doi:10.1111/j.0361-3666.2007.01007.

Realising a resilient and sustainable

built environment: towards a strategic
agenda for the United Kingdom
Lee Bosher, Patricia Carrillo, Andrew Dainty, Jacqueline Glass and
1
Andrew Price

Recent natural and human-induced emergencies have highlighted the vulnerability of the built
environment. Although most emergency events are not entirely unexpected, and the effects can
be mitigated, emergency managers in the United Kingdom have not played a sufficiently pro­
active role in the mitigation of such events. If a resilient and sustainable built environment is to
be achieved, emergency management should be more proactive and receive greater input from the
stakeholders responsible for the planning, design, construction and operation of the built environ­
ment.This paper highlights the need for emergency management to take a more systematic approach
to hazard mitigation by integrating more with professions from the construction sector. In parti­
cular, design changes may have to be considered, critical infrastructures must be protected, planning
policies should be reviewed, and resilient and sustainable agendas adopted by all stakeholders.

Keywords: construction, critical infrastructure, emergency management, resilience

Introduction
Designing, constructing and operating resilient built assets demands an in-depth inte­
grated understanding of how to avoid and mitigate the effects of emergencies and
disasters in order to secure a resilient and sustainable future for the built environment.2
Resilience should be systematically built into the planning and design processes rather
than added on as an afterthought. However, the extent to which this is being achieved—
in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—is unclear.
  In recent years some advances have been made to incorporate the roles of construc-
tion professionals into debates about climate change3 and sustainability.4 However, inte­
grating the construction professions into the processes associated with emergency
management has been largely neglected (Spence and Kelman, 2004). Current and
potential threats must be considered when planning, building and maintaining built
assets and critical infrastructure.The concept of emergency management begins with
the realisation that many emergencies are not unexpected but stem from:

The predictable result of interactions among three major systems: the physical environment,
which includes hazardous events; the social and demographic characteristics of the communi­
ties that experience them; and the buildings, roads, bridges and other components of the
constructed environment (Mileti, 1999, p. 3).

Disasters, 2007, 31(3): 236−255. © 2007 The Author(s). Journal compilation © Overseas Development Institute, 2007.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 237

  Although many emergency events are not entirely unexpected and can therefore
be mitigated, emergency management does not currently play a sufficiently proactive
role. Amid growing concern about the safety and security of the UK’s civil infrastruc­
ture in relation to natural and human-induced threats, this paper explores the value of
developing a more integrated and proactive multi-stakeholder approach to pre-emergency
event planning and post-emergency event resolution.

Emergency management
Traditionally, emergency management has been motivated by immediate challenges or
a response to single events (Schneider, 2002) while the profession has also been con-
strained by indifference or outright opposition to long-term planning. The United
Nations adopted a concept of emergency management that combines activities in five
phases:

a) pre-emergency preventive and mitigating actions;

b) formulation of emer­gency plans and preparedness activities;
c) emergency relief interventions;
d) short-term recovery and rehabilitation; and
e) longer-term reconstruction (UNOCHA, 1997).

  However, only the relief and recovery phases of emergency events receive much atten­
tion from the public or the media. Schneider (2002) states that emergency management is
seen largely as a reactive profession because hazard mitigation is rarely regarded as urgent:

Policy makers and stakeholders alike tend to underestimate hazard potentials.They see a
low probability of hazard occurrence, are reluctant to impose limitations on private property,
often unwilling to bear the costs incurred by mitigation plans, and frequently are ambivalent
toward hazard mitigation, because they see it as being in conflict with other values and goals
(Schneider, 2002, p. 144).

  Emergency management must be placed in a holistic setting and new initiatives

should be taken to ensure that emergency management duties are seen as a shared
responsibility that not only mitigates potential hazards, but also embraces the sustain-
ability agenda (Trim, 2004). Sustainable development is ‘development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). Therefore, sustainable development is focused not
merely on environmental management, but also on social and economic management—
from household to international level. Emergency management should be concerned
with people’s capacity to manage their natural and built environment, and to take
advantage of it in a manner that safeguards their, and their children’s, futures (Walker,
1989).This shared responsibility can be achieved partly by integrating with construc-
tion industry professionals who possess knowledge and experience of how to design,
build, retrofit and operate what are typically bespoke built assets.
238  Lee Bosher et al.

The British construction industry

By and large, the built environment is designed, built and maintained by the construc­
tion industry, which can be defined as ‘all those firms involved directly in the design
and construction of buildings’ (Morton, 2002, p. 39) and includes civil engineering
and infrastructure work such as roads, bridges and railways. The British construction
industry is worth some GBP 65 billion a year, accounts for 8 per cent of gross domestic
product, and employs some 1.9 million people (NAO, 2001). Construction is typically
characterised as a predominately site-based process of creating structures out of con-
stituent raw materials and components, perhaps including some office-based design
work. Although these are important processes, the practice of construction depends
on a complex network of relations between numerous organisations including con-
tractors, suppliers, specialist sub-contractors and architects as well as a wide range of
designers and engineers, factory-based fabricators and clients. One of the main prob-
lems encountered when investigating the construction industry and its associated
tech­nologies is how to map the fluid relations between all these players and interme-
diaries, each of which make their own distinctive input into the process of building
(Moore and Dainty, 2004). Morton (2002) believes that typically professionals in the
construc­tion industry are fragmented from profession to profession.This fragmentation
is exacerbated because some professionals are self-employed and/or subcontractors.
Architects, surveyors and engineers are usually employed from outside construction
firms as independent consultants and are liable to be disenfranchised from other pro-
fessions (Morton, 2002, p. 97).
  Relationships between the construction industry and government departments have
often been characterised by conflict and mistrust, and this has contributed to poor
performance (NAO, 2001). Morton (2002) believes that there are 10 points of contact
between the government and the building industry, one of which is ‘the state as facili-
tator’. In its role as a facilitator the government has gone some way towards integrating
construction professions by bringing people together in the Strategic Forum for
Construction—chaired by Sir John Egan (Morton, 2002). However, it is clear that, in
addition to a need for construction industry professionals to integrate and establish
the ‘virtual company’, it is also important to integrate the needs of clients into the
agenda.5 While considering the needs of stakeholders, such as clients and end users,
it is important to appreciate the extent to which they understand and embrace the
agendas for a resilient and sustainable built environment.
  The construction industry is not only a critical component of the nation’s economy,
it is also a fundamental factor in the quality of people’s lives and the ability of the
government to achieve many of its policy aims. However, the construction industry
has not been sufficiently involved in preparedness planning and the mitigation of
natural and human-induced hazards (Spence and Kelman, 2004). Construction indus-
try disciplines should become more integrated not only within the industry, but also
with other professions such as emergency managers. Perhaps the most significant area
to which the construction industry could make a positive contribution to emergency
management is the protection of critical infrastructures.
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 239

Critical infrastructures
Critical infrastructures are physical and cyber-based systems that are essential to the key
operations of the economy and government. These systems are deemed so vital that
their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating effect on the defence, eco-
nomic security and health of local or national administrations and populations.Types
of critical infrastructure include:

a) information and communications networks;

b) government services;
c) banking and finance;
d) water supply;
e) electrical power, oil and gas production and storage;
f ) transport networks;
g) emergency services; and
h) public health services.

  The focus of this paper is predominantly on the physical systems that are essential to
the minimum operation of the economy and government, such as transport networks,
emergency services, the energy and water supply and public health services. Tradi-
tionally, these physical systems have been designed, built and maintained by the myriad
professions involved with the construction industry. If critical infrastructures are to be
protected from natural and human-induced hazards, there is a pressing need for archi­
tects, urban planners, structural and civil engineers, materials suppliers, surveyors, con­
tractors and clients to be made more aware of the importance of building resilient and
sustainable infrastructures.This could be achieved by more effectively integrating the
roles of construction industry professionals with emergency management activities in
a way that builds on both sectors’ existing knowledge and experience of the range of
hazards that threaten the UK’s built environment.

Threats to the built environment

Threats to the built environment in the UK are diverse and include extreme natural
hazards, such as floods and storms, and human-induced hazards, such as terrorist attacks,
explosions at industrial facilities and mass transportation accidents.Typically, these hazards
cause minor disruption to the economy, infrastructure and residents of the UK but some
commentators (e.g. UKCIP, 2002; Keane, 2005) believe that the magnitude and frequency
of these extreme events are increasing. As such, current and potential future threats need
to be considered when planning, building and maintaining the built environment.

Fluvial and pluvial flooding

Approximately 10,000km² (8 per cent of the total area) of land in England is at risk from
fluvial flooding, including tidal rivers and estuaries (DTLR, 2001). An estimated five
million people, two million homes and 185,000 businesses are at risk from flooding
240  Lee Bosher et al.

in England and Wales every year. The total value of exposed property, land and assets
amounts to GBP 214 billion (Crichton, 2005a).The risk of flooding in the UK has been
amplified by changes to river hydrology caused by human activity, and partly by the
increased development of areas at risk. Urban drainage is increasingly recognised as the
‘Achilles heel’ of flood management systems (UKCIP/EPSRC, 2003).This is because
the run-off of rainfall in urban areas cannot follow a natural path and is usually con-
strained in completely artificial systems. The run-off problem is exacerbated by a
combination of an ageing infrastructure and climate change. Changes in water usage
over the lifetime of many older drainage systems already mean that they have little
surplus capacity.

Storms
In much of the UK buildings are not currently designed to withstand storms of the
severity experienced in other parts of Europe (LCCP, 2002).This is an issue that should
be considered in more depth, particularly if the UK Government’s Communities and
Local Government (CLG) proposal to construct ‘affordable houses’ at a build cost of
GBP 60,000 becomes a reality. The level of damage varies according to building type,
age and configuration. Spence et al. (1998) concludes that the older the building, the more
vulnerable it is to wind damage. Conversely, Crichton (2005b) concludes that modern
buildings in England and Wales are much more vulnerable to damage than older ones,
mainly because older buildings were ‘over engineered’ while modern ones are built to
building standards and codes that are not sufficiently in tune with resilience issues.

Coastal erosion
Approximately 30 per cent of the British coastline has been developed and some 2,500km²
of land (1.5 percent of the total coastal area) is at risk of direct flooding from the sea
(DEFRA, 2001). The direct impacts of coastal erosion can result in loss of life linked
to storm surges and landslips, major capital losses through loss of coastal property, and
disruption and damage to rail and road networks located near the coast, possibly necessi­
tating protection or realignment at huge cost.

Climate change
According to UKCIP/EPSRC (2003), by the 2050s average annual temperatures are
likely to have increased by between 1ºC and 3ºC, accompanied by a likely shift to
drier summers and wetter winters over much of the country. Other climate variables,
such as solar radiation, wind, humidity and evaporation, will also be affected and un-
dergo changes to their seasonal variations. Sea-level rises could provide an increasing
challenge to developments located in coastal areas. Inevitably, such changes will have,
and are already beginning to have, major consequences for the built environment,
particularly critical infrastructures.The potential impacts of climate change on anthro­
pogenic systems, of anthropogenic systems on natural systems, and their subsequent
influences on natural and human-induced disasters are illustrated in figure 1.
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 241

Figure 1 Potential relationships between climate change and natural and human-
induced hazards

  Ewins (1999) predicted in 1999 that the climate change prognosis to 2050 was: 1.5˚C
warmer; 8 per cent wetter than in 1961–90; sea levels 35 cm higher; wetter in northern
Britain but drier in the south; gale frequencies to increase by up to 30 per cent; and
increased probability that storm surges will exceed given thresholds. Salthouse (2002)
states that the probability of hot summers in the southern part of the UK increases
from 6 per cent in 1990 to between 56 per cent and 100 per cent in 2080. Palmer and
Rälsänen (2002) reports the authors’ probabilistic analysis of 19 global climate model
simulations and concludes that winter precipitation in the UK could increase five-fold
in the next 100 years. UKCIP (2002) predicts a possible increase in winter peak river
flows of up to 20 per cent by 2050 because of climate change—the Association of British
Insurers (ABI) suggests that this would approximately double flood risk (ABI, 2004).
  Increasing urbanisation, in the form of urban expansion and densification, has re-
sulted in a decline in the proportional cover of green space (EEA, 2002). This has
increased pressure on the urban ecosystem, affecting surface temperatures, storm water
run-off, carbon storage and biodiversity (Whitford et al., 2001; Pauleit and Duhme,
2000). Climate change and urban densification are partly dependent on lifestyle choices,
but climatic changes may facilitate, inhibit or accentuate lifestyle choices. Therefore,
threats from events such as flooding, droughts, windstorms and heatwaves are likely
to increase because of the pressures of climate change. The ‘Stern Review’ (Cabinet
Office/H.M.Treasury, 2006) warns of a bleak future for the planet if societies and the
built environment do not adapt to address the implications of a changing climate. The
review goes as far as to state that the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh
the economic costs of inaction. The implications of any ‘strong and early action’ will
pose important questions for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of the
UK’s built environment and the protection of critical infrastructures.
242  Lee Bosher et al.

  Consequently, when designing buildings, infrastructure and communities, it is im­

por­tant to plan for future climatic conditions throughout the design life of the devel­
opment—and not just for the current climate. This should be seen as a commercial
opportunity for professionals involved with the built environment. Well-designed
buildings, properly protected from the hazards associated with climate change, will be
easier to sell or let and could also command higher prices. Opportunities are therefore
available for organisations to position themselves as market leaders in the climate-
related ‘future-proofing’ of buildings, thereby presenting a means of attracting new
customers and gaining a competitive edge.

Terrorist attacks
In the context of attaining a resilient and sustainable built environment in the UK,
one of the most high profile societal threats is that of terrorism. Moor (2002) notes
that human settlements are designed to protect their inhabitants against attack by
intelligent hostile elements. At the same time, the technology of war aims to counter­
act such defences. It is probable that socio-economic progress makes settlements more
vulnerable because they become more reliant on increasingly extended supply lines and
ever-expanding vital distribution networks of water, power, gas and telecommunica-
tions. Public social and security infrastructures such as health facilities, civil defence
and the police also become particularly critical to survival. Moreover, globalisation
increases the interconnectedness of major settlements to the extent that a disaster in one
settlement can precipitate widespread disruption in many others. Increasingly, acts of
terrorism are threatening communities worldwide (Keane, 2005) and in the past few
years attacks have occurred on ‘soft’ (non-military) targets in Morocco, Spain,Turkey,
the United Kingdom and the United States.
  In addition to the list of critical infrastructures given above, the following should
also be considered potential terrorist targets: a) energy generation and distribution instil-
lations; b) petroleum and chemical infrastructures; c) economic institutions; d) water
storage and distribution networks; e) critical government services; f ) symbols of national
achievement and culture; and g) large scale public events.
  The implications of terrorist threats for the security and sustainability of the UK’s
infrastructure are difficult to quantify. However, while it is right to question whether
it is ‘possible to design a building to withstand an impact from a plane not yet invented
in a scenario no one can imagine, not once, but twice, on a blue sky Tuesday morning’
(Lakha and Moore, 2002, p. 81), further research into the design, construction and
retrofitting of the built environment is obviously justified. For example, the planning
of the 2012 Olympic Games in London will have to embrace fully an agenda that miti-
gates the threats of terrorism and integrates the protection of critical infrastructures.

Inappropriate planning
Theoretically, the planning system attempts to allocate appropriate land for appropriate
purposes while taking account of threats to that land, the use of adjoining land and
the needs of the local population. Realistically, the role of the planning system—resolving
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 243

contradictions and deep-rooted conflicts between competing private interests over the
use and development of land, on the one hand, and public and community interests
over property rights and development priorities, on the other—is an impossible one
(Gillingwater and Ison, 2003, p. 561). Monbiot (2000) states that the planning system
in the UK is biased in favour of developers to the detriment of local communities
because only developers can appeal against local authorities’ planning decisions. In con-
trast, in every other country in the European Union local people can use the planning
system to object to planning decisions (Monbiot, 2000).
  Competing pressures are demonstrated by the current situation regarding planning
guidance and the need for more land in the UK to build more homes. Plank (2005)
states that nearly 4 million new homes are needed in the UK over the next 15 years.
Current government guidance, such as ‘Planning Policy Guidance 3’ (PPG 3, ODPM,
2000) aims to redevelop ‘brownfield’ sites before looking at ‘greenfield’ options.Accord-
ing to Planning Policy Guidance 256 (PPG 25, DTLR, 2001), previously developed
areas in locations at risk of flooding should be given preference over undeveloped or
sparsely developed areas.The Barker report (2004) speculates about the limitations of
an approach that prefers developing ‘brownfield’ sites over ‘greenfield’ sites in relation
to housing development, and whether broader sustainability criteria should be applied
to land use decisions.The ABI believes that the principle aim of PPG 25 should be to
ensure that new development does not cause any net increase in flood risk for the area
(ABI, 2004).

The contribution of the construction industry

Emergency management in the UK must become more proactive if a resilient and
sustainable built environment is to be achieved and critical infrastructures are to be
protected. One way in which emergency managers can become more proactive is by
adopting an agenda that encourages the integration of professions from the construc-
tion industry. There is currently little commentary from emergency management,
construction or civil defence-related literature on the contribution of the construction
industry to the mitigation of natural and human-induced hazards. Nonetheless, it is
fair to state that the construction industry has not been sufficiently involved with emer-
gency management to date because:

1. Involvement in emergency management has largely been outside the remit and eco-
nomics of construction activity, unless specific initiatives have been imposed by the
government through legislation (Lorch, 2005).At the same time emergency managers
have not been sufficiently proactive in making use of the knowledge and skills that
construction professionals can offer.
2. The construction industry, in common with most industries, typically does what
it needs to do in order to meet the required specifications, which are usually set by
government legislation, while maximising profits.
244  Lee Bosher et al.

3. The myriad professions involved with the construction process have found it diffi­cult
to integrate with each other, let alone with other professions outside the industry
(DETR, 1998; Morton, 2002).
4. There has not been sufficient research spending in the industry on the strategies
required to mitigate the threats discussed above (DTLR, 2002).

  A summary of the built environment systems at risk from natural and human-induced
hazards and the actions required to mitigate these hazards is provided in table 1. Pro-
fessionals involved with the construction industry can make a significant contribution
to many of the actions listed, such as making initial design changes and using retrofit-
ting techniques to mitigate the effects of flooding, storms and climate change. Some of
these actions are expanded on below.

Table 1 Summary of the built environment systems at risk from a range of hazards,
their associated impacts and the actions required

Built environment systems at risk: Need to reduce impacts of: Actions required:

• Municipal buildings • Flood risk to structures • Consider design changes

• Residential buildings • Terrorist risk to structures • Review land-use planning policy

• Commercial/industrial buildings • Poor conditions in internal • Integrate construction professions

environment with emergency planning

• Transport infrastructure • Subsidence and heave • Broach sustainability and the

contradiction between low cost and
quality housing

• Utilities infrastructure • Slope instability • Research alternative options

regarding resilient materials and
practices

• Healthcare infrastructure • Damage to the structure and fabric • Integrate emergency planning with
of buildings/infrastructure urban planning

• Sustainable working practices • Over burdened urban drainage • Retrofit ‘at risk’ buildings and
systems infrastructure

• Insurance availability • Inappropriate planning consent • Learn from and adopt best practice

• Heritage buildings/infrastructure • Poor practice and lack of integrated • Embrace the sustainability agenda
approach

• Availability of suitable land

Innovation and knowledge

The resilience agenda must be embraced by all stakeholders including government agen-
cies, planners, architects, designers, structural and civil engineers, developers, suppliers
of construction materials, building operators and last but not least the clients. Buildings
and infrastructure should be designed to maximise their resilience to a range of hazards
and to minimise damage to critical infrastructures such as transport and power supplies.
The decisions taken now will determine the burdens that future generations inherit.
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 245

Therefore, communities and industry must be equipped to address the root causes of
disasters and to undertake the complex work of arriving at a negotiated consensus
about which losses are acceptable, which are unacceptable, and what types of action
they are willing to take (Mileti, 1999).To get anywhere near to achieving such a nego­
tiated consensus, there is a need to improve the level of natural and human-induced
risk and hazard awareness through the professional training and development of archi­
tects, planners, engineers, developers, and so on.
  It has been proposed that incentives should be provided for proactive building design
that mitigates for disaster events (including the potential effects of climate change) such
as tax breaks for constructing buildings to disaster resistant standards (Keane, 2005).
The construction sector should embrace and pre-empt regulatory changes regarding
resilient and sustainable construction and use these as an opportunity for competition
in the sector, nationally and globally, and as a ‘reputation damage’ avoidance measure.
  The possible impacts of climate change should be considered when decisions are
made about the location, materials used, processes and operational requirements of
the present and future built environment. Expertise in the form of innovative design,
materials and building techniques should be systematically incorporated into discus-
sions about how to build and operate sustainable and resilient built assets, particularly
critical infrastructures. For example, if buildings are to be constructed in flood risk
areas, then why not build them from water resilient materials and with integral flood
defence measures at ground level? Research agendas focused on the impact of cli-
mate change on the UK’s built environment will have to continue and possibly be
accelerated. Research must focus on the development of appropriate construction
materials and processes and the possible impact of these on resilience and sustainability
requirements.

Operational elements
The operational elements of emergency management are largely related to the plan-
ning, knowledge, skills and resources required to respond to an emergency situation
or emergency events. There is evidence of the ways in which construction industry
professionals helped police and the emergency services after the terrorist attacks in
London on 7 July 2005 by providing equipment to assist the police with their search
and rescue activities (Building, 2005).This example illustrates one role that construction
professionals can play in responding to emergency events and highlights opportunities
for construction consultancies to specialise in post-event response and rehabilitation
activities. Other operational elements include the provision of clear and up-to-date
information and schematics of buildings and infrastructure affected by emergency
events, the development of a database of local and regional resources such as heavy plant
and specialist tools that could be used in site clearance or search and rescue operations,
and a register of trained and skilled personnel, such as building surveyors, structural
engineers and demolition experts, who could assist with assessments of the effects of
emergency events on structures.
246  Lee Bosher et al.

Planning
The location of a development is largely defined by the availability of land and the
desire of a developer and/or national or local authority to build residential, commer­
cial, public or industrial assets. Some 27 per cent of new housing is located in flood
hazard areas (Crichton, 2005b), and it is pertinent to consider why the government or
a developer would want to build on such risky sites.7 Flooding is the most frequent and
costly threat to homes in the UK. (DTLR, 2001) Climate change is likely to increase
this problem (Crichton, 2005c).The planning of sustainable communities and critical
infrastructures must take account of flood risk because the government’s proposals
could increase the national cost of flooding by GBP 55 million per year (ABI, 2005).
Consequently, it is important to educate developers—including government agencies—
about the risk posed by flooding to proposed developments, rather than relying on a
planning system that is too weak to fight the competing pressures that are highlighted
in this paper. Much of this risk could be reduced through sensible planning, innova-
tive design and improved local defences. Planning should be a key element of the
activities of the government, emergency managers and the construction industry to
secure the future of the UK’s built environment because planning underpins decisions
about what is built and where it is built.

Legislation
Vivian et al. (2005) states that few construction guidance documents, either in the UK
or more broadly across Europe, indicate clearly that the potential impacts of climate
change have been considered in their development—although some recently amended
documents such as the Building Standards have taken climate change into consider­a­
tion.The Eurocodes do not specifically discuss the impacts of climate change, but there
is provision for regional variations in climatic conditions, such as wind or snow maps,
to be taken into consideration in their application (Vivian et al., 2005).8
  If the UK is to attain a resilient and sustainable built environment the first priority
must concern the location and design of future buildings and large-scale developments
(Crichton, 2005c). These should be located in areas least vulnerable to severe weather
and rises in sea levels, and the buildings should be designed to minimise their carbon
emissions and vulnerability to the elements, or damage to infrastructure such as trans-
port and power supplies. Consultation with insurers, combined with simple and low
cost government measures, could bring a huge amount of expertise to the table in order
to reduce problems in the future (Crichton, 2005a). Participation and partnerships must
therefore be expanded to enable lessons to be learned from past experiences.

Regulatory initiatives
Spence (2004) argues that the regulatory side of managing risks from natural hazards,
such as statutory building codes, works in some circumstances but tends to reduce risk
unevenly. At the same time, such codes are difficult to apply consistently because of
their complexity. Nevertheless, legislation is needed to support technical programmes,
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 247

such as strengthening existing buildings against loads, while insurance schemes have the
potential to contribute significantly to mitigation efforts. Initiatives from the construc-
tion industry could focus on policy amendments and technical innovations. According
to Spence and Kelman, protecting buildings from the threat of natural hazards ‘is often
regarded as a relatively small part of the task of building sustainably, but it is an impor-
tant part and that importance is growing’ (Spence and Kelman, 2004, p. 365).
  One way in which legislative changes, technical innovation and expanding partner­
ships could be integrated into the construction process could be through the use of
Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). PFIs have been widely criticised in some circles (see
Monbiot, 2000) as an inefficient way for the government to finance public projects
such as schools, hospitals and roads. However, the long-term costing involved with
PFI projects could provide an opportunity for the private companies involved to forge
partnerships in the industry and incorporate whole-life performance into the resilience
of the structures that are to be built. Rather than building an asset and then moving
off site with no regard to its future use and resilience, those organisations awarded
PFI contracts have a vested interest in ensuring that the operational and maintenance
costs of the built assets are minimised during the 20–30 years that they are responsible
for the school, hospital, motorway, and so on. These possibilities can become policy
if the government is proactive enough to combine PFI projects, particularly those that
involve critical infrastructure, with long-term visions that encompass resilient and sus-
tainable structures.

The integration of professions

The discussion above alludes to the multiplicity of disciplines involved in the construc-
tion industry that should be more involved in emergency management. Lorch (2005)
believes that some of the non-technological problems of emergency planning are a
demonstration of the disciplinary boundaries in the scientific community and between
the scientific community and the policy community. Consequently, there is a need for
policy-makers, practitioners and the academic community to understand that hazard
and risk reduction and emergency management should be more integrated than in
the past. Hazard mitigation in urban planning is more than a niche issue in the con-
struction industry and knowledge about disruptive events must be incorporated into
the mainstream emergency-management process (Lorch, 2005). Involving construction-
related stakeholders in Regional Resilience Teams and Forums could facilitate this
integration.9
  Research communities will also need to be more integrated if the temporal concepts
of life-cycle planning, and the impacts of hazards are to be better understood in the
future. Lorch (2005) believes that higher education and training can play a major part
in the integration of sustainable development, as well as hazard, vulnerability and risk
reduction principles into the domain of built environment studies and asks, ‘Should
we be investigating the capabilities of the built environment under extreme circum-
stances as well as subtle, protracted circumstances?’ (Lorch, 2005, p. 210). For example,
248  Lee Bosher et al.

in Europe a lot of work has been done to re‑educate architects to design eco-friendly
and more resilient buildings, which not only have lower carbon emissions, but are also
more resistant to floods and storms (Roaf et al., 2005).

Impediments to integration
Multidisciplinary integration appears to be the ‘holy grail’ necessary to maximise the
knowledge and skills required to achieve a resilient and sustainable built environment.
Trim (2004) highlights a number of important considerations related to an integrated
approach to emergency management and the differences between, and sometimes
competing priorities of, those involved. For example, people involved with the fiscal
elements of local authority administration may be reluctant to invest more than they
feel necessary in mitigating the effects of extreme events that may never occur, especially
if governmental funding for emergency planning is not ‘ring fenced’. There are also
key conflicts in the planning process between the requirements of the local authority,
current residents, future residents and developers (see box 1, which is a simplification of
a complex set of interactions).
  The integration of construction and emergency management professionals requires
the input of civil engineers, architects, town and transport planners, building surveyors,
draughtspersons, building inspectors, quantity surveyors, materials suppliers, contractors,
clients, government agencies, emergency planners, healthcare trusts, the emergency
services and utilities companies, to name a few, as well the various institutions and
organisations that represent the stakeholders discussed above. However, it is important
to recognise that essential differences exist between professional people from different
cultures (Pavlica and Thorpe, 1998).
  Indeed, differences exist between the disparate professionals working in the area of
emergency management (Trim, 2004) and construction (Morton, 2002) because an indi­
vidual’s identity is formed by history, tradition, politics and education and is further
influenced by management learning and development. It is shaped also by factors
associated with organisational change (Pavlica and Thorpe, 1998) and types and methods

Box 1 An example of conflicting priorities

Developers that want to build a residential housing estate in the leafy suburbs will typically prefer to develop a
‘greenfield’ site rather than a ‘brownfield’ site (that may need expensive remediation work and be located near
‘unattractive’ industrial units that may still be operational). This will inevitably put pressures on a planning system
that, some have suggested, is weak and favours the desires of the developer over the local resident. Developers
may also wish to use the cheapest and the least ‘environmentally friendly’ materials because competition from rival
developers means they need to put short-term profits before long-term sustainability. The design of the homes may
not embrace new designs and technologies because such innovations are perceived by the developer to be more
expensive than traditional well-established approaches and the designs may not be what the client wants. The
client also wants value for money—a situation exacerbated by the relatively high average house prices in the UK.
The suburban or ‘out of town’ location of the housing estate will typically mean that the residents of the estate will
rely more on private transport unless the local authority or private transport companies invest in extended public
transport links. The problems associated with these scenarios are exacerbated when planning permission has been
granted on land that is at risk of flooding.
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 249

Table 2 A selection of key threats to the UK and the scope of actions required

Examples of Key actions

Key Threats
Legislation Planning Innovation Knowledge
[examples of]

Generic Regulatory require- Integrate emergency Establish a database to Integrate risk and
ments for the off-site planning and urban enable the provision hazard awareness
retention of documents planning of accurate and up-to- training into the pro-
related to the design, Integrate construction date information/ fessional training of
construction, operation, professions with the schematics to emer- architects, planners,
maintenance and modi- urban and emergency gency responders engineers, developers,
fication of buildings planning processes Use PFI projects as etc
Overhaul insurance New developments exemplars for resilient Encourage innovation
strategies and schemes that are inappropri- and sustainable whole and competitiveness
to promote both miti- ately located without life costing initiatives Clients and consumers
gation and adaptation. sufficient mitigation Consider role of con- should be made aware
Provide financial incen- measures should be struction professions of the benefits of
tives to companies that refused insurance and equipment in resilient and sustain-
embrace the resilient cover or have very emergency planning able built assets in
and sustainable con- large flood excesses and response activities contrast to the ‘lowest
struction agendas applied to them. The construction sector price’ options
should embrace and
pre-empt regulatory
changes regarding
resilient and sustain-
able construction and
use them as an oppor-
tunity for competition
within the sector,
nationally and globally
and as a ‘reputation
damage’ avoidance
measure

Floods Strategic Risk Assess­ The Environment Developers should The impacts of in-
ments should be Agency (EA) should be carry out detailed creased precipitation
required for Regional made a statutory Flood Risk Assessments on hard surface run-
Spatial Strategies and consultee for all new to inform the master- off and stresses on the
Local Development developments (includ- planning and design drainage system need
Documents in hazard ing redevelopments) of new developments to be considered
risk locations in flood risk locations, or redevelopments All stakeholders need
Incorporate flood accompanied by a with flood issues to understand when
resilience measures transparent reporting Restricting the ground- and why a decision
into building design process floor space to flood- has gone against an
codes Local Authorities should compatible uses, EA objection
The PPG 25 sequential carefully consider plan- e.g. car-parking and Research alternative
test should be strength­ ning applications for increased usage of options regarding flood
ened to take explicit developments in flood SuDS resistant materials and
account of climate risk locations, and only Raising the ground designs
change in flood plan- grant planning permis- floor above the likely Educate the public
ning zones sions once satisfied flood level. about flood protection
that all the major
Buildings with their options for individual
sources of flooding
own integral flood properties.
have been adequately
defence measures such
mitigated
as door flood guards
and airbrick covers
250  Lee Bosher et al.

Storms Incorporate storm Developments based Consider innovative Structural engineers

resilience measures in storm risk areas design changes to need to review resil-
into building design could be encouraged structures built in ient construction and
codes to plant natural wind zones prone to storm design requirements
breaks such as trees events, such as in- for roofs and cladding
creased load require-
ments for roofs and
external cladding

Coastal Extra defences will be The EA should be The adaptation strate- Structural engineers
erosion required for the channel made a statutory gies required to mitigate need to review resil-
ports and extra pro- consultee for all new the effects of coastal ient construction and
tection required for developments (includ- erosion are likely to be design requirements
nuclear power stations ing redevelopments) similar to those required for sea defences,
located on the coast in locations at risk for flood and storm building facades, roofs
from coastal erosion, risks and external cladding
accompanied by a
transparent reporting
process

Climate Legislation required to The EA should be Materials used for Research alternative
change drive the resilience made a statutory fixtures and fittings options for resilient
agenda consultee for all new will have to be tested materials, designs and
Legislation is needed developments (includ- to assess their resil- practices
to support technical ing redevelopments) ience to a wide range Use Foresight Panels
programmes, such as in locations at risk of potential hazards and processes to deliver
strengthening existing from coastal erosion, Increase insulation future strategic options
buildings against loads floods and storms, levels to reduce artificial and recommendations
accompanied by a heating and cooling
transparent reporting costs
process
Maximise profits by
reducing on-site
wastage

Note
Terrorism has not been included in this table because most of the legislative, planning, innovation and knowledge issues are
likely to be building, service or site specific.

of employment (Morton, 2002). Bresnen et al. (2005) have explored the social capital
in construction firms that derives from the network of social relationships in which
people are embedded. They state that their case study findings lend weight to the
argument that social capital is of benefit to organisations and an important potential
source of value creation for firms. Innovative processes are facilitated by or even de-
pendent on extended networks of social contacts, the creation of dialogues and shared
meaning and the establishment of appropriate norms to govern interactions (Bresnen
et al., 2005). However, on the negative side, shared systems of meaning can exclude
alternative views or sources of knowledge from outside the community.
  Table 2 provides a summary of some of the key threats as well as some examples of
the actions that must be considered if the threats highlighted in this paper are to be
mitigated. The actions outlined in table 2 illustrate the broad range of disciplines,
public agencies and private companies that should become involved in mitigating the
range of hazards that threaten the UK. Typically, the legislation-related actions must
be undertaken by central government agencies—possibly influenced by lobby groups,
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 251

trade associations and trade representatives. Planning changes must be driven by the
government, particularly agencies such as the Environment Agency (EA) and the
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), while local authority
planners should take innovative steps to mitigate hazards by addressing the weaknesses
in the current planning guidelines to ensure that lessons are learned from the past.

Conclusions
Recent natural and human-induced events have highlighted the fragility of the built
environment and its vulnerability to disasters and emergencies. At particular risk are
critical infrastructures that are essential to the operation of the economy and gov-
ernment such as transportation networks, the emergency services, energy and water
supplies and public health services. These physical systems have traditionally been
designed, built and maintained by the many types of profession involved in the construc­
tion industry. However, the construction industry has not been sufficiently involved
in planning to mitigate the effects of natural and human-induced hazards (Spence and
Kelman, 2004).
  If a resilient and sustainable built environment in the UK is to be achieved, emer-
gency management must become more proactive and more integrated with other
professions. One way in which this can be achieved is by adopting an agenda that en-
courages the integration of professions from the construction industry by, for example:

• Involving construction-related stakeholders in Regional Resilience Teams and other

regional forums, thereby facilitating the integration of the skills that construction
disciplines can offer. Emergency management and construction professions could
then become more involved with locational planning, as well as developing build-
ing codes and design codes related to future developments in hazard and risk areas.
This is of particular importance to the protection of critical infrastructures.
• The construction sector should embrace and pre-empt regulatory changes regarding
resilient and sustainable construction and use them as an opportunity to compete
in the sector nationally and globally and as a ‘reputation damage’ avoidance measure.
In this way the construction industry can make a significant contribution to miti-
gation initiatives while seeing the required innovations as opportunities to become
leaders in the fields of resilient structures, sustainable construction, and so on.
• Construction professionals, such as structural and civil engineers, architects and
designers, could offer innovative retrofitting solutions to existing developments in
hazard prone areas.
• All stakeholders should adopt resilient and sustainable agendas. Risk and hazard
awareness training should be systematically integrated into the professional training
and professional development of architects, planners, engineers, developers, and so
on. Cross-disciplinary training for construction professionals and emergency man-
agers should be encouraged. At the same time clients and consumers should be
made aware of the benefits of resilient and sustainable built assets as opposed to the
‘lowest price’ options.
252  Lee Bosher et al.

• Research must be expanded to include assessments of the resilience of materials,

fixtures and fittings to a wide range of potential hazards. Studies should also be con-
ducted to find options for resilient and sustainable materials, designs and processes.

  Emergency management needs to be more proactive than it is currently and to em-

brace a strategic agenda that integrates a wide range of professions from the construction
sector. Emergency management that does not integrate the range of experience and
skills that the construction industry has to offer is tantamount to gross mismanagement
of the built environment and should be viewed as ‘unsustainable development’.

Correspondence
Lee Bosher, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, England. E-mail L.Bosher@lboro.ac.uk.

Endnotes
1
Lee Bosher is a Research Fellow, Patricia Carrillo is Professor of Strategic Management in Construction,
Andrew Dainty is Professor of Construction Sociology, Jacqueline Glass is a Lecturer in Architectural
Engineering and Andrew Price is Professor of Project Management. All of the authors work in the
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
2
‘Resilient built assets’ are those that have been designed, located, built, operated and maintained in a
way that maximises the use of sustainable materials and processes while at the same time maximising
the ability of the built asset to withstand the impacts of extreme natural and human-induced hazards.
3
Studies such as BRE, 2000; DEFRA, 2001; Givoni, 1998; Graves and Phillipson, 2000; Lancaster et al.,
2004; Milford, 2005; Roaf et al., 2005; UKCIP/EPSRC, 2003; and Vivian et al., 2005 have integrated
climate change issues and built environment issues.
4
Studies such as CIB, 1999; DTI, 2004; ODPM, 2003; Plank, 2005; Schneider, 2002; and Stunnell, 2004
have integrated sustainability and built environment issues.
5
Morton (2002, p. 17) makes the interesting observation that there has, in the past few decades, been a
shift in the boundaries between public and private clients—especially where ‘old public clients’, such
as the public utilities; public housing providers; central government agencies, such as the Highways
Agency; nationalised industries, for example British Steel; and universities and other education insti-
tutions have become private clients.
6
This paper was accepted for publication prior to the publication of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25)
in December 2006. Many of the concerns raised in this paper in relation to PPG are still applicable
to PPS25.
7
For example, Sebastian Catovsky, head of the ABI’s natural perils department, believes that the Thames
Gateway development in Greater London is highly susceptible to flooding. He argues that ‘91 per
cent of the new housing in East London would be in the flood plain. In north Kent, 65 per cent is
in the flood plains, in Kent Thameside 45 per cent and in Essex 35 per cent’ (quoted in Hay and
Richardson, 2005).
8
The Eurocodes are a set of common European structural design codes for civil engineering work. It
is intended that, after a period of co-existence, they will eventually replace the national codes published
by national standard bodies.
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 253

9
Government Offices, through the work of the Regional Resilience Teams, have an important role to
play in the promotion and implementation of the regional tier of emergency management as set out
in the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. Regional Resilience Forums have been formed to bring together
the key players in each region, such as local authorities, central government agencies, the armed forces
and the emergency services.

References
ABI (2005) Safe as Houses? Flood Risk and Sustainable Communities. April 2005. Association of British Insurers,
London.
ABI (2004) Review of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk. Consultation response.
October 2004. Association of British Insurers, London.
Barker, K. (2004) Review of Housing Supply: Delivering Stability, Securing our Future Housing Needs. Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister. HMSO, London.
Bennett, J., and S. Jayes (1998) The Seven Pillars of Partnering:A Guide to Second Generation Partnering.Thomas
Telford, London.
BRE (2000) Potential Implications of Climate Change in the Built Environment. Building Research Establish­
ment, Garston.
Bresnen, M., L. Edelman, S. Newell, H. Scarbrough and J. Swan (2005) ‘Exploring social capital in the con­
struction firm’. Building Research and Information. 33 (3). pp. 235–44.
Building (2005) ‘Aftermath of terrorist bombs’. Building. 15 July 2005. pp. 10–11.
Cabinet Office/HM Treasury (2006) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Cabinet Office/Her
Majesty’s Treasury, London.
CIB (1999) Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction. Publication 237. International Council for Research and
Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), Rotterdam.
Crichton, D. (2005a) ‘About floods’.Accessed from the Benfield Hazard Research Centre website (4 August
2005), http://www.benfieldhrc.org/floods/index.htm.
Crichton, D. (2005b) ‘Toward an integrated approach to managing flood damage’. Building Research and
Information. 33 (3). pp. 293–99.
Crichton, D. (2005c) ‘Insurance and climate change’. Paper presented at the Conference on Climate Change,
Extreme Events and Coastal Cities: Houston and London. 9 February. Houston, Texas.
DEFRA (2001) National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion, including the Potential
Impacts of Climate Change. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
DETR (1998) Rethinking Construction. HMSO, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (2004) Better buildings: Better Lives, Sustainable Buildings Taskforce Report.
May 2004. Department of Trade and Industry, London.
DTLR (2001) Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk. December 2001, Department for
Transport, Local Government and the Regions, HMSO, London.
EEA (2002) ‘Towards an urban atlas: assessment of spatial data on 25 European cities and urban areas’.
Environmental Issue Report. 30. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Ewins, P. (1999) The Truth About Global Warming. Royal Academy of Engineering, London.
Fairclough, J. (2002) Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research. DTI/DLTR, London.
Gillingwater D. and S. Ison (2003) ‘Planning for sustainable environmental futures’. D. A. Hensher and
K. J. Button (eds) (2003) Handbook of Transport and the Environment. Elsevier, Oxford.
Givoni, B. (1998) Climate Considerations for Building and Urban Design.Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Graves, H. M. and M. C. Phillipson (2000) Potential Implications of Climate Change in the Built Environment.
Foundation for the Built Environment Report no. 2. December, Building Research Establishment,
Garston.
254  Lee Bosher et al.

Hay, G. and S. Richardson (2005) ‘New Orleans: Lessons for the UK’. Building. 9 September 2005.
Keane, B. (2005) ‘Major incident and disaster management’. The Structural Engineer. 7 June. 83 (11). pp.
22–25.
Lakha, R. and T. Moore (eds) (2002) Tolley’s Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Management: Principles and
Practice. LexisNexis, Croydon.
Lancaster J. W., M. Preene and C. T. Marshall (2004) Development and Flood Risk: Guidance for the Construction
Industry. CIRIA, London.
Lorch, R. (2005) ‘What lessons must be learned from the tsunami?’, Building Research and Information.
33 (3). pp. 209–211.
Mileti, D. M. (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry
Press, Washington, DC.
Milford, I. (2005) ‘Climate change: a challenge for structural engineers’. The Structural Engineer. 7 June.
83 (11). pp. 26–27.
Monbiot, G. (2000) Captive State:The Corporate Takeover of Britain. Macmillan, London.
Moor, J. (2002) ‘Cities at risk’. Habitat Debate. 7 (4). pp. 1–5.
Moore, D. R. and A. R. J. Dainty (2000) ‘Work-group communication problems within UK design and
build projects: an investigative framework’. Journal of Construction Procurement. 6 (1). pp. 44–55.
Morton, R. (2002) Construction UK: Introduction to the Industry. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
NAO (2001) Modernising Construction. National Audit Office, London.
ODPM (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. February 2003. Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, London.
ODPM (2000) Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing, March 2000. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
London.
Palmer, T. N. and J. Rälsänen (2002) ‘Quantifying the risk of extreme seasonal precipitation events in a
changing climate’. Nature. 415. pp. 512–14.
Pauleit, S. and Duhme, F. (2000) ‘Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban
planning’. Landscape and Urban Planning. 52. pp. 1–20.
Pavlica, K. and Thorpe, R. (1998) ‘Managers’ perceptions of their identity: a comparative study between
the Czech Republic and Britain’. British Journal of Management. 9 (2). pp. 133–49.
Plank, R. (2005) ‘Sustainable building construction for structural engineers’. The Structural Engineer. 7 June.
83 (11). pp. 30–33.
Roaf, S., D. Crichton and F. Nicol (2005) Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change. Architectural
Press and Elsevier Press, London.
Salthouse, R. (2002) ‘Lessons to be learned from the autumn 2000 floods disaster in the UK’. Insurance
Research and Practices. 17 (1).
Schneider R. O. (2002) Hazard mitigation and sustainable community development. Disaster Prevention and
Management. 11 (2). pp. 141–47.
Spence R. (2004) ‘Risk and regulation: can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural
disasters?’. Building Research and Information. 32 (5). pp. 391–402.
Spence R. and I. Kelman (2004) ‘Editorial: Managing the risks from natural hazards’. Building Research
& Information. 32 (5). pp. 364–67.
Spence, R. J. S.,W. H. Fawcett and A. J. Brown (1998) ‘The windstorm vulnerability of the UK building
stock’. Proceedings of the 4th UK Conference on Wind Engineering, Bristol.
Stunnell, A. (2004) Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill 2004. HMSO, London.
Trim, P. (2004) ‘An integrated approach to disaster management and planning’. Disaster Prevention and
Management. 13 (3). pp. 218–25.
UKCIP (2002) Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom. UK Climate Impacts Programme. April
2002. Swindon.
 Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment 255

UKCIP/EPSRC (2003) Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate: The Impacts of Climate Change on the
Built Environment, a Research Agenda. UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) / Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Swindon / Oxford.
UNOCHA (1997) Humanitarian Report 1997:The Reduction of Natural,Technological and Environmental Disasters.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Geneva.
Vivian, S., N. Williams and W. Rogers (2005) Climate Change Risks to Building: An Introduction. CIRIA,
London.
Walker, P. (1989) Famine Early Warning Systems. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future [The
Brundtland Commission]. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Whitford, V., A. R. Ennos and J. F. Handley (2001) ‘City form and natural process: indicators for the
ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK’. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 57. pp. 91–103.