CIB World Building Congress 2007
2931
CIB2007-222
PRE-EMPT: Developing a protocol for built-in resilience to disasters Lee Bosher, Andrew Dainty, Patricia Carrillo, and Jacqueline Glass 1 ABSTRACT Professions involved with the construction industry need to become more integrated with Disaster Risk Management (DRM) if lessons are to be learnt from the past and a resilient built environment created in the future. This paper introduces and describes the PRE-EMPT project that aims to ensure that a more resilient built environment is attained via the structured integration of DRM strategies into the construction sector’s decisionmaking processes. This will be implemented in the form of a protocol toolkit for use by a wide range of stakeholders in the construction industry that are (or should be) involved with DRM strategies. Ultimately, it is intended that PRE-EMPT will be a iteratively developing tool that will improve the way buildings and infrastructure are planned, designed, built and retrofitted to cope with natural and human-induced threats in the UK. KEYWORDS: Disasters, construction, design, protocol, resilience
1.
INTRODUCTION
Recent natural and human-induced events have highlighted the fragility and vulnerability of the built environment to disasters. These physical systems have traditionally been designed, built and maintained by the myriad professions involved with the construction industry. Therefore, designing and constructing a more resilient built environment demands an in-depth understanding of the expertise and knowledge on avoiding and mitigating the effects of threats and hazards (Lorch 2005; Hamelin and Hauke 2005; Bosher et al. 2006, 2007). The avoidance of threats and 1
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, England, LE11 3TU. The corresponding author is Lee Bosher
[email protected]
2932
CIB World Building Congress 2007
hazards (infrequent and daily) falls within the ‘Disaster Risk Management’ (DRM) framework as advocated by the United Nations who are encouraging governments to ‘mainstream’ DRM into national development strategies. Organisations such as the United Nations and the British Government’s Department for International Development (DFID 2006) have highlighted the importance of ‘mainstreaming’ DRM as part of an initiative to build collaboration between stakeholders in order to reduce the impact of disasters by integrating disaster risk reduction into development policies. The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 (UN/ISDR 2005) urges that disaster risk should be addressed in urban planning, along with other matters, such as housing. Amongst other requirements, it calls on governments to integrate disaster risk considerations into planning procedures for major infrastructure projects. However, little research has been done on how disaster risk reduction can be effectively integrated into construction projects (Wamsler 2006). Although there is wide ranging agreement that resilience should be systematically built-in to the whole design and construction process, and not simply added on as an after thought, it is apparent that this is not being achieved sufficiently in the United Kingdom (UK) (Bosher et al. 2006, 2007, in press). 1.1 Threats Threats to the built environment in the United Kingdom (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. The impact of global climate change has increased the magnitude of natural hazards in particular (Munich Re 2003). Globally, economic losses due to natural weather catastrophes have increased ten-fold in the last 40 years (Munich Re 2003). The Association of British Insurers (ABI) states that in the UK, between 1990 and 2000, weather related insurance claims totalled between £360m and £2.1bn a year (ABI 2003). In economic terms the damages from flooding are greater than those from any other natural hazard in the UK (DTLR 2001:4). In view of this, 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 and the report goes as far as stating that the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting. 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.
CIB World Building Congress 2007
2933
1.2 Implications for the construction sector It is therefore essential that future construction is more sensitive to climate change issues, leading to adaptations to what we design and build (Nethercot 2003). In view of this, the Sustainable Buildings Taskforce (DTI 2004) recommended that Building Regulations in the UK require modern standards of flood resistance and resilience for all construction within areas of flood risk. Lorch (2005) takes this further and asks, “should we be investigating the capabilities of the built environment under extreme circumstances as well as subtle, protracted circumstances?” (pg. 210). It has also been suggested that with socio-economic progress the built environment becomes more vulnerable as settlements become more reliant on their increasingly extended supply lines (Menoni 2001), and everexpanding critical infrastructures of transport, water, power generation and distribution, and information and telecommunication systems. For example, Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) has become an important topic in the USA. Critical Infrastructures are deemed so vital, that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defence, economic security and health of the local or national administrations and populations. The events of September 11th 2001 clearly contributed towards a renewed focus on CIP in the USA with the publication in 2003 of “The National Strategy for The Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets”. In 2004 the UK Government signed an agreement with the USA to cooperate with the United States on initiatives towards Critical Infrastructure Protection, but the UK has not yet published a strategy for this. This is of some concern, because CIP is a particularly important issue, since the UK relies on an ageing infrastructure (such as rail and road networks, power generation and distribution and water supply and sewerage systems). Proactive risk assessment has been cited as a panacea to two habitual shortcomings; a failure of foresight (Toft and Reynolds 1994) and a failure to learn (Weir 2002). Proactive risk assessment is also a practical response to the ethical imperative for managers and decision makers to create safer industrial environments (Schneider 2002). The ‘Towards a Safe, Secure & Sustainable Built Environment’ (S3BE) project identified that awareness of natural/human-induced/climate change related hazards tends to be most prominent with stakeholders who govern/advise on the built environment, rather than those who actually design, build and operate it (Bosher et al., 2007). There was also a general lack of awareness from construction stakeholders regarding who is responsible for, and involved with, emergency management planning in the UK (Bosher et al. 2006). The findings of the S3BE project also highlighted that a significant number of stakeholders recognised that resilient design and hazard mitigation features will undoubtedly become issues that will be central to construction guidelines and legislation in the near future (Bosher et al., 2007). Professionals within the construction industry, and the expertise they can offer, need to become more involved with disaster risk management if lessons are to be learnt from the past and a resilient built environment
2934
CIB World Building Congress 2007
created in the future (Hamelin and Hauke 2005; Bosher et al., 2007, in press). However, the integration of construction professions with the processes associated with hazard mitigation has largely been neglected (Spence and Kelman 2004). Resilience should arguably be systematically built-in to the planning and design processes not simply added on as an after thought, but it is clear that this is not being achieved in the UK (Bosher et al., 2007, in press). There is, therefore, an urgent requirement for a protocol/methodology that can ensure that construction professionals can make informed decisions regarding how to mitigate hazards during the design, planning, construction, operation and maintenance of existing and future developments. It is in this respect that the PRE-EMPT project is a unique and important undertaking. 2.
THE PRE-EMPT PROJECT
The vision of the PRE-EMPT (Proactive Resilient Engineering and Emergency Mitigation Toolkit) Project is to ensure that a more resilient built environment is attained via the structured integration of hazard mitigation strategies into the design-construction decision-making process. Thus, it is intended that PRE-EMPT will improve the way buildings and infrastructure are planned, designed, built, managed and retrofitted to cope with natural and human-induced threats using the expertise of a wide range of stakeholders. In is through these initiatives that the project will complement the work being undertaken within CIB Task Group 63 ‘Disasters and the Built Environment’. The PRE-EMPT project, that commenced in October 2006 (duration of 24 months), will focus on the resilience and hazard mitigation elements of individual structures and developments in the UK. A new toolkit will be developed and targeted at construction professionals and other agencies and stakeholders with responsibility for the planning, design, operation and maintenance of the built environment. However, it is important at this stage to emphasise that it isn’t feasible to be too prescriptive about what solutions will be required as these will inevitably be contingent upon the types of built asset and the nature of the hazards that have been identified. 2.1 Aims and Objectives The specific objectives of the PRE-EMPT project are to: 1. Evaluate, identify and prioritise key threats to the UK’s built environment; 2. Identify building systems (such as architecture, design and structural engineering) to provide robust and economic building solutions that are resistant to disturbances, minimise damage, and are conducive to repair; 3. Specify appropriate protection of built assets, critical infrastructures (water supply, electrical power, oil and gas production, transportation
CIB World Building Congress 2007
2935
and communications) and services (police, health and emergency services); 4. Configure and develop PRE-EMPT with various process frameworks via iterative consultation with stakeholders; and 5. Evaluate PRE-EMPT under a range of scenarios and in partnership with key collaborators. 2.2 Methodology The methodology falls within the interpretivist paradigm and utilises qualitative and inductive methods. An interpretivist research design will be used because it is driven by open-ended exploratory questions that can focus on qualitatively describing what is happening in a particular context and from a particular frame of reference. By using techniques such as interviews, focus groups and charrette workshops, it is possible to study ‘social reality’ from the informants’ perspectives, experiences and knowledge. Charrette workshops are a technique used by practitioners to involve various individuals and organisations directly in the planning, programming, or design of a project. Pre-empt will use design charrettes, as an alternative research method to examine the principles of resilient design. Glass (2007 forthcoming) describes the design charrette as a collaborative workshop in which a group of designers (sometimes with other groups, or laypeople) work together on a specific problem. The charrette is often used in community planning to encourage involvement from local stakeholders. For example, The National Charrette Institute (USA) describes a charrette as ‘a collaborative planning process that harnesses the talents and energies of all interested parties to create and support a feasible plan that represents transformative community change’ (NCI 2007). Glass (2007 forthcoming) also explains that the technique has become popular within the sustainable building design field 2 (NREL, 2003). Pre-empt will therefore use multi-disciplinary charrettes to explore the issues of creating resilient buildings. A design scenario will be tabled, with supporting documentation; the design actions of the invited group of participants will be the focus for a set of predominantly qualitative research instruments to analyse differences in process, actions, conflicts and resolutions. A feedback survey will be used to capture both group and individual experiences of the charrette. The programme will be split into seven inter-connected Work Packages as detailed in Table 1. Collaborators are likely to come from a range of sectors, such as local authorities, Government agencies, large, medium and small scale construction companies, architectural and design consultants, utilities companies, engineering consultancies and educational establishments. These collaborators will include professionals from the fields of architecture and design, civil and structural engineering, surveying, 2
Examples of design charrettes for emergency work can also be found: Burns (2002) describes a multi-disciplinary charrette, which focused on the scenario of a refugee population arriving at the Afghan-Pakistan border.
2936
CIB World Building Congress 2007
urban and emergency planning, insurance and policy making. The project team will work with the collaborators sharing their experiences and findings (in charrette workshops), cross-pollinating ideas and leveraging these as commercial opportunities arise. Table 1: PRE-EMPT project work packages and research methods
WORK PACKAGE Review the nature and shape WP of threats to the UK’s built 1 environment
METHODS Literature review and focus groups with experts (from the disaster management and insurance sectors)
WP Synthesis of current guidelines State of the art literature review of Building Regulations and guidelines. The synthesis of 2 and procedures related to resilient construction this work will be undertaken via focus groups with project partners WP Evaluation and prioritisation of 3 identified threats
Analytic Hierarchical Process via semistructured interviews with a range of experts
WP Development of PRE-EMPT 4 framework
Synthesis of the threats prioritised in WP3 with the current and potential mitigation measures identified in WP2.
WP Reconciliation of the 5 framework against various project management processes
Charrette workshops (simulated projects) with industry experts. The decision support framework will contribute to a legacy archive that underpins some process frameworks
WP Exploring the potential utility 6 and development of PREEMPT
Charrette workshops with project partners and government agencies to evaluate PRE-EMPT under a range of scenarios
WP Dissemination and exploitation Dissemination via journals, trade press, conferences and project website. Launch via 7 of PRE-EMPT major conference, industry focused guidance documents and press releases
The collaborators thus far (see Figure 1) have joined the project and have helped to shape the methodology because they recognise the need to undertake research into the concept of PRE-EMPT and also recognise the importance and the strength of collaboration. The positive responses to the S3BE project, which acted as the pre-cursor to this project, suggests that wider engagement with industry and academia will be straightforward.
CIB World Building Congress 2007
Figure 1: Project Collaborators Academic Partners University of Colorado (USA) Coventry University (UK) Industrial & Institutional Partners John Laing plc (UK) Scott Wilson Ltd (UK) Environment Agency (UK) Camden Borough Council (UK)
2937
Probable Future Partners University of Canterbury (NZ) Manipal University (India) Ritsumeikan University (Japan) UNESCO (France) Emergency Planning College (UK) British Standards Institute (UK) Association of British Insurers (UK) Home Office (UK) RICS (UK)
2.3 Topicality and pertinence of the study PRE-EMPT is particularly timely given safety and security concerns brought about by terrorist attacks in London, the Buncefield oil depot explosion and the impact of natural hazards (for example the Carlisle and Boscastle floods and the Birmingham and London tornados). Also, in light of the conclusions from the Stern Review (Cabinet Office/H.M. Treasury, 2006) it is clear that existing and future threats need to be key considerations in how the built environment is planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained. Complementary research is currently being conducted in the US and elsewhere on topics that will inform the PRE-EMPT project (such as Building Regulations, developing trans-disciplinary partnerships and understanding the interconnectivities of infrastructure). The project will also build upon complementary research at Loughborough University and Salford University (refer to the Goodier et al. 2007 paper presented at this conference) as well as industrial and academic networks that have been established through the S3BE project. The project is also likely to significantly inform the activities of CIB Task Group 63 ‘Disasters and the Built Environment’. 3.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
The project collaborators will benefit directly through an improved understanding of hazard mitigation and resilient design and engineering solutions. It is intended that the outputs from the project will create a radical new approach to the way buildings and infrastructure are designed, planned, constructed and operated. This will increase customer value and choice and improve the quality and long-term cost-effectiveness of building delivery.
2938
CIB World Building Congress 2007
PRE-EMPT will be designed to assess the performance of structures in the following areas: management, land use, design, integrated infrastructure, construction methods, materials and security. The toolkit could be applied to a range of critical infrastructures and built assets: offices, residential property, industrial and retail units, schools, hospitals, water supply and sewerage networks, power generation and distribution networks, transport infrastructure, communications infrastructure, and leisure facilities (such as the 2012 Olympics facilities in London). Clients, planners, local and national government agencies and commercial developers could use PRE-EMPT to specify the resilient performance of not only individual buildings but also entire developments, in a way that is quick, comprehensive and would be visible in the marketplace. Design teams could use PRE-EMPT as a tool to improve the long-term performance of their structures and developments as well as their own knowledge of natural and human-induced hazards. Property agents could use PRE-EMPT to promote the hazard resilient credentials of a building to potential purchasers and tenants. Managers could use PRE-EMPT to measure the performance of buildings and develop action plans, monitor and report performance at both the local and portfolio level. 3.1 Societal to financial benefits PRE-EMPT offers a range of benefits, from societal to financial as follows: • Societal: to create a safer more protective built environment for people to work and live; • Compliance (potentially a requirement of the future): to assess the resilient design, and hazard mitigation processes undertaken by occupiers, planners, government agencies and developers; • Increased resilience: in support of the protection of critical infrastructure, a wider corporate strategy or as a standalone contribution; • Marketing: as a selling point to potential tenants or customers; • Best practice: to provide a thorough checklist or tool for comparing buildings and developments; • Client request: responding to the requirements of users; • Increased confidence in built assets: for managers, service users and the general public; and • Financial: to achieve higher rental incomes and the increased protection of built assets and building services (with the possible reduction of insurance premiums). 4.
SUMMARY
In light of the findings from the Stern Review (Cabinet Office/H.M. Treasury, 2006) on the economics of climate change, it is imperative that all stakeholders and decision makers in the construction sector proactively
CIB World Building Congress 2007
2939
deal with the hazards that are likely to threaten society. Existing and future threats need to be key considerations in how the built environment is planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a resilient manner. This project addresses a significant gap in the construction industry’s current approach to delivering resilient buildings and critical infrastructure. PRE-EMPT will contribute towards the integration of processes that are typically fragmented. This will be achieved through the exchange of ideas and solutions for a more resilient built environment from the perspective of many stakeholders (such as architects, planners, engineers, materials suppliers and emergency managers) via involvement with local and regional resilience forums as recommended by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the United Nations (UN/ISDR 2005). In addition, while the government in the UK has the power to legislate for a sustainable and secure built environment via the Stunnell Bill (2004), the industry currently does not have the mechanism to deliver such an environment. PRE-EMPT will therefore help to embed security and resilience (and arguably sustainability) considerations into the construction industry’s delivery of the built environment. It is clear that there is an urgent requirement for a protocol or methodology that can enable construction stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the proactive integration of DRM activities during the design, planning, construction, operation and maintenance of existing and future construction projects. The toolkit will be developed in consultation with, and targeted at, construction professionals and other agencies and stakeholders with responsibility for the planning, design, operation and maintenance of the built environment. Thus, it is intended that PRE-EMPT will improve the way buildings and infrastructure are planned, designed, built, managed, operated and retrofitted in the UK to cope with natural and human-induced threats by utilising the expertise of a wide range of key stakeholders.
2940
CIB World Building Congress 2007
5. REFERENCES ABI, (2003), The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service: Proposals For Legislation - A Response By The Association of British Insurers, December 2003, Association of British Insurers, London Bosher L.S., Carrillo P.M., Dainty A.R.J., Glass J., and Price A.D.F., (in press), ‘Realising a resilient and sustainable built environment: Towards a strategic agenda for the United Kingdom’, Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy & Management, Vol.31 Bosher L.S., Dainty A.R.J., Carrillo P.M., Glass J., and Price A.D.F., (2007), ‘Integrating disaster risk management into construction: A UK perspective’, Building Research & Information, Vol.35, No.2, pp.163-177 Bosher L.S., Dainty A.R.J., Carrillo P.M., Glass J., and Price A.D.F., (2006), ‘The Construction Industry and Disasters: Towards an integrated strategic framework’, Proceedings of the Information and Research for Reconstruction (i-Rec) Third International Conference on ‘Post-disaster reconstruction: Meeting stakeholder interests’, 17th-19th May, University of Florence, Italy 2006 [CD-ROM] Burns C., (2002), Sustainable settlements charrette: rethinking encampments for refugees and displaced populations, Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado. Cabinet Office/HM Treasury, (2006), Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Cabinet Office/Her Majesty’s Treasury, London. Department of Trade and Industry, (2004), Better buildings - better lives, Sustainable Buildings Taskforce Report, May 2004, Department of Trade & Industry, London DFID, (2006), Reducing the Risk of Disasters, Department for International Development, East Kilbride DTLR, (2001), Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk, December 2001, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, HMSO, London. Glass, J. (2007 forthcoming) ‘Facing the future by designing in resilience – an architectural perspective’, in: Bosher L. S., (ed.), (2007), Hazards and the Built Environment: Attaining Built-in Resilience, Taylor and Francis, London Goodier C.I., Bosher L.S., Fleming A. & Soetanto R., (2007), ‘Synergising disaster risk management and construction research: A multi-disciplinary initiative from the UK’, to be presented at the CIB World Building Congress, 14th – 18th May, Cape Town, South Africa Hamelin J-P. and Hauke B., (2005), Focus areas: Quality of Life – Towards a Sustainable Built Environment, European Construction Technology Platform, Paris Keane B., (2005), ‘Major Incident and disaster management’, The Structural
CIB World Building Congress 2007
2941
Engineer, Vol.83, No.11, 7th June, pp. 22-25 Lorch, R., (2005), ‘What lessons must be learned from the tsunami?’, Building Research and Information, Vol. 33; No. 3; pp. 209-211 Menoni S., (2001), ‘Chains of damages and failures in a metropolitan environment: some observations on the Kobe earthquake in 1995’, Journal of Hazardous Materials, No. 86, pp.101-19 Munich Re, (2003), Topics: Annual Review: Natural Catastrophes, Munich Re Group, Munich National Charrette Institute (NCI) (2007) The National Charrette Institute home page, What is a Charrette?, Online. Available: HTTP: www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html (accessed on 25 January 2007) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (2003) A Handbook for Planning and Conducting Charrettes for High-Performance Projects, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado Nethercot D.A., (2003), ‘Climate change: the structural engineer's response’, The Structural Engineer, Vol.81, No.1, 7th January 2003 Schneider R.O., (2002), ‘Hazard Mitigation and Sustainable Community Development’, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol.11, No.2, pp.141-7 Spence R., and Kelman I., (2004), ‘Editorial: Managing the risks from natural hazards’, Building Research & Information, 32 (5). pp. 364-367 Stunnell, A., (2004), Sustainable & Secure Buildings Bill 2004, HMSO, London Toft, B. and Reynolds, S. (1994), Learning from Disasters, ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford UKCIP, (2002), Climate change scenarios for the United Kingdom, UK Climate Impacts Programme, Swindon UN/ISDR, (2005), Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva Wamsler C., (2006) ‘Mainstreaming risk reduction in urban planning and housing: a challenge for international aid organisations’, Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy & Management, 2006, 30(2) pp. 151177 Weir, D. (2002), ‘When will they ever learn? The conditions for failure in publicly funded high technology projects: the R101 and Challenger disasters compared’, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 299-307
