C (OECD, 2022[32]). Differing spatial distribution of climate hazards, overlaid atop different physical, economic and social characteristics of regions and cities, means there is a strong spatial dimension to consider (see Chapter 6).
Failure in infrastructure systems ripples through the economy, communities and the environment
As most infrastructure assets are interdependent with other systems and a range of societal and economic functions rely on them, the failure of infrastructure can cause a wide range of cascading impacts, both indirect and direct (Vallejo and Mullan, 2017[33]). As an illustration of indirect damages, 20 million properties in England are at risk from utility failures during a flood. This is eight times more than the number of properties (2.4 million) at risk of riverine or coastal flooding (Hall et al., 2019[34]). The 2011 floods in Thailand – triggered by a particularly intense monsoon season – led to considerable direct damage and disruption to infrastructure. The Don Mueang Airport in Bangkok, for example, required USD 52 million in repairs and was closed for months (Adams et al., 2014[35]). Flood damage to manufacturing plants in Thailand disrupted supply chains worldwide. In Canada and the United States, vehicle production fell by 50% in Honda’s factories (Adams et al., 2014[35]) because of floods. Similarly, droughts – and associated low water – on the Rhine River in 2018 prevented shipping on 80% of days between June and December (Prognos, 2022[36]). This had severe implications on plants relying on the river for the transport of raw materials and products in Germany’s Ruhr region. The interruption of logistics chains for chemical, petroleum products, ores, other raw materials and goods caused a loss of EUR 5 billion to Germany’s economy in the second half of 2018 (CCNR, 2019[37]).
By affecting assets and basic services, direct and indirect infrastructure damages have major social impacts. During Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, telecommunications infrastructure on the islands of Puerto Rico, Saint Martin, Dominica, and Antigua and Barbuda were destroyed just when they were critical to issue extreme weather warnings and support emergency response (GSMA, 2018[38]). Damages to infrastructure assets can also disrupt the movement of people. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy restricted the travel of 5.4 million passengers (Vallejo and Mullan, 2017[33]). Similarly, the 2008 Great Ice Storm in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) left 5.8 million people stuck on railway stations. Indeed, in one single highway segment in Hunan province, the Great Ice Storm stranded 200 000 vehicles with 60 000 passengers (Zhou et al., 2011[39]).
Power cuts associated with infrastructure failures also affect many people. The aforementioned ice storm left 4 million inhabitants of the city of Chenzhou without electricity for several weeks during the Chinese New Year celebrations (Zhou et al., 2011[39]). After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, 2.7 million people were left without electricity (Hall et al., 2019[34]). Similarly, the 2021 Typhoon Rai (Odette) in the Philippines left 269 cities and municipalities without electricity, while 348 suffered from network interruptions (OCHA, 2021[40]). During the 2009 heatwave in Australia, half a million people were left without power in Melbourne as the heat stress caused power outages in the electricity transmission network (McEvoy, Ahmed and Mullett, 2012[41]).
Ecosystem damages associated with infrastructure failures can also be significant. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy in the United States led to the release of nearly 42 billion litres of sewage, contaminating freshwater systems (Kenward, Yawitz and Raja, 2013[42]). After the collapse of two major dams in Derna, Libya following Storm Daniel in 2023, polluted sediments and debris flooded parts of the El Kour Natural Park, harming wildlife in Ramsar-protected coastal lagoon areas (CEOBS, 2023[43]).
Climate change will put more pressure on infrastructure in the future
Without rapid GHG mitigation efforts, the Earth’s temperatures will continue to rise, and thereby increasingly expose infrastructure to climate risks. For example, the land area flooded during a 100-year storm is projected to increase by 64% by the end of the 21st century under a high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenario, with strong geographical variations (see Chapter 6). This will threaten an extra 1.9 million homes worth USD 882 billion by flood risk in the United States alone (Thiele et al., 2020[44]). In the state of Alaska, without adaptation, the cumulative total infrastructure damage is estimated at USD 5.5 billion by the end of the 21st century under a high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenario and USD 4.2 billion under a moderate (RCP 4.5) scenario (Melvin et al., 2017[45]). In Europe, damage to infrastructure from extreme weather events is projected to increase tenfold by 2100 without adaptation measures, reaching EUR 3.4 billion per year (Forzieri et al., 2018[46]).
Climate change will significantly affect power infrastructure. The efficiency of thermal and nuclear power plants is likely to decrease with more frequent droughts and higher temperatures (Hallegate, Rentschler and Rozenberg, 2019[47]). A 1°C temperature rise already reduces nuclear power output by 0.8% (Linnerud, Mideksa and Eskeland, 2011[48]), while the efficiency of photovoltaic systems decreases by 0.5% (Patt, Pfenninger and Lilliestam, 2013[49]; Hallegate, Rentschler and Rozenberg, 2019[47]). Usable hydropower capacities could decrease by 61-74% by 2040-69 under a low (RCP 2.6) to high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenario. These reductions are due to reduced streamflow associated with climate change in the areas of most hydropower plants (van Vliet et al., 2016[50]). Similarly, usable thermoelectric power capacity is expected to decrease by 81-86% by 2040-69 due to reductions in streamflow capacity and water temperature rise (van Vliet et al., 2016[50]). In addition, sea level rise induced by climate change could require relocation of power plants. About 30% of power generation capacity in Bangladesh will have to be relocated between 2030 and 2100 due to inundations induced by sea level rise (Khan, Alam and Alam, 2013[51]).
Similarly, climate change will affect transport infrastructure. Under a moderate (RCP 4.5) emissions scenario, 6.8 million km of global road and rail transport assets will be exposed to more frequent extreme precipitation events by the middle of the 21st century, which will rise to 11 million km by its end (Liu et al., 2023[52]). Particularly exposed areas will include the eastern coast of North America, large parts of Europe, Japan, the Korean Peninsula and the eastern coast of China (Figure 1.3). In the United States, road and railway infrastructure exposed to extreme precipitation will exceed 1.14 million km (representing a third of total transport assets) by mid-century and 2 million km (two-thirds of total assets) by the late 21st century. In China, nearly 1.3 million km and over 1.9 million km of roads will be exposed to extreme precipitation by the mid- and late 21st century, respectively (Liu et al., 2023[52]). In addition, 13 000 km of roads and 100 airports are at risk of damage due to permafrost melt in the Arctic region by 2050 under the same climate scenario, affecting nearly 4 million people (Hjort et al., 2018[53]). If a high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenario takes effect, close to 200 airports and over 850 seaports in Europe will face the risk of inundation by 2080 due to sea level rise and storm surges (Christodoulou and Demirel, 2018[54]). Globally, the world’s sea ports are projected to be under very high risk due to various climate change impacts. Under a high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenario, 14% of port operations are projected to be at high risk by the end of the 21st century compared to less than 4% today (Figure 1.4). Coastal flooding and overtopping driven by sea level rise would disrupt operations the most.
Figure 1.3. Exposure of road and railway assets to extreme precipitation under different climate scenarios
Note: By 2030-59 (a and c) and 2070-99 (b and d) under a moderate (RCP 4.5) emissions scenario (a and b) and a high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenario (c and d).
Source: Liu et al. (2023[52]), Global transportation infrastructure exposure to the change of precipitation in a warmer world, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38203-3.
Water and wastewater infrastructure will also face significant impacts due to climate change. Expected precipitation changes will put pressure on the resilience of several water reservoirs. Under medium (RCP 4.5) and high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenarios, water supply from the Descoberto reservoir in Brazil, for example, is expected to decrease by 15-50% (Chaves, da Silva and Fonseca, 2023[55]). In the United Kingdom, drought-induced water shortages could cost up to GBP 40 billion (under a medium emissions scenario with dry climate and high population growth) in the next three decades (NIC, 2018[56]). Under a moderate (RCP 4.5) emissions scenario, 208 million people in China could be exposed to the flooding of wastewater treatment plants by mid-century due to increased frequency of 1-to-30-year return floods (Hu et al., 2019[57]).
Changing climate conditions combined with demographic, economic and other developments will also affect societal infrastructure needs. For example, increasing climate hazards will increase the need for infrastructure assets with protective functions. These include sea walls or protective oyster reefs and mangroves to safeguard people and assets from sea level rise and enhanced coastal erosion. Chapter 4 discusses how Nature-based Solutions (NbS) can support these changing infrastructure needs in the context of climate change.
Figure 1.4. Climate-risk levels for seaports worldwide
In 2100, under a high (RCP 8.5) emissions scenario
Note: The map is based on a multi-hazard analysis, including changes in sea level rise, tropical cyclones, storm surges, wind, waves, precipitation and temperatures.
Source: Based on Izaguirre et al. (2021[58]), Climate change risk to global port operations, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00937-z.
The opportunity of climate resilience building
While climate resilience measures can increase the lifespan of infrastructure, they also play an essential role in protecting investment returns and ensuring business continuity. While addressing climate risks can increase design and implementation costs, the benefits are considerable. Spending on infrastructure resilience ex ante can reduce repair costs and maintenance needs over time, as well as lower the cost of service disruptions and damages. For example, the state of Florida in the United States invested USD 19.2 million to enhance resilience to wind and water damage, avoiding losses of more than USD 81 million when Hurricane Matthew struck in 2016 (C2ES, 2018[59]). Similarly, enhancing resilience of transport infrastructure to future floods is estimated at 3-10% of project investment costs, but this investment can lower annual future flood damages by 42% (Hall et al., 2019[34]). In low- and middle-income countries, more resilient infrastructure was estimated to have USD 4.2 trillion of net benefit, providing a return of USD 4 for every invested USD 1 (Hallegate, Rentschler and Rozenberg, 2019[47]). In China, every CNY 1 invested in climate-resilient infrastructure could deliver CNY 2-20 over a 30-year period (Ding et al., 2021[60]). In the city of Wuhan, for example, the benefits of investing in “sponge city” infrastructure to enhance resilience to heavy precipitation outweigh the costs more than twice over three decades. The benefits derive from the avoided socio-economic costs of waterlogging, reduced municipal water pollution control costs and increased groundwater recharge (Ding et al., 2021[60]).
Additional social, environmental and economic co-benefits can provide further incentives to invest in climate-resilient infrastructure. On the socio-economic level, it is estimated that each USD 1 billion invested in flood-resilient infrastructure in the United States could create 40 000 jobs (Khan, McComas and Ravi, 2020[61]). While environmental aspects must be carefully monitored to avoid potential trade-offs, climate resilience measures can benefit the environment. At Lake Mälaren in Sweden, for example, a project to make the Slussen lock climate resilient has provided a more natural water balance, benefiting plants and wildlife along the lake and its Natura 2000 protected sites (Vallejo and Mullan, 2017[33]). NbS offer climate resilience building with a wide range of social and ecosystem co-benefits (Chapter 4). In the state of Alabama in the United States, for example, restoring around 6 km of oyster reefs in Mobile Bay helped protect the shoreline from coastal erosion by reducing wave energy (by 91%) and height (by 53%). At the same time, it provided seafood equivalent to half of total oyster harvests in Alabama, lowering nitrogen pollution (World Bank and World Resources Institute, 2022[62]).
Furthermore, it would be costly to delay action. Postponing climate resilience measures in infrastructure can lock in infrastructure damages and service disruptions, as well as costs incurred for repair and retrofit needs. In low- and middle-income countries, the cost of delaying climate resilience investments in infrastructure by ten years was estimated at an additional USD 1 trillion (Hallegate, Rentschler and Rozenberg, 2019[47]). In the United States, it is estimated that road repairs due to increasing temperatures would reach a cumulative USD 200-300 billion by 2100 in the absence of adaptation measures (Chinowsky, 2022[63]). Early adoption of climate resilience measures can thus help save future costs and offer comparative advantages by providing robust and reliable infrastructure services.
Climate resilience building for infrastructure: An overview of this report
This section introduces the four distinct steps involved in climate resilience building (Figure 1.5), which the following chapters will elaborate in more detail. The first step assesses current and future risks to infrastructure assets under climate change. This is followed by integrating climate risks into infrastructure planning and decision making. Once adequate financing measures are in place and matched with appropriate technical capacity, the third step involves implementing physical and operational measures to ensure climate resilience of assets. Finally, infrastructure projects are monitored over time to adjust operation and maintenance measures to evolving climate risks.
Figure 1.5. The steps of building climate-resilient infrastructure
Assessing and understanding climate risks
Assessing climate risks is the first step to building climate-resilient infrastructure. As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate risks comprise the interactions of climate hazards (caused by an event or trend related to climate change), with the vulnerability (perceptibility to harm) and exposure of assets and people to them (IPCC, 2014[64]).
Most OECD countries have produced national climate-risk assessments, which include some degree of analysis of the infrastructure sector (OECD, 2018[2]). Climate-risk data is often not downscaled enough to inform infrastructure risk assessment at the asset level. Given the strong spatial dimension of future climate risks and vulnerabilities, a place-based approach to understand local impacts is relevant (Chapter 6). OECD work on subnational climate hazard data contributes significantly to close this knowledge gap (see the OECD Laboratory for Geospatial Analysis).
It is important to understand both current and projected climate risks. In the context of climate change, the frequency and intensity of climate impacts are expected to change. Although projections of future climate hazards are largely available across OECD countries, their integration into hazard models remains limited (OECD, 2023[11]).
An analysis of risks to infrastructure assets should map interdependencies between these assets and networks. As climate change impacts can cascade through infrastructure systems (Section 1.2.2), understanding how interdependencies affect infrastructure networks is crucial for minimising climate change impacts (OECD, 2018[2]). To that end, collaborations between infrastructure operators are essential. The EU’s Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network, for example, helps exchange information on different kinds of hazards and vulnerabilities, as well as strategies and measures to reduce risks to critical infrastructure (OECD, 2018[2]; European Commission, n.d.[65]). Stress testing can also identify how infrastructure will operate under future climate scenarios. It assesses where systems may fail due to severe or plausible disruptive events (both episodic or prolonged), analysing the ability of systems both to withstand and overcome these disruptions (OECD, 2018[2]; Linkov et al., 2022[66]). Applied to understand interconnectedness in systems, stress testing can help understand cascading impacts triggered by climate change in infrastructure networks and beyond (Linkov et al., 2022[66]).
Considering climate risks in infrastructure planning and decision-making processes
Once climate risks are mapped and assessed, they must be considered in planning and decisions across the whole life cycle of infrastructure. Several tools facilitate the mainstreaming of climate resilience across the various stages of infrastructure. Prior to defining individual projects, governments at all levels can prepare and develop climate-resilient national, regional or urban development plans (Box 1.2). Accompanying spatial plans and master plans can strategically define what can be built, and where (Chapter 6). This ensures that climate risks are considered as part of the overall built environment, allowing for interactions with other infrastructure and non-infrastructure assets to be understood (OECD, 2023[13]; OECD, 2023[67]). By 2050, 68% of the world’s population are expected to live in urban settings (compared to 55% in 2018) (UNDESA, 2018[68]). Integrating climate resilience into urban development plans will thus become ever more critical.
Co‑ordination across levels of government is essential for spatial planning as subnational governments have the key competencies in this area (OECD, 2017[69]; OECD, 2013[70]). The project appraisal phase, for example, can conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Among other environmental impacts, an EIA assesses whether a project exacerbates climate change impacts elsewhere, as well as their vulnerability to climate change. In the European Union, directive 2011/92/EU introduced mandatory EIAs for certain large-scale projects. This policy was amended with 2014/52/ EU, strengthening the focus on climate change adaptation and resilience in the screening, scoping and assessment phases of projects (Vallejo and Mullan, 2017[33]; Dallhammer et al., 2018[71]).
A key challenge in planning and decision making for infrastructure resilience is uncertainty. Uncertainty stems from climate models, which are subject to continuous change based on global GHG mitigation efforts, their impact on changing hazard projections and the interplay with social, economic and environmental development. Adaptive and flexible planning can respond to changing climate impacts over the infrastructure’s lifetime, enabling adjustments in the face of uncertainty. Scenario planning, for example, aims to accommodate a range of potential conditions through approaches like real options analysis (OECD, 2018[2]). In adaptive planning, multiple actions, including alternative pathways for policy development and investment, are developed in the planning phase. Based on pre-defined trigger points, decision makers can adopt alternative pathways dependent on how circumstances evolve. The adaptive pathways approach was used for the first time in the Thames Estuary 2100 project in the United Kingdom. The Thames Barrier was built to protect the city of London from coastal and tidal flooding. Further adaptation measures (e.g. a moveable or permanent tidal barrier to drain the river) will be taken when certain levels of sea level rise are reached (Hall et al., 2019[34]). Chapter 2 will provide further details on planning and decision making for climate-resilient infrastructure.
Box 1.2. Mainstreaming climate-resilient infrastructure through a national development plan: The case of the Philippines
Mainstreaming climate resilience into national development plans can provide an important starting point for including climate resilience in infrastructure development. In the Philippines, the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023-28 is a foundational document delineating the policies and projects to fulfil the nation's objectives over the next six years. The PDP is a cornerstone for guiding budget allocations and ensuring alignment with objectives, which heightens its usefulness for infrastructure – a significant budgetary component. A full chapter of the PDP is dedicated to the expansion and upgrading of infrastructure, with the aim to embed climate resilience into infrastructure design. Another chapter is dedicated to further strengthening climate and disaster resilience within the country. Such policy objectives – particularly those concerning infrastructure – set out a management framework for the country’s major infrastructure projects. In so doing, they help support local and national stakeholders to prioritise their investments. With the National Economic Development Agency (NEDA) working on target indicators to monitor implementation of the PDP, there is a unique opportunity to ensure its goals are translated into specific targets. As part of the Sustainable Infrastructure Programme in Asia, the OECD works with the Philippines to help the country improve the quality and sustainability of new and existing infrastructure through capacity building, including on climate resilience.
Source: (OECD, 2021[72]; NEDA, 2023[73]).
Carrying out physical and operational climate resilience measures
Building climate resilience of infrastructure assets encompasses both physical and operational measures. Physical measures include creating permeable surfaces to reduce flood risk from heavy precipitation events. Operational measures include changing the timing of maintenance to make infrastructure resilient to increasingly frequent climate hazards (OECD, 2018[2]). Both types of measures have to be chosen and adapted over time to consider evolving climate-risk patterns.
Physical climate resilience measures
Physical climate resilience measures in the infrastructure sector can encompass both engineered or “grey” measures, as well as NbS. Depending on the climate risks and the infrastructure sector concerned, various grey measures and NbS, as well as a combination of the two, can be applied to ensure climate resilience. Table 1.3 gives a selection of such measures. Chapter 4 will focus on how NbS can and are increasingly used for building climate resilience of infrastructure.
The scientific community is embracing both traditional and novel approaches to build climate resilience. Scientists welcome the use of traditional approaches to build climate resilience, including lifting infrastructure to decrease its exposure to climate hazards such as floods. At the same time, they are increasingly researching and implementing innovative approaches. These include smart technologies and materials such as self-healing concrete with bacteria that produce limestone. This can fill cracks that appear in construction materials, preventing water ingress and further damage (Jonkers et al., 2010[74]).
Likewise, the integration of traditional approaches and NbS continues to evolve. Some stakeholders have combined traditional stabilisation with living shorelines that integrate habitats, like oyster reefs, marsh plants and submerged aquatic vegetation. In addition to preventing erosion and reducing wave energy (i.e. decreasing impact during storm surges), these combined approaches enhance biodiversity (Gittman et al., 2015[75]).
Table 1.3. Physical resilience measures to tackle climate risks for different types of infrastructure
Source: Based on Silva Zuniga et al. (2020[76]), Increasing Infrastructure Resilience with Nature-based Solutions (NbS), http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002325; ISSD (2021[16]), Advancing the Climate Resilience of Canadian Infrastructure: A Review of Literature to Inform the Way Forward, https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2021-07/climate-resilience-canadian-infrastructure-en.pdf
Operational climate resilience measures
Operational measures encompass hazard and risk assessment, awareness raising and risk communication, or organisational and regulatory measures (Section 1.4.5) that set out infrastructure design standards or procurement rules (OECD, 2023[11]). They can also involve introducing maintenance patterns to enhance resilience of infrastructure assets and networks in light of changing climate risks (OECD, 2018[2]). Furthermore, they can entail land-use regulations to ensure that new infrastructure is built outside of areas subject to high climate risks.
In recent years, a growing number of building and infrastructure codes and standards were developed to ensure the climate resilience of infrastructure assets. For example, Canada introduced building and infrastructure codes informed by climate resilience that target several risks, such as wildfires, floods, permafrost thaw and extreme heat (Infrastructure Canada, 2023[77]). Providing further examples, Table 1.4 lists selected measures in different infrastructure sectors.
Table 1.4. Organisational measures and corresponding physical measures for climate-resilient infrastructure
Source: Based on (OECD, 2018[2]; IISD, 2021[16]).
Monitoring, operation and maintenance
Monitoring is key to ensure the adaptive management of infrastructure assets. It is important to monitor the performance of resilience measures for new assets and networks, as well as that of existing ones. In both cases, monitoring at regular and appropriate intervals ensures that infrastructure continues to operate safely and guarantees continuity of services. Once monitoring is completed, the operation of infrastructure needs to be adjusted and appropriately maintained in accordance with the unfolding climate scenario.
The failure of the Toddbrook reservoir’s spillway following heavy precipitation in the United Kingdom in 2019 underscored the importance of appropriate monitoring and maintenance. In 2018, the dam was monitored as required by legislation and the inspecting engineer correctly identified the risk. However, the recommendation for full maintenance in the next 18 months had no sense of urgency. Consequently, the spillway’s breach happened before maintenance, leading to evacuation of 1 500 people (Balmforth, 2020[78]). Chapter 2 provides further information on the monitoring, operation and maintenance of infrastructure to ensure climate resilience.
Creating an enabling environment for climate-resilient infrastructure
Policies and regulations for climate-resilient infrastructure
Policies and regulations at national and subnational level are key tools to facilitate the climate resilience of infrastructure (Section 1.4.2). This first involves incorporating climate resilience into infrastructure policy and planning frameworks and strategies. For example, the United Kingdom’s National Infrastructure Strategy in 2020 incorporated climate change adaptation (HM Treasury, 2020[79]). Climate resilience considerations also have to be integrated into sectoral infrastructure policies. Chapter 2 provides details on policy development for climate-resilient infrastructure, while Chapter 5 gives further insights on the topic in a developing country context.
Apart from mainstreaming climate-resilient infrastructure into national policies, policy and regulatory frameworks at national and subnational levels should be complementary. Climate risks are spatially specific, and can thus be different from one place to another. Given subnational authorities have responsibilities for land-use planning, permitting, and infrastructure planning and operation, their policies must facilitate climate-resilient infrastructure. Chapter 5 provides further details on multi-level governance and subnational policy frameworks for climate-resilient infrastructure.
Finally, regulations play a key role in ensuring the climate resilience of infrastructure by mandating certain criteria (e.g. the application of certain technical codes and standards) (Section 4.3). In Finland, for example, the Electricity Market Act of 2009 requires that electricity distribution networks are designed, constructed and maintained so that storm or snow interruptions are no longer than 6 and 36 hours in densely-populated and other areas, respectively (Vallejo and Mullan, 2017[33]). Besides introducing new regulations that require climate resilience measures, existing regulations should be updated in light of changing climatic conditions. As noted, the failure of the Toddbrook reservoir reinforced the importance of updating climate resilience measures (Section 1.4.4). The reservoir was compliant with the relevant Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act, but after a major flood part of the dam’s spillway failed, an independent review found the dam was not safe to withstand a maximum possible flood (Balmforth, 2020[78]).
Financing climate-resilient infrastructure
Increased finance is crucial for climate-resilient infrastructure systems, which will require efforts to ensure efficient use of public finance and clarifying the roles of different levels of government. At the same time, it is important to unlock private finance. Encouraging infrastructure owners and operators to disclose climate risks can raise awareness of the importance of investing in climate resilience measures. Similarly, infrastructure standards, labels and taxonomies play a key role in encouraging resilience investments. For example, the Blue Dot Network aims to help ensure the mainstreaming of climate resilience criteria into infrastructure investments in addition to broader resilience and quality infrastructure considerations (OECD, 2022[80]).
Several other approaches unlock additional finance for climate resilience. These include developing pipelines for investable projects and structuring financial products for climate-resilient infrastructure, such as bonds. Chapter 3 discusses these approaches in depth and Chapter 6 provides additional insights to the topic from a subnational perspective.
Strengthening awareness and technical capacity
Infrastructure planners, designers and operators, as well as all actors working across infrastructure pipelines, need the appropriate awareness of climate resilience and the right technical capacity to implement it. A growing number of training programmes have emerged to support this capacity- building process. For example, Engineers Canada – the umbrella organisation of the Canadian regional regulators of the infrastructure profession – established the Infrastructure Resilience Professional (IRP) Credentialling Program in 2016. The programme’s online courses help infrastructure practitioners incorporate climate resilience into planning, design and management (CRI, 2023[81]). Similarly, the Environment Agency England commissioned the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management to offer training on property flood resilience (PFR). The training ensures that industry professionals can appropriately choose and implement PFR measures for properties based on the PFR code of practice (CIWEM, n.d.[82]; CIRIA, 2023[83]). Additional courses are offered in river and coastal flooding for flood risk management professionals (CIWEM, n.d.[84]). At a local level, many city governments are starting to appoint Chief Resilience Officers to manage resilient infrastructure programmes within their communities (Muzzini, Maslauskaite and O’Regan, 2022[85]).
More technical tools are being released to help implement climate-resilient infrastructure. The Design Value Explorer, for example, was developed by Infrastructure Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium. This web-based tool assesses 19 climate factors relevant for infrastructure design (e.g. annual precipitation). It draws on historic data and future climate projections to support engineers, architects and infrastructure planners in designing climate-resilient infrastructure throughout Canada (NRC, 2023[86]). Another example would be the European Commission’s technical guidance on how to climate-proof future infrastructure projects. It sets out principles and practices for the identification, classification and management of physical climate risks when planning, developing, executing and monitoring infrastructure projects (Eur-Lex, 2021[87]). Chapter 6 provides further information on the subnational aspects of strengthening awareness and technical capacity for climate-resilient infrastructure.
Besides formal training programmes and technical tools, peer learning exchanges and international co‑operation also have a key role in strengthening awareness and technical capacity. This is especially true in the context of a developing country. For example, the OECD’s Sustainable Infrastructure Programme in Asia supports countries in Central and Southeast Asia through capacity development and policy advice throughout various stages of infrastructure development and investment.
References
[35] Adams, P. et al. (2014), Climate Risks Study for Telecommunications and Data Center Services, Riverside Technology, Fort Collins, Colorado, https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/climate-risk-study-telecommunications-and-data-center-services-report-prepared-general.
[78] Balmforth, D. (2020), Toddbrook reservoir independent review report, report commissioned by Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom, 16 February, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e6f3f56d3bf7f2690785d52/toddbrook-reservoir-independent-review-reporta.pdf.
[59] C2ES (2018), “Policy options for climate-resilient infrastructure”, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Arlington, Virginia, https://www.c2es.org/document/policy-options-for-climate-resilient-infrastructure/.
[18] Castillo, A. (2014), “Risk analysis and management in power outage and restoration: A literature survey”, Electric Power Systems Research, Vol. 107, pp. 9-15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2013.09.002.
[29] CCNR (2023), CCNR Market Observation – Annual Report 2023, Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, https://www.ccr-zkr.org/files/documents/cpresse/cp20231006en.pdf.
[37] CCNR (2019), Inland Navigation in Europe. Annual Report 2019, Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, https://inland-navigation-market.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ccnr_2019_Q2_en-min2.pdf.pdf.
[43] CEOBS (2023), “The environmental dimensions of Libya’s flood disaster”, September, Conflict and Environment Observatory, https://ceobs.org/the-environmental-dimensions-of-libyas-flood-disaster/#2 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
[19] Chang, S. (2016), “Socioeconomic impacts of infrastructure disruptions”, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.66.
[55] Chaves, H., C. da Silva and M. Fonseca (2023), “Reservoir reliability as affected by climate change and strategies for adaptation”, Water, Vol. 15/13, p. 2323, https://doi.org/10.3390/w15132323.
[63] Chinowsky, P. (2022), “Intense heat waves and flooding are battering electricity and water systems, as America’s aging infrastructure sags under the pressure of climate change”, 7 September, Prevention Web, https://www.preventionweb.net/news/intense-heat-waves-and-flooding-are-battering-electricity-and-water-systems-americas-aging.
[54] Christodoulou, A. and H. Demirel (2018), Impacts of Climate Change on Transport, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi7rIL0iYOFAxV6RKQEHft9DUkQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublications.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Frepository%2Fbitstream%2FJRC108865%2Fjrc108865_final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1t_Y6sZD5K8DWC3Y70yblq&opi=.
[83] CIRIA (2023), “Code of Practice for Property Flood Resilience”, webpage, https://www.ciria.org/CIRIA/Resources/Free_publications/CoP_for_PFR_resource.aspx (accessed on 6 November 2023).
[82] CIWEM (n.d.), “Property Flood Resilience Industry Training”, webpage, https://www.ciwem.org/training/pfr-industry-training (accessed on 6 November 2023).
[84] CIWEM (n.d.), “Training Courses”, webpage, https://www.ciwem.org/training/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
[6] Copernicus (2023), “Remarkable year continues, with warmest boreal autumn. 2023 will be the warmest year on record”, 6 December, Press Release, Copernicus, https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-november-2023-remarkable-year-continues-warmest-boreal-autumn-2023-will-be-warmest-year#:~:text=For%20the%20calendar%20year%20to,warmest%20calendar%20year%20on%20record.
[81] CRI (2023), “Infrastructure Resilience Professional (IRP) Credentialling Program”, webpage, https://climateriskinstitute.ca/ (accessed on 31 October 2023).
[71] Dallhammer, E. et al. (2018), Spatial Planning and Governance within EU Policies and Legislation and their Relevance to the New Urban Agenda, European Committee of the Regions. Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and EU Budget, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2863/0251.
[60] Ding, H. et al. (2021), Accelerating Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Investment in China, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.21.00031.
[15] EM-DAT (2023), “International Disasters”, (database), https://www.emdat.be/publications/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
[87] Eur-Lex (2021), Technical guidance on the climate proofing of infrastructure in the period 2021-2027, Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.373.01.0001.01.ENG.
[9] European Commission (2007), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union {SEC(2007) 993} {SEC(2007) 996} /* COM/2007/0414 final */, European Commission, Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0414&from=bg.
[65] European Commission (n.d.), Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CIWIN), webpage, https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/critical-infrastructure-warning-information-network-ciwin_en (accessed on 2 February 2024).
[22] Fischer, E. et al. (2021), Post-Wildfire Damage: The 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California, Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, https://hazards.colorado.edu/quick-response-report/post-wildfire-damage.
[46] Forzieri, G. et al. (2018), “Escalating impacts of climate extremes on critical infrastructures in Europe”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 48, pp. 97-107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.007.
[28] Franke, A. (2022), “Droughts rattle Europe’s hydropower market, intensifying energy crisis”, 5 August, S&P Global Commodity Insights, https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/080522-droughts-rattle-europes-hydropower-market-intensifying-energy-crisis.
[75] Gittman, R. et al. (2015), “Engineering away our natural defenses: An analysis of shoreline hardening in the US”, Research Communications, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276275634_Engineering_away_our_natural_defenses_An_analysis_of_shoreline_hardening_in_the_US.
[21] Goss, M. et al. (2020), “Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15/9, p. 094016, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7.
[38] GSMA (2018), The 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season: Mobile Industry Impact and Response in the Caribbean, UK Aid, London, https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Mobile-Industry-Impact-and-Response-in-the-Caribbean.pdf.
[47] Hallegate, S., J. Rentschler and J. Rozenberg (2019), Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity, World Bank, Washington DC, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31805.
[34] Hall, J. et al. (2019), Adaptation of Infrastructure Systems: Background Paper for the Global Commission on Adaptation, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, https://gca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/GCA-Infrastructure-background-paperV11-refs_0.pdf.
[53] Hjort, J. et al. (2018), “Degrading permafrost puts Arctic infrastructure at risk by mid-century”, Nature Communications, Vol. 9/1, p. 5147, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07557-4.
[79] HM Treasury (2020), National Infrastructure Strategy, HM Treasury, United Kingdom, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/938051/NIS_final_print.pdf.
[57] Hu, X. et al. (2019), “Methodology and findings for the exposure analysis of the Chinese wastewater sector to flooding and earthquakes hazards”, Policy Research Working Paper, No. 8903, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-8903.
[16] IISD (2021), Advancing the Climate Resilience of Canadian Infrastructure: A Review of Literature to Inform the Way Forward, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2021-07/climate-resilience-canadian-infrastructure-en.pdf.
[77] Infrastructure Canada (2023), Codes, Standards and Guidance for Climate Resilience, webpage, https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/climate-resilience-climatique/codes-standards-normes-guidances-eng.html (accessed on 15 January 2024).
[7] IPCC (2021), “Summary for Policymakers”, in Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001.
[64] IPCC (2014), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
[58] Izaguirre, C. et al. (2021), “Climate change risk to global port operations”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 11/1, pp. 14-20, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00937-z.
[10] Jones, M. et al. (2022), “Global and regional trends and drivers of fire under climate change”, Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 60, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000726.
[74] Jonkers, H. et al. (2010), “Application of bacteria as self-healing agent for the development of sustainable concrete”, Ecological Engineering, Vol. 36/2, pp. 230-235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.12.036.
[88] Karels, J. (2019), Wildland Urban Interface: A Look at Issues and Resolutions, Federat Emergency Management Agency, US Fire Administration, Washington, DC, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/wui-issues-resolutions-report.pdf.
[42] Kenward, A., D. Yawitz and U. Raja (2013), Sewage Overflows From Hurricane Sandy, Climate Central, Princeton, New Jersey, https://superstormresearchlab.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/climate-central-sewage-overflows-from-hurricane-sandy.pdf.
[51] Khan, I., F. Alam and Q. Alam (2013), “The global climate change and its effect on power generation in Bangladesh”, Energy Policy, Vol. 61, pp. 1460-1470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.005.
[61] Khan, M., M. McComas and V. Ravi (2020), The Local Economic Impact of Flood-Resilient Infrastructure Projects, Johns Hopkins 21st Century Cities Initiative, https://assets.floodcoalition.org/2020/12/d5f501c65174d5402f4aff96e8103387-AFC-JHU-economic-impact-of-flood-resilient-infrastructure.pdf.
[12] Lindsay, R. (2022), “Climate change: Global sea level”, 19 April, Press Release, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level#:~:text=Global%20average%20sea%20level%20has,4%20inches)%20above%201993%20levels.
[66] Linkov, I. et al. (2022), “Resilience stress testing for critical infrastructure”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 82, p. 103323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103323.
[48] Linnerud, K., T. Mideksa and G. Eskeland (2011), “The impact of climate change on nuclear power supply”, The Energy Journal, Vol. 32/1, https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol32-No1-6.
[23] Li, S. and F. Otto (2022), “The role of human-induced climate change in heavy rainfall events such as the one associated with Typhoon Hagibis”, Climatic Change, Vol. 172/1-2, p. 7, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03344-9.
[52] Liu, K. et al. (2023), “Global transportation infrastructure exposure to the change of precipitation in a warmer world”, Nature Communications, Vol. 14/1, p. 2541, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38203-3.
[17] Martello, M. and A. Whittle (2023), “Estimating coastal flood damage costs to transit infrastructure under future sea level rise”, Communications Earth & Environment, Vol. 4/1, p. 137, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00804-7.
[41] McEvoy, D., I. Ahmed and J. Mullett (2012), “The impact of the 2009 heat wave on Melbourne’s critical infrastructure”, Local Environment, Vol. 17/8, pp. 783-796, https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.678320.
[45] Melvin, A. et al. (2017), “Climate change damages to Alaska public infrastructure and the economics of proactive adaptation”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 114/2, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611056113.
[85] Muzzini, E., K. Maslauskaite and K. O’Regan (2022), “From community vulnerability to resilience: The experience of European cities”, Technical Brief Series, Council of Europe Development Bank, Paris, https://coebank.org/media/documents/Technical_Brief_From_Community_Vulnerability_to_Resilience.pdf.
[73] NEDA (2023), Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, National Economic Development Agency, The Philippines, https://pdp.neda.gov.ph/philippine-development-plan-2023-2028/.
[56] NIC (2018), Preparing for a Drier Future: England’s Water Infrastructure Needs, National Infrastructure Commission, London, https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/NIC-Preparing-for-a-Drier-Future-26-April-2018.pdf.
[86] NRC (2023), “Improving access to historical and projected climatic design variables”, 27 February, Natural Research Council, Ottawa, https://nrc.canada.ca/en/stories/improving-access-historical-projected-climatic-design-variables.
[40] OCHA (2021), Philippines: Super Typhoon Rai (Odette) Humanitarian Needs and Priorities, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, New York, https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/philippines/philippines-super-typhoon-rai-odette-humanitarian-needs-and-priorities-dec-2021.
[13] OECD (2023), A Territorial Approach to Climate Action and Resilience, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1ec42b0a-en.
[67] OECD (2023), Financing Cities of Tomorrow: G20/OECD Report for the G20 Infrastructure Working Group under the Indian Presidency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/51bd124a-en.
[11] OECD (2023), Taming Wildfires in the Context of Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd00c367-en.
[80] OECD (2022), OECD and the Blue Dot Network, webpage, https://www.oecd.org/corporate/oecd-and-the-blue-dot-network.htm (accessed on 7 December 2023).
[32] OECD (2022), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/14108660-en.
[3] OECD (2021), “Building resilience: New strategies for strengthening Infrastructure resilience and maintenance”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 05, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/354aa2aa-en.
[72] OECD (2021), “Fostering climate resilience building in the Philippines: Insights from an OECD policy dialogue”, Close Up Series, OECD, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2021)15/en/pdf.
[5] OECD (2021), “OECD Implementation Handbook for Quality Infrastructure Investment: Supporting a Sustainable Recovery from the COVID-19 Crisis”, https://www.oecd.org/finance/OECD-Implementation-Handbook-for-Quality-Infrastructure-Investment.htm (accessed on 23 January 2024).
[2] OECD (2018), “Climate-resilient Infrastructure”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 14, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4fdf9eaf-en.
[69] OECD (2017), The Governance of Land Use in OECD Countries: Policy Analysis and Recommendations, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268609-en.
[4] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks, 6 May, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/risk/Critical-Risks-Recommendation.pdf.
[70] OECD (2013), Recommendation of the OECD Council on Effective Public Investment Across Levels of Government, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/recommendation-effective-public-investment-across-levels-of-government.htm.
[1] OECD/The World Bank (2019), Fiscal Resilience to Natural Disasters: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27a4198a-en.
[49] Patt, A., S. Pfenninger and J. Lilliestam (2013), “Vulnerability of solar energy infrastructure and output to climate change”, Climatic Change, Vol. 121/1, pp. 93-102, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0887-0.
[36] Prognos (2022), Schäden der Dürre- und Hitzeextreme 2018 und 2019 [Damages of the extreme heat and drought 2018 and 2019], Prognos, AG, Düsseldorf, https://www.prognos.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/Prognos_KlimawandelfolgenDeutschland_Detailuntersuchung%20Hitzesommer%2018_19_AP2_3a_.pdf.
[26] Prognos (2022), “Schäden der Sturzfluten und Überschwemmungen im Juli 2021 in Deutschland, [Damages of the Floods in July 2021 in Germany]”, Prognos, AG, Düsseldorf, https://www.prognos.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/Prognos_KlimawandelfolgenDeutschland_Detailuntersuchung%20Flut_AP2_3b_.pdf.
[27] Schumacher, D. (2022), “High temperatures exacerbated by climate change made 2022 Northern Hemisphere soil moisture droughts more likely”, World Weather Attribution, https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/WCE-NH-drought-scientific-report.pdf.
[30] Sebastian, T. (2022), “A ‘Chennai’ in every city of the world: The lethal mix of the water crisis, climate change, and governance Indifference”, Law, Technology and Humans, Vol. 4/1, pp. 79-101, https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2165.
[76] Silva Zuniga, M. et al. (2020), Increasing Infrastructure Resilience with Nature-based Solutions (NbS), Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.18235/0002325.
[8] Spinoni, J. et al. (2014), “World drought frequency, duration, and severity for 1951-2010”, International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 34/8, pp. 2792-2804, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3875.
[44] Thiele, T. et al. (2020), “Blue Infrastructure Finance: A new approach, integrating Nature-based Solutions for coastal resilience into coastal planning and investments”, Blue Natural Capital Financing Facility (BNCFF) Series, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, https://bluenaturalcapital.org/wp2018/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Blue-Infrastructure-Finance.pdf.
[25] Tradowsky, J. et al. (2023), “Attribution of the heavy rainfall events leading to severe flooding in Western Europe during July 2021”, Climatic Change, Vol. 176/7, p. 90, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03502-7.
[24] Tulane University Law School (19 March 2021), “Typhoon Hagibis and Japan’s climate change adaptation strategy”, Tulane University Law School blog, https://online.law.tulane.edu/blog/typhoon-hagibis-and-japans-climate-change-adaptation-strategy.
[68] UNDESA (2018), World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 revision, (ST/ESA/SER.A/420), United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf.
[33] Vallejo, L. and M. Mullan (2017), “Climate-resilient infrastructure: Getting the policies right”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 121, OECD Publishing. Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02f74d61-en.
[50] van Vliet, M. et al. (2016), “Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 6/4, pp. 375-380, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2903.
[20] Williams, A. et al. (2019), “Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California”, Earth’s Future, Vol. 7/8, pp. 892-910, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001210.
[14] WMO (2021), WMO Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes (1970–2019), World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/57564.
[62] World Bank and World Resources Institute (2022), “Nature-based solutions for disaster risk management”, (brochure), World Bank and World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/253401551126252092/pdf/Booklet.pdf.
[31] Zachariah, M. (2023), “Interplay of climate change-exacerbated rainfall, exposure and vulnerability led to widespread impacts in the Mediterranean region”, 19 September, World Weather Attribution, https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/interplay-of-climate-change-exacerbated-rainfall-exposure-and-vulnerability-led-to-widespread-impacts-in-the-mediterranean-region/.
[39] Zhou, B. et al. (2011), “The great 2008 Chinese ice storm: Its socioeconomic-ecological impact and sustainability lessons learned”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 92/1, pp. 47-60, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS2857.1.
Note
← 1. The annual period in which meteorological conditions are conducive to fire.