How to achieve resilience in challenging economic times

Originally published on Newsroom

We’re going to be hit by more and harsher weather events, so we must prepare. There are a range of things we can do that won’t break the bank, economically.
 

Weather events are increasing in severity and frequency, causing substantial damage to our infrastructure, transport, utilities, and private assets, with asset owners incurring additional costs to respond and recover.

New Zealand has also had high civil infrastructure cost inflation over the past three years, with many projects being reprioritised as infrastructure owners balance budgets and try to minimise costs to their stakeholders.

A 2020 report by NZIER to the Department of Internal Affairs notes the costs to government of responding to and recovering from emergencies are growing faster than government revenue and are projected to increase by over 50 percent per decade – from $0.7 billion in 2020 to $3.3 billion in 2050.

Investing early in disaster risk reduction and readiness lowers community vulnerability, decreases loss and potential suffering, reduces long-term recovery costs, and reduces the economic impact on New Zealand of these events.

So how to achieve the right level of investment in these challenging economic conditions, so we can achieve longer term resilience in New Zealand?
 

Put stakeholders and community needs at the centre

Designing to meet community needs relative to available funding can be more cost-effective and resilient than focusing solely on design standards or historic levels of service. Decision-making should be based on community needs and the required outcomes.

To understand what a community values, it is essential to communicate the resilience of assets and where the vulnerabilities are. Using a range of disaster scenarios (e.g. earthquake, volcanic eruption, varying levels of flooding) can help communities understand their vulnerabilities, so infrastructure investments can be prioritised relative to funding available and discussions held about risks that need to be reduced or possibly accepted.

Take a damaged bridge, for example. What are the outcomes desired by the community? Should it be upgraded to a higher specification, able to withstand increasingly intense flood events but expensive to repair if damaged again? Or is a low-level, floodable ford acceptable if the community is willing to accept temporary access disruptions but with a faster simpler recovery time designed in?

Roads, bridges, and other types of community infrastructure should be assessed by their levels of resilience for the community they serve, so the available funding can be prioritised around known risks and likely scenarios.

In the UK, a railway line beside a river regularly floods. To reduce vulnerability, the electronic signalling equipment has been raised above flood levels for protection. However, the track alignment remains unchanged, as moving or re-engineering it would be too costly. With the most vulnerable asset of the signalling equipment protected, train services can resume within ~24 hours after flooding.

Commuters now understand it is likely there will be disruptions during heavy rain but anticipate normal services within 24 hours once conditions improve.

In Australia, some businesses opt not to invest in protecting or hardening their assets in bushfire-prone areas, and instead focus on vegetation management and a backup or warehouse with necessary spares for a fast response and quick recovery.

Both examples demonstrate resilience, with an ability to respond quickly and recover to provide a level of service that meets desired community outcomes.
 

Understand dependencies

Many types of community infrastructure are also part of a wider connected network, often relying on other critical assets (e.g. power substations).

In times of disaster, this dependency can have significant flow on effects. Cyclone Gabrielle highlighted this when many cell towers were undamaged, but power outages and landslips affected fibre optic cables, and an inability to access these for repair left communities isolated with no phone or internet access.

This connectivity loss hindered access to information, emergency services, and disrupted payment systems like EFTPOS.

To be resilient, it’s crucial to understand these broader dependencies, as it may be more cost-effective for organisations to focus on the ‘circuit breakers’ that can cause significant flow-on effects.

In many cases, this will mean organisations working together to uncover the interdependencies and better plan for overall resilience. This could also introduce opportunities for pooling limited resources for mutual benefit.
 

Introduce flexibility into risk responses

Long-term uncertainty calls for short-term solutions that remain flexible and affordable.

In economically constrained times, we want to avoid locking ourselves into costly adaptation and resilience measures that might not be necessary or effective as the environment changes.

Dynamic Adaptive Pathway Planning (DAPP) is a method that allows multiple scenarios and uncertainties to be considered, creating a roadmap of responses to implement as conditions evolve. A key aspect of DAPP is the ongoing monitoring of signals and triggers for change, allowing decisions to adjust pathways and avoid unacceptable risks or thresholds being reached.

This planning approach ensures short term decisions remain adaptable, preventing being ‘locked in’ to a long-term investment that cannot adjust to change and achieve desired outcomes.
 

Social cohesion and community involvement

Communities with strong social networks are often more resilient to climate change.

Low-lying Pacific Island communities have been adapting to climate impacts for decades, offering valuable insights into building resilience, especially with limited resources.

For example, the strong social cohesion in some Pacific Island communities means they share their resources effectively, like with their water supply.

Investing in community engagement and local community facilities, such as community gardens or community back-up water supply, can encourage stronger social cohesion and reduce the need for private investment or significant infrastructure upgrades. 
 

Involve Māori communities in resilience planning disaster responses

John Blyth of Te Ahi Tūtata (the Māori business team at Beca) notes that Māori communities have historically responded well to disaster situations and resilience planning, continuing to do so today with little to no funding.

Many marae and hapū have had to shoulder the cost themselves when their marae have flooded in the past, and yet are often the first to house and feed people in times of need. Marae, likely due to their tradition of hospitality, often become default emergency shelters, even if they aren’t fully equipped to handle large groups during disasters.

It’s therefore important local iwi are resourced and involved in emergency planning and resilience efforts, to better support communities and facilitate community-led responses to disasters.
 

Resilience needn’t break the bank

Many see climate adaptation and disaster response as costly, particularly in times of funding constraints. However, there are effective ways to reduce costs over time and enhance resilience without spending a lot of money upfront.

By focusing on desired outcomes, making flexible long-term decisions, and supporting communities’ natural resilience, we can avoid the high costs associated with escalating climate impacts.