SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE HAR RPT SECURITY: PU...
Transcript of SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE HAR RPT SECURITY: PU...
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
HARMONISE - A Holistic Approach to Resilience and Systematic Actions to make Large Scale
UrbaN Built Infrastructure Secure
Deliverable D1.3 / Action Plan of
Start date of project: 01/06/2013
Instrument: Collaborative project, Capability project: Security
Document Information
Lead by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Security∗:
Protocol:
Rev.:
Due date:
1st version:
Last update:
Annex No.
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Research Framework
Programme (2007-2013)
No part may be reproduced, trans
mechanical, photo copying, recording or otherwise, transferred to other documents,
∗ PU = Public
PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services).
RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services).
CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).
HARMONISE Protocol:
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
version v1.0
A Holistic Approach to Resilience and Systematic Actions to make Large Scale
UrbaN Built Infrastructure Secure
Action Plan of Report on Strategies and Actions Beyond t
3 Duration: 36 months
Instrument: Collaborative project, Capability project: Security
Document Information
University of Ulster
University of Ulster
FAC, UoW
PU
HAR_RPT_
1_0
30/11/2013
11/11/2013
30/11/2013
funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Research Framework
No part may be reproduced, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic,
mechanical, photo copying, recording or otherwise, transferred to other documents,
= Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services).
= Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services).
= Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).
Protocol: HAR_RPT_
Rev. v. 1.0
A Holistic Approach to Resilience and Systematic Actions to make Large Scale
Report on Strategies and Actions Beyond the State of the Art
funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Research Framework
mitted in any form or by any means electronic,
mechanical, photo copying, recording or otherwise, transferred to other documents,
= Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services).
= Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
ii
disclosed to a third party or used for any other purpose except in accordance with the
provisions of European Grant Agreement No. SP1-Cooperation-312013
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the front sheet of this document.
i
SUMMARY:
This Deliverable D1.3 builds upon the Thematic Findings Report D1.1 and the Stakeholder
Engagement Report D1.2. It presents a further analysis of the policy and practice gaps affecting
the resilience of large scale urban built infrastructure. It presents a strategy detailing the ways in
which HARMONISE will address these gaps and a forward plan to ensure that the planned
actions are achieved.
Document Evolution
Revision Date File Reference Reason of change
V0.1 11 November
2013
Initial review by Warwick and FAC, in
conjunction with UU
V0.2 25 November
2013
All-partner review, technical
adjustments, and refinement of forward
plan
V0.3 29 November
2013
Minor changes to reflect group
discussions
V1.0 01 December
2013
Final upload, Structuring and format
complete.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
ii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Intent and scope of the Report 1
2 Challenges, Emerging Gaps and Trends .................................................................................... 3
2.1 Lack of a Clear, Holistic Vision of Urban Resilience 4
2.1.1 General lack of awareness of the Urban Resilience concept ....................................... 4
2.1.2 Lack of integration and coordination ........................................................................... 4
2.1.3 Need for more comprehensive approach ..................................................................... 5
3 HARMONISE Approach ........................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Addressing the Major Challenges 7
3.2 Comprehensive selection of relevant information on urban resilience in Europe 8
3.3 Engagement of stakeholders 9
3.4 Platform functionalities and tools 10
3.5 Computer supported collaborative design 11
3.6 The development of bespoke guidance/frameworks 11
3.7 Better training and education 13
3.8 Better financial modelling 14
3.9 A More Long Term, Strategic Perspective 16
3.10 The enhanced use of digital technologies and ‘big data’ 17
3.11 Prioritising Risks and assessing ‘Trade Off’s’ 19
3.12 Addressing Physical Planning Restraints 20
4 HARMONISE Forward Plan ................................................................................................... 23
4.1 HARMONISE Forward Plan 23
5 Summary of HARMONISE Contributions Beyond State of the Art and Conclusion ............. 27
5.1 HARMONISE Contributions Beyond State of the Art 27
5.2 Conclusion 28
6 References ................................................................................................................................ 30
7 Appendix 1 GAP Questions ..................................................................................................... 31
8 Appendix 2 Relevant Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 34
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
iii
Figure 1 HARMONISE Gap Approach ............................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 Iterative design process (Adapted from ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011) ................................ 9
Figure 3 HARMONISE Forward Plan ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 4 HARMONISE Forward Plan: Link to Gap Addressing Measures .................................... 26
Table 1 List of Gap Actions Required ............................................................................................... 7
Table 2 HARMONISE Forward Plan Activity and Rationale ......................................................... 24
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the front sheet of this document.
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The urban environment is becoming more and more complex, not least with regard to security
aspects following a decade of continuous threats to our existing and planned large scale urban built
infrastructure. Such infrastructure are critical nodes within the intertwined networks of these urban
areas, which include not only physical components, but also integrated hardware and software
aspects. To date, a comprehensive and holistic (systematic) approach to improve the resilience and
security of large scale urban developments against attacks and disruptions has not been developed
thoroughly.
The general aim of HARMONISE - A Holistic Approach to Resilience and Systematic Actions to
Make Large Scale Built Infrastructure Secure - is to develop a comprehensive, multi-faceted, yet
mutually reinforcing concept for the enhanced security, resilience and sustainability of urban
infrastructure and development. HARMONISE will result in resilience enhancement methods for
large scale urban built infrastructure. It will see the development of a concept to improve the
security and resilience of this infrastructure, encompassing the design and planning phases of such
projects (and thereby leading to robust built infrastructure invulnerable to natural/man-made
disasters). HARMONISE will improve the design and planning of urban areas, thereby increasing
their security and resilience to new threats.
1.2 Intent and scope of the Report
T1.2 and its associated D1.1 Thematic Findings Report established a clear understanding of the
urban resilience context and ‘landscape’ and culminated with an exposition of the existing
challenges, emerging gaps and trends in policy and practice. This report effectively set the ‘ground
conditions’ upon which the HARMONISE Project will be built and ultimately operate. T1.3 and its
associated D1.2 Stakeholder Engagement Report has augmented the thematic review, accessing
key stakeholder knowledge, opinion and sentiment that has not necessarily been captured and
communicated in the extant literature in the field. Whilst the opinions of the stakeholders do not
necessarily differ from that of the current literature, they do provide additional ‘triangulation’ of
the research process and adds important weight to the HARMONISE Project’s theoretical ‘base’.
Work Package Task 1.4 (WP1.4) and this report, D1.3 seeks to synthesise the material gathered
from the two previous tasks and outline an action plan for the remainder of the project
which addresses the issues that have been raised. This gap analysis was built around a series of
‘questions’ that have been investigated to identify the appropriate scope of the HARMONISE
Project (Appendix 1). By addressing these gap questions it is possible to distil the specific
questions, and by implication areas of activity, that HARMONISE can seek to address and in so
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
2
doing demonstrate the appropriateness of the HARMONISE aims and work plan. The gap
questions themselves remain as a set of general enquiry parameters to be utilised as appropriate.
By targeting in this way HARMONISE can make a significant contribution beyond the state-of-
the-art (BSOTA).
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the front sheet of this document.
3
2 Challenges, Emerging Gaps and Trends
The D1.1 Thematic Review has identified a number of key challenges, emerging gaps and trends
in the urban resilience field. These have been used as a framework for the T1.3 Stakeholder
Engagement exercise, the results of which have verified, to a greater or lesser degree the findings
of D1.1. The two preceding reports have clearly highlighted that there are a wide range of
activities being carried out in the stakeholder community to address the current and future threats
to urban areas. A wide variety of discipline specific techniques, tools, approaches and practices are
currently deployed in protecting urban built infrastructure and attempting to optimise future large
scale built infrastructure against the likely future operating parameters imposed by natural and man
made threats. Whilst it is clear that these efforts, taken together, do not fully address the issue
of ensuring urban resilience, it is also clear that more could be done in the built environment
and related professions to make sense of the process and to ensure optimal integration of the
activities and actions.
Central to the findings of both reports is that there is a need to establish a clear holistic vision of
urban resilience which informs resilience policy within stakeholder groups, technical disciplines
and government which:
• makes the strategic case for resilience based on a rigorous analysis of costs and benefits,
and value for money
• puts in place a delivery strategy for implementing a co-ordinated programme of measures
to prioritise resilience in all infrastructure development
• aims to transform public perceptions and societal acceptance of resilience by promoting its
positive benefits
• helps to make the case for resilience investment to attain the goal of minimum disruption to
services, safety and well-being of infrastructure users,
• demonstrates the relative affordability and benefits for local communities of improved
resilience
• develops a clear, strategic understanding of the issue of urban resilience, which is
understandable and usable by all of the key stakeholder groups and disciplines
• supports approaches that will facilitate integration and to identify and address any residual
policy and practice shortcomings or limitations.
This requirement for a holistic, multidisciplinary urban resilience ‘concept’ and framework is
clearly exposed as the major ‘gap’ facing urban resilience ‘practitioners’. It is, however, a multi-
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
4
faceted issue which requires a range of interventions. The following section identifies the key
emerging gap issues arising from this, sets them in context and begins the process of identifying
the potential contribution of HARMONISE.
2.1 Lack of a Clear, Holistic Vision of Urban Resilience
Resilience considerations are currently incorporated into the urban planning and management
process through a number of disparate approaches. There is a general feeling among practitioners,
however, that resilience is often incorporated ‘without realising it’ rather than through a more
proactive, co-ordinated and holistic approach. As such, lack of awareness of the concept and its
associated applications contributes to a lack of Strategic Vision. This is the most important,
overarching gap, which manifests itself in the following major challenges:
2.1.1 General lack of awareness of the Urban Resilience concept
• The term ‘resilience’ is not used in some member countries of the European Union, it has
no good translation in some languages and therefore its meaning has remained ambiguous.
• Urban resilience is still considered an abstract concept and it is mainly used in policy and
strategy papers and among experts. More empirical evidence of its applicability and
benefits in real life circumstances is required.
• In the context of forward planning (or strategic / spatial planning), ‘resilience’ as a concept
or a set of principles is generally not explicitly used.
• Discourse of resilience is often considered to sound ‘negative’ by policy makers, elected
representatives and the development industry. Using terms like ‘vulnerability’; ‘threat’;
‘security’ and ‘safety can heighten public fears. As such a more positive or public
perception conscious language is required, along with the desire of practitioners to use
these terms.
2.1.2 Lack of integration and coordination
• There is often a lack of horizontal and vertical integration between actors and agencies
responsible for urban resilience. This is clearly exposed in the responses to the Stakeholder
Engagement exercise, which revealed that such integration can be hindered by differing
conceptualisations of ‘resilience’ issues across disciplines and spatial scales.
• For urban resilience to be successful it is essential that better relationships are formed
between those that build, those that manage and those that use urban spaces.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
5
• Generally, architectural liaison with the police and emergency rescue services occurs too
late in the design process to have a meaningful impact on design. As a consequence
security considerations can be dealt with through a series of ‘add on’ measures such as
bollards rather than integrated into the design concept, which can compromise the design
quality of a scheme (The Greater Manchester Design for Security approach is an exception
to this, requiring a full Crime Impact Statement as part of the process).
• ‘Measures’ may not necessarily be preventative in nature but can also be used for damage
limitation and making contingency response more efficient and effective. The latter is best
included as part of the design process to be more cost effective.
• This situation is exacerbated by a lack of a single point of ownership in government, lack
of leadership and political support and the need to consider multiple viewpoints in a
transparent and participatory process It is also worth considering applications from military
system procurement models which through many years have developed integrated project
teams that cover all aspects of design from concept through to decommissioning. Many of
these concepts have now been adopted by civil functions such as Human Factors
Integration (HFI) and there are potential lessons to be learned for resilience planning that
are closely linked to the operational requirements of these activities.
• In policy, plan and programme making, Strategic Environmental Assessment1 (SEA)
provides a systematic decision support process aimed at ensuring environmental and other
possible sustainability aspects are considered effectively. SEA identifies the significant
environmental effects that are likely to result from the implementation of a Development
Plan or alternative approaches to the Plan. Perhaps this is the closest method we have so far
to draw together a holistic understanding of issues commonly related to resilience.
2.1.3 Need for more comprehensive approach
• Resilience discourse (when used) is typically applied to the development management
process in the form of sector based risk assessments (for example, flood risk assessment)
and the resilience discussions/planning that organisations such as IT/finance have as a
matter of urgency as key to business survival.
• Other approaches to address these issues exist to a degree, but they tend to be hazard or
event specific e.g. ‘Smartest’ guidance for flooding2 or the Irish flood risk guidelines that
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm 2http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/cure/research/documents/SMARTeST-Six-Steps-To-
Flood-Resilience-Local-Authority-Professionals.pdf)
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
6
champion a precautionary approach3 and for planning and counter-terrorism
4 but there is
little available on an EU wide level for non traditional threats at different spatial scales
• The existing tools and approaches adopted are considered to be limited in terms of
addressing ‘urban resilience’ more widely.
• In a UK context there is generally a good understanding amongst built environment
professionals of the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ (for example see the Crime Impact
Statement process in place in Greater Manchester). This is similar in Spain with the
concept of ‘Genre Urbanism’ but it is generally limited to crime prevention and is often
deemed to be too expensive by the development industry.
• Current practices in urban resilience often cover only some parts of the Integrated
Resilience Cycle presented in D1.1. It may focus on prevention and preparedness only and
omits response and recovery.
3
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,21708,e
n.pdf 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97993/planning-
and-ct.pdf
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the front sheet of this document.
7
3 HARMONISE Approach
3.1 Addressing the Major Challenges
In order to address this lack of strategic direction around resilience within forward planning, it is
considered that a shared understanding of urban resilience must be developed; together with
developing a holistic definition for the concept and providing guidance on how this concept
applies at different spatial scales from national to local level and how it relates to the technical
language in each of the related disciplines. This shared understanding can serve to both shape the
way planners, urban designers and engineers perceive the challenges cities face, as well as
providing a framework by which to respond.
HARMONISE can contribute to closing these gaps via a number of related activities. The activities
required to address the gaps are listed in Table 1 and their hierarchical relationship to the
overarching gap and major challenges are depicted in Figure 1. The activities are intended to
ultimately address the overarching gap and as such are in no way mutually exclusive.
Table 1 List of Gap Actions Required
GAP Action Required
Comprehensive selection of relevant information on urban resilience in Europe
Engagement of stakeholders
Platform functionalities and tool(s)
Computer supported collaborative design
The development of bespoke guidance/frameworks
Better Training and education
Better financial modelling
Fostering a more long term, strategic perspective
The enhanced use of digital technologies and ‘big data’
Prioritising risks and enabling ‘Trade Off’s’
Addressing physical planning restraints
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Figure 1 HARMONISE Gap Approach
3.2 Comprehensive selection of relevant information on urban resilience in Europe
Since the general knowledge of urban resilience is still insufficient, the HARMONISE platform
will serve as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for resilience information. It provides a comprehensive selection of
the most relevant information on urban resilience, selected by the top European experts in this field
and supported with the real life knowledge and case st
platform will also help the end-users to combine different data fragments and produce new implicit
knowledge from existing data sets. This multidisciplinary tapestry of information will help the
novices to get the first grip of urban resilience. In addition, it will help the experts to take into
account various different viewpoints to urban resilience, familiarise themselves
practices in other European countries, and learn from the lessons of the cas
all this will be one step forward toward more coherent European
of large-scale urban infrastructure.
The establishment of a shared, holistic concept for urban resilience would also aid in assessing
both urban resilience at the city scale and also the resilience of large scale built infrastructure.
Work towards integrating existing tools and identifying their relative strengths and weaknesses
would also aid the development of a more holistic approach
HARMONISE Protocol:
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Art version v1.0
8
HARMONISE Gap Approach
Comprehensive selection of relevant information on urban resilience in Europe
Since the general knowledge of urban resilience is still insufficient, the HARMONISE platform
shop’ for resilience information. It provides a comprehensive selection of
the most relevant information on urban resilience, selected by the top European experts in this field
and supported with the real life knowledge and case studies. With its semantic intelligence, the
users to combine different data fragments and produce new implicit
knowledge from existing data sets. This multidisciplinary tapestry of information will help the
first grip of urban resilience. In addition, it will help the experts to take into
account various different viewpoints to urban resilience, familiarise themselves
practices in other European countries, and learn from the lessons of the case studies. Consequently,
all this will be one step forward toward more coherent European-wide understanding of resilience
scale urban infrastructure.
The establishment of a shared, holistic concept for urban resilience would also aid in assessing
both urban resilience at the city scale and also the resilience of large scale built infrastructure.
Work towards integrating existing tools and identifying their relative strengths and weaknesses
would also aid the development of a more holistic approach to urban resilience.
Protocol: HAR_RPT_
Rev. v. 1.0
Comprehensive selection of relevant information on urban resilience in Europe
Since the general knowledge of urban resilience is still insufficient, the HARMONISE platform
shop’ for resilience information. It provides a comprehensive selection of
the most relevant information on urban resilience, selected by the top European experts in this field
udies. With its semantic intelligence, the
users to combine different data fragments and produce new implicit
knowledge from existing data sets. This multidisciplinary tapestry of information will help the
first grip of urban resilience. In addition, it will help the experts to take into
account various different viewpoints to urban resilience, familiarise themselves to the current
e studies. Consequently,
wide understanding of resilience
The establishment of a shared, holistic concept for urban resilience would also aid in assessing
both urban resilience at the city scale and also the resilience of large scale built infrastructure.
Work towards integrating existing tools and identifying their relative strengths and weaknesses
to urban resilience.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
3.3 Engagement of stakeholders
The HARMONISE platform and tools will be developed using an iterative process, which will take
place over several rounds (Figure 2). The first outline of the platform and toolset will be
established within the HARMONISE consortium, taking cognisance of the guidance provided by
D1.1 Thematic Review and the ongoing stakeholder engagement process commencing in T.1.3.
More specific user requirements will be collected from the end
stakeholders in different phases of the project.
Figure 2 Iterative design process (
By engaging with the stakeholders groupings in this way it is intended to penetrate the institutional
and disciplinary ‘silos’ and identify platform and tool functionality that enables a more holistic,
interdisciplinary approach to urban resilience planning and practice, builds better integration and
supports joined-up management to enable resilience to take place.
In the first stage, the platform development will focus on the two most relevant user groups and
two most relevant use situations. Both the user groups and the use
HARMONISE Protocol:
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Art version v1.0
9
Engagement of stakeholders
The HARMONISE platform and tools will be developed using an iterative process, which will take
place over several rounds (Figure 2). The first outline of the platform and toolset will be
the HARMONISE consortium, taking cognisance of the guidance provided by
D1.1 Thematic Review and the ongoing stakeholder engagement process commencing in T.1.3.
More specific user requirements will be collected from the end-users and other project
lders in different phases of the project.
Iterative design process (Adapted from ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011)
By engaging with the stakeholders groupings in this way it is intended to penetrate the institutional
plinary ‘silos’ and identify platform and tool functionality that enables a more holistic,
interdisciplinary approach to urban resilience planning and practice, builds better integration and
up management to enable resilience to take place.
In the first stage, the platform development will focus on the two most relevant user groups and
two most relevant use situations. Both the user groups and the use situations were selected based
Protocol: HAR_RPT_
Rev. v. 1.0
The HARMONISE platform and tools will be developed using an iterative process, which will take
place over several rounds (Figure 2). The first outline of the platform and toolset will be
the HARMONISE consortium, taking cognisance of the guidance provided by
D1.1 Thematic Review and the ongoing stakeholder engagement process commencing in T.1.3.
users and other project
ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011)
By engaging with the stakeholders groupings in this way it is intended to penetrate the institutional
plinary ‘silos’ and identify platform and tool functionality that enables a more holistic,
interdisciplinary approach to urban resilience planning and practice, builds better integration and
In the first stage, the platform development will focus on the two most relevant user groups and
situations were selected based
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
10
on the work made in Tasks 1.2 and 1.3 in Work Package 1. The two most relevant user groups are
built environment professionals (referring to designers, planners and architects) and local
authority decision makers (referring to state and municipality officials and local safety and
security authorities). The most relevant Stakeholders are included in Appendix 2. The two most
relevant use situations in both of these groups are information search and decision making. The
more detailed specifications of the user groups and the use situations will be made in the beginning
of Work Package 2, which starts in December 2013. In the later stages of the development process
other stakeholders and use situations will be included in the platform.
3.4 Platform functionalities and tools
The HARMONISE platform and Tools could be designed to facilitate and integrate with discipline
work models, such as the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work, which
represents 8 stages from Strategic Definition to Post-occupancy Evaluation. At particular stages in
the building and area design process it could provide guidance on a range of concerns related to
resilience. This could be co-ordinated with other guidance, such as the UNISDR 10 point plan
approach referred to in D1.15. A co-ordinated approach of this sort would allow translation of key
resilience lessons to the design of large scale urban infrastructure from its inception.
In addition, the HARMONISE tools can address any detected gaps in understanding events like
terrorist threats (blast, weapon, projectiles) due to limited stakeholder access to potentially relevant
information and tools not publically available due to their confidential status. This fact prevents the
use of some tools in the different urban resilience phases and limits integration of their output with
regards to informing other disciplines a typical ‘barrier’ met when investigating a potentially
useful tool would be “Because of the sensitive nature of some of this site's content, full access
requires an approved user account”6 Construction methodologies and techniques, structural
design methods and tools, architectural configuration of spaces and buildings, critical
infrastructure emplacement are some of the aspects that comprise this potentially classified
information that will be dealt with in HARMONISE project. Secure access can be achieved by the
adoption of secure, authorised access protocols embedded within HARMONISE, which restrict
access to secure areas. This is dealt with in WP2.4 where a protocol hierarchy for access will be
devised. We will also frame the content to link the issues with the measures, rather necessarily
exploring the detail of the issues or signposting how the issues/risks could be exploited or made
worse.
5 How To Make Cities More Resilient: A Handbook For Local Government Leaders (UNISDR, 2012)
6 https://pdc.usace.army.mil/
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
11
3.5 Computer supported collaborative design
As discussed in section 3.3, an important objective of the HARMONISE platform is to enable a
more holistic, interdisciplinary approach to urban resilience planning and practice. In practice, this
requires that the platform must somehow facilitate collaboration between relevant stakeholders in
an urban resilience design process. In general, challenges related to multidisciplinary collaborative
design have been widely researched within the scientific community. For example, the field of
Computer Supported Collaborative Design (CSCD) has extensively studied technological means
for supporting distributed design where multidisciplinary specialists work in parallel and
independently using different engineering tools. The most important gaps identified for the
existing CSCD approached include:
• Knowledge-level communication among distributed design parties and integration of
available design tools: ontology and semantics based integration provides a promising
methodology for solving these issues.
• Data/information/knowledge management: challenges in this area include knowledge
discovery, support for information retrieval, dynamic knowledge management, self-
learning, reasoning and knowledge reuse.
• Collaborative intelligent user interfaces: collaborative design processes require human
involvement. How to produce integrated, expressive, goal oriented, cooperative, easy to
use, and customizable user interfaces?
• Distributed design project management: how to manage all the resources involved,
including people, organisations, software tools, and equipment?
• Security and privacy: with the implementation and deployment of CSCD applications in
industry, security and privacy issues become more and more important.
The HARMONISE platform addresses these gaps by providing mechanisms to utilise information
technologies to augment the capabilities of individual specialists, and enhance the ability of
collaborators to reach mutual understanding and to interact with each other and with computational
resources. Moreover, it utilises effectively semantic technologies in data modelling, content
annotation, tool integration and knowledge discovery, for example. Finally, the HARMONISE
platform provides secure and intuitive user interfaces to utilise different functionalities.
3.6 The development of bespoke guidance/frameworks
Resilience is considered to be a context specific concept and what is considered ‘resilient’ in one
area won’t be the same as in another. This is due, in part, to varying conceptualisations of what is a
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
12
‘threat’ or ‘vulnerability’ within an urban area. The way in which a ‘threat’ or ‘risk’ is understood
and the level of importance subsequently attributed to such issues will have a bearing on how
‘resilience’ more generally is understood and applied in policy and practice. This is witnessed, for
example, in all the national differences recognised in D1.2 and D1.3. Similarly, macro or city wide
resilient issues will be different to resilience issues at the local community level and tools and
guidance must reflect these differences. In many member states there is little guidance informing
stakeholders of possible choices available to them regarding implementing urban resilience. Some
evidence supports the notion that regulation is required to ‘force’ built environment professionals
to consider - (often costly) resiliency measures. The context specific nature of resilience would
suggest that regulation would need to be rather conditional, requiring ‘appropriate’ resilience
measures, or would run the risk of setting some standard that may prove insufficient in some
circumstances or excessive in others. It may well be the case that the correct regulatory controls
are in place, through specific EU directives e.g. SEA, EIA. Even if this is the case, there would
appear to be a lack of an overall framework or other mechanism to bring all the relevant material
together and make it more readily available.
Leading from this there is a need for improved guidance on ‘designing in’ resilience in different
contexts and at different scales:
• Incorporating resilience enhancement design features such as bollards; gates; closed circuit
television (CCTV) etc. can give the impression that an area is unsafe
• While fear of crime (and its associated ‘spin off’ consumer preferences) can drive the
incorporation of such features, these features can also promote/enhance a public perception
that a particular area is insecure (which in turn further increases demand for such hard
design interventions).
• This negative perception of resilience ‘language can also have the potential to alienate
stakeholders and reduce political and practitioner support
• Resilience is currently incorporated (albeit in a non-explicit manner) in the urban planning
and design process in the form of government guidelines or Ministerial directions
• Guidelines are sometimes viewed by policy makers, elected representatives and potential
investors as ‘inhibitors’ or obstacles rather than enablers
• This viewpoint is shared by the development industry, who invariably design schemes to
maximise economic performance and deal with resilience issues as obstacles to be
mitigated with minimum cost to the project. In the absence of a sound value for money case
either in the short term or consideration of the whole life costing, this appears to be rational
economic behaviour.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
13
In order to avoid resilience guidance and objectives being viewed negatively within the built
environment professions (as an obstacle or development inhibitor) a comprehensive on going
stakeholder engagement process will be crucial. This process should ensure that the resilience
concept developed will be practical, useable and firmly rooted in the everyday practice of these
professions. Whilst in theory it would be advantageous to increase awareness in all participants, in
practice it is most likely those responsible for the implementation of resilience measures would
benefit from the development of better guidance (and in some cases regulation or codes) to aid
better decision making processes. To address this, further guidance for built environment
professionals is required on use of resilience language and discourse. This also necessitates an
enhanced understanding of the key drivers behind public perception of safety and security in
different areas.
HARMONISE can contribute to ameliorating this issue. The lack of awareness of the resilience
concept among built environment practitioners can be addressed through enhanced education for
professionals working in this area. Educational tools such as guidance documents and workshops
or seminars on the topic would be useful in this respect. The rationale for why resilience is
important needs to one of the key messages for industry as part of this awareness process.
Qualitative material would benefit from quantitative benchmarks or examples of where poor
planning has resulted in significant loss of business, life and service utility. Particular aspects of
practice could be enhanced or supported by a formal statement of best practice, highlighting
regulatory inadequacies hampering the process of achieving urban resilience. This can be
integrated within the HARMONISE platform as best practice guidance. Also, the opportunity lies
in bringing existing guidelines into one place to help streamline access to best urban resilience
practice in the design and development process.
There is a need for further understanding of the particular approaches to urban resilience that are
more likely to impact on citizen perceptions of security. Enhanced understanding can be achieved
through the stakeholder engagement process which began in T1.3 but which continues throughout
the Project, via the Case Studies and Dissemination activities.
3.7 Better training and education
Just as there is a lack of ‘joined up thinking’ at a strategic level, this is an issue which is
propagated vertically within organisations and discipline groups. This is manifested as a
fundamental lack of training, especially within the built environment professions, in urban
resilience issues and the approaches and tools which can be utilised to address them. As
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
14
highlighted by the stakeholder engagement process, often it is not a lack of tools which inhibit
resilience policy and practice but a lack of skills needed to maximise their potential.
Training the next generation of young professionals to work in an interdisciplinary way and equip
them with the skills and knowledge to think and practice in a resilient way is now a pressing
priority throughout Europe. The situation is exacerbated by a lack of effective, holistic education
tools. There are a few tools that are occasionally used that focus on specific hazards or crisis
events (e.g. Project Argus Professional which is counter–terrorism training for planners and
architects7 )
An appropriate course of action to enhance training is required to address this gap:
• Concepts underpinning Urban Resilience should be increasingly utilised by educators and
professional organisations
• Training in the built environment professions needs to incorporate resilience training within
it, in University or through Continuous Professional Development (CPD) curriculum.
In terms of the role of HARMONISE in addressing this gap, this is the primary focus of the Project
and is expected to be integrated in the Platform, educational aspects of the tools developed in
Work Package 3 of this Project, enabled via the virtual environment and the educationally focussed
dissemination deliverables in Work Package 6.
3.8 Better financial modelling
Making the business case for enhancements in urban resilience is often hard in pressing financial
times. Increasingly there is scope to consider alternative financial models of how this might be
achieved in practice to enable the current built environment to be future proofed in the most
efficient and cost effective way so that cities can maintain their economic competitiveness.
Balancing proper planning and sustainable development with the influence of the market
(consumer preferences) is a key challenge for planners. Aligning different interests is an area
where further guidance is required. What is clear, however, is that consideration of resilience at the
earliest possible stage in the building cycle will lead to better and cheaper solutions over the long
term.
7 http://www.nactso.gov.uk/our-services
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
15
The key focus of this gap lies in the interaction between local government and other concerned
authorities and interest groups who wish to see higher levels of resilience designed into buildings
and the Property Development ‘community.’ The Development industry currently view
development schemes through a financial ‘lens,’ which precludes the inclusion of design features
and performance parameters that are not properly or adequately reflected in the final value of a
scheme. Unless grants or assistance are available, the only mechanisms available to ‘fund’ urban
resilience functionality are higher property values or lower land values. In many regeneration
schemes higher property values are tempered by issues of location ‘perception’, pre and post
remediation ‘blight’ and ‘stigma’, and prevailing market conditions. The aforementioned blight
and stigma, along with the actual cost of providing infrastructure upgrades and other ‘abnormals’
such as basic flood protection may well render land valueless, with further urban resilience
measures producing negative land values.
As such, from a market perspective, urban resilience measures may well be unaffordable in the
short term, without significant public expenditure. Against this, tools such as the Investment
Property Databank (IPD) Regeneration Index have shown better investment performance from
regeneration schemes in comparison to standard prime property (as such schemes are often well
located and rapidly become prime, such as Canary Wharf). As risk perception intensifies it may
well be that the insurance industry and the occupier market may monetise the urban resilience
context, initially by negative pricing premiums (higher insurance cost, lower rental levels) creating
the spectre of a ‘two tiered’ market differentiated on relative levels of resilience. Whilst this is
unlikely to happen in such a stark fashion, in the absence of clear identification methodologies and
supporting legislation, proxies for these are beginning to emerge, such as the Flood Maps being
developed in many cities, the introduction of Energy Performance Certificates and the greater use
and appreciation of Eurocodes and other design standards and practices8.
In this regard it may well be possible to further propagate the development of a ‘green book’
approach whereby guidance is provided on risk assessment, value for money (vfm) and cost
benefit analyses. These would not only assess the risk but would cost and price counter measures
and support the business case for physical enhancement. This would support the financial case for
urban resilience via an improved understanding of the financial implications of resilience in the
longer term, garnering ‘buy in’ from the investment and occupier communities who ultimately are
the customers of the development industry’s product.
8 Eg http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/Sectors/Construction/Eurocodes/Pages/default.aspx
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
16
In terms of addressing this gap, it would be necessary to develop a tool that can better model (or
give a set of modelling principles) the finances of security driven urban resilience. Whilst many
financial and development appraisal techniques and products are available to structure decision
making (from generic applications such as Microsoft Excel and other spreadsheet applications to
bespoke development appraisal software such as ARGUS Developer and Estate Master DF9) there
are no specific tools designed for this specific task.
HARMONISE can act to highlight the key issues preventing appropriate financing of resilience. It
can highlight the opportunities to ‘leverage’ other activities to provide additional returns on
investment. It can demonstrate potential alternative forms of funding. WP2 will provide for
platform development that will provide a range of technical solutions but will also provide
associated information on the economic and social context appropriate to each use and the
implications for inappropriate application.
3.9 A More Long Term, Strategic Perspective
From the discussion regarding the financing of Urban Resilience above, it is clear that at present
short-term fixes are generally favoured over longer term solutions. There is a pressing need to
undertake a detailed Europe-wide analysis determine the range of future challenges (and
opportunities) and the possible technological pathways faced by cities in attempting to develop
long-term resilience strategies.
This is a process that potentially involves all relevant stakeholders. In its full scope, it far exceeds
the remit of the HARMONISE project, incorporating all the security related EU FP7 projects
currently funded and the programme planned for the forthcoming HORIZON 2020 Programme.
Nevertheless there is a co-ordination gap amongst this multitude of focussed research and
development activity, particularly in terms of linking back to the sometimes parallel, sometimes
converging, yet sometimes diverging and rarely communicating world of built environment
practice. More focus is required on foresight and thinking about the long term plans for an urban
area. At present there are a multitude of foresight tools and or games10
, but these are not related
specifically to security-driven urban resilience. It is also clear from the Stakeholder Engagement
9 http://www.argussoftware.com/en/products/ARGUSdev/default.aspx http://www.estatemaster.com/
10 see for example http://hsctoolkit.bis.gov.uk/
http://creativecities.britishcouncil.org/urban_co-design_tools/future_city_game
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
17
process that such tools are rarely if ever utilised by key decision makers in the process, either
through lack of awareness of their existence or value, a lack of specific tailoring to their
requirements or due to a lack of interest or ‘buy in’. Indeed interviewed stakeholders pointed to a
particular lack of mechanisms to assess the usefulness of existing resilience tools. It was felt that as
‘results’ often could not be measured, it was difficult to demonstrate their value and generate the
necessary support for their future use. Nevertheless, it can be seen that where the case is well made
for such tools, where they can be demonstrated to improve the decision making process or where
they can capture the attention of key policy makers, politicians or the electorate, they can have
considerable traction.
Adaptation of critical infrastructure (CI) standards and design methodologies to address both
natural and man-made threats to citizens, assets and socio-economic wellbeing requiresa well
developed resilience concept to ensure urban resilience implementation in wider society. Some
progress has been made, for example in Spain, a new critical infrastructure protection law was
developed in 2008 as a starting point. Its current status reflects the need to protect critical
infrastructure from extreme threats and determine responsibilities. This need is highlighted by a
recent EU FP7 Call addressing the protection of CI against the effects of extreme weather events.
However implementing urban resilience more widely to address longer term more strategic
challenges is still under developed and more political, policy and practitioner effort is needed.11
The capacity for HARMONISE to address this gap directly is perhaps to develop guidance
regarding ‘horizon scanning’ (identifying new threats and developing forward plans to mitigate
their effects) and future scenarios. This might be achievable via simple means, such as provision of
Guidance Notes and via linking to existing tools and materials developed for individual cities, such
as interactive flood maps and 3D city models. The commissioning of computer simulations would
require a great deal more work and care to integrate and may well fall out with the scope of the
project. Nevertheless, the platform and tools developed in the project can be a significant part in a
step change towards changing political and professional behaviours and attitudes to these issues.
3.10 The enhanced use of digital technologies and ‘big data’
Future urban resilience planning and operation will take place against a context of ‘big data’ (the
increasing availability of massive datasets). Advanced system monitoring provided by an array of
11 “Ley 8/2011 : Ley de proteccion de infrastructuras criticas
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/04/29/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-7630.pdf”
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
18
sensors, field devices, new technologies and social media analytics provides opportunities to utilise
a greater amount of information more quickly than ever before, to aid resilience-focussed practices
and to better understand the changing nature of city life. There is also a vast amount of
underutilized information available already in the existing building systems, including not only
security and safety systems but also the automation and building management systems. In order to
be able to utilize the relevant information efficiently, advanced integration and smart analysis of
the information in the scope of urban areas - not only in one building - will become increasingly
important. Advanced ways of integrating the available information from various real-time systems
and other sources in a vendor-independent manner will allow for smart cross-correlation and
analysis of the spatial information, which can further be used in new applications supporting
resilience of urban areas. This is increasingly encompassed within the ‘smarter cities’ concept.
There is also the potential for better measurement of vulnerability by utilising spatial data. In this
regard there is much development work underway relating to the ‘internet of things’ within which
increasing amounts of physical infrastructure, equipment and activity is ‘tagged’ or otherwise
identified (and potentially monitored) spatially. This allows the digital ‘signatures’ of physical
material to be accessed and monitored utilising GIS based systems. All stakeholder groups are
potentially affected by this emerging trend. From the perspective of the ‘urban resilience
practitioner’ the process is moving from a position of data scarcity to one of potentially being
overwhelmed by a mass of data derived from an array of inbuilt sensors and mobile sources such
as social media.
This newly available source of information crystalises a new gap, in terms of a requirement to
devise ways in which data streams can be harvested and analysed so as to enhance our
understanding of resilience e.g. predicting risk, or communicating messages about risk. At present
basic tools exist and new ones are emerging all the time12
.
HARMONISE can contribute to closing this gap by using emerging technologies, such as sensor
data, ‘smart cities’ and social media and demonstrating how they can be embedded / utilised to
enhance Urban Resilience and to build capacity for future enhancement. The extent to which this
can be achieved depends on what tools are developed, which will be the focus of WP3, however
there is a clear potential in the consortium composition to build tools that are capable of educating
and up skilling built environment practitioners and policy makers and raising awareness of the
potential of ‘big data’ to improve urban resilience planning, design, delivery and operation. The
12
eg. http://www.warnandinform.com/london-schemes/city-london/
or http://www.quakefinder.com/
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
19
platform itself will not provide mechanisms for collecting, storing or analysing acquired
monitoring data. However, it can host tools that are able to perform these activities or educate
users concerning this issue. Moreover, it may provide services, e.g. query interfaces for ‘Big Data’
storage.
3.11 Prioritising Risks and assessing ‘Trade Off’s’
Several authorities and private companies make risk assessments and risk mitigation plans with
regard to large-scale urban infrastructure that often are overlapping, yet they are not communicated
to other interested parties. In addition, there are currently no mechanisms or tools available to aid
risk comparison and prioritisation or to assess ‘trade-off’s’ in achieving resilience goals – while
risks are widely identified, no-one has a big picture of the risk landscape. In addition, there is little
support for planners in deciding how to prioritise different types of risks or understanding the full
implications of such decisions. For example while sustainability objectives may encourage more
efficient operations in the interests of resource conservation, resilience may promote greater
redundancy in city infrastructure to provide back up during a crisis. Such potential conflicts can
signal that short term efficiency gains may not be the ideal approach for achieving longer term
sustainability and resilience. Of course, ultimately such decisions are the remit of politicians – as
pointed out in the stakeholder engagement process – no tool will determine whether to undertake
‘more road bypasses or heart bypasses’. Nevertheless it is important from an urban resilience
perspective that political (and outflowing financial) decisions are made taking cognisance of an
appropriate evidence base covering all relevant subject matter. In addition, more collaborative
security governance and more proactive security communication from authorities to local
communities were requested in the stakeholder interviews. Whilst ultimately resilience decisions
(such as the rebuilding of New Orleans in the USA after a total loss event) may ‘fly in the face’ of
professional evidence, it is essential that such evidence is made available. The alternative to
evidence based policy making is invariably policy based evidence making, with decisions taken on
the basis of vested interest lobbying, bias, potentially misplaced sentiment and ‘hunches’.
HARMONISE can act to mitigate this gap by providing the key players information of each
others’ viewpoints and objectives in security-driven urban resilience. The HARMONISE platform
will serve as a sophisticated, context sensitive platform, with the capacity to assist decision-makers
in justifying risk-related decisions, facilitate priority setting and ultimately provide a forum for
consensus building around shared objectives. This is a challenging issue. It is envisaged that the
platform could translate possible user priorities (e.g. sustainability vs. efficiency), which would
guide further content recommendations. Additionally, the platform could inform users about
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
20
possible trade-offs, contradictions or interactions between different choices (e.g. if you choose to
use tool A you should perhaps also consider what is said in document B).
On the other hand, risk assessment methodologies focused on terrorist events for identifying the
critical assets and functions within buildings or critical infrastructures, determining the threats to
those assets, and assessing the vulnerabilities associated with those threats that have been detected
in literature, do not take into account relevant parameters like the existing relation with others
critical infrastructures as well as the influence on society in case of business interruption13
. In
addition, there are no specific risk assessment tools addressing specifically urban critical
infrastructure or urban large scale critical infrastructure. Taking that into account, HARMONISE
can contribute in the development of a more clear, flexible, and comprehensive updated risk
assessment methodology against terrorist threat by helping to prioritise different types of risk as
well as understanding the implications of decisions taken by different key agents, including:
• the building sciences community of architects and engineers working for private
institutions
• building owners/operators/managers
• State and local government officials working in the building sciences community
The approach includes identifying opportunities to reduce physical damage to the urban large
critical infrastructure systems as well as reducing resultant casualties, during extreme man-made
events.
3.12 Addressing Physical Planning Restraints
In order to fully understand and assess the resilience of planning policy, strategies and the overall
system itself, a better understanding of the political and economic ideologies that underpin
planning as a profession and an activity is required. Actions required for previous gaps will also be
relevant here including how to align market interests with resilience goals and objectives. Broadly,
a more comprehensive understanding of how risks are created and distributed within and between
13
FEMA 426: A How-To Guide to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings
Providing Protection to People and Buildings /Site and Urban Design for Security: Guidance
against Potential Terrorist Attacks/ FEMA 427, Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to
Mitigate Terrorist Attacks
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
21
cities is required – with a particular focus on the risks created by the wider economic climate and
how planning interacts with these processes.
Specific, tailored guidance is required for assessing resilience at different spatial scales and within
different contexts. ‘Resilience’ will be interpreted differently depending on the specific challenges
and issues of an area and as such, the range of tools developed to address urban resilience must be
flexible enough to be applied in varying contexts.
Spatial plans should provide guidance in analysing the vulnerability and risk related consequences
of proposed activities or development on the environment but similarly should also take into
account the potential risks of natural and man-made hazards to the spatial plans and policies
themselves. Currently the evidence base that supports strategic plan making does this to some
extent, for example strategic flood risk assessment, geo-technical analysis and transport
assessment. Nevertheless, the resilience of spatial planning systems has emerged as a potential area
of concern, in light of the global economic crisis and its associated effects on a number of critical
planning strategies that were predicated on constant growth to function.
Currently, many of the tools required to ‘plug’ these identified gaps do not exist in a holistic, urban
resilience focussed fashion. However a number of unique tools have been developed in recent
years which seek to address some of the issues around integrated decision making, urban security
and even resilience specifically. The existence of such tools is often not widely known and
building awareness around the availability of such resources is a key area which HARMONISE
can contribute to. Some examples of these recently developed tools are provided below:
• MyPlan.ie - a coordinated planning tool developed in Ireland in recent years which acts as
a ‘one stop shop for information about plans and also to provide other information that is
relevant to planning decision-making (census, heritage sites, patterns of housing
development etc.)14
.
• Urban Securipedia - a tool developed as part of FP7 project ‘VITRUV’ (Vulnerability
Identification Tools for Resilience Enhancements of Urban Environments’). It is an urban
security (and connected safety) knowledge base that supports the urban planner in decision
making with regard to the security of cities concerning concrete problems or goals.
Although the tool specifically focuses on the issue of security, it recognises the fact that
14
http://www.myplan.ie/en/index.html
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
22
urban planners work in a holistic environment, i.e. that they have to consider a wide range
of aspects and interests from a multitude of parties. As such, security information and
advice within the tool is placed in this context. To this end it not only widens the
knowledge of urban planners in security related issues, but also places these in
relationships with the other aspects of the urban planners’ decision space, which will
encompass the economic, social, ethics, safety and mobility dimensions. This tool, with its
holistic view of urban safety and security, will be of use within the HARMONISE
project15
.
• Siemens Toolkit for Resilient Cities - Siemens joined with the Regional Plan Association
and the global consulting engineering firm Arup to prepare a study on resilient urban
infrastructure and an associated ‘Toolkit for Resilient Cities’. This toolkit explores the
potential role of technology in enhancing the resilience of cities and their critical
infrastructure systems under four headings – Building Systems; The Transportation
Network; The Grid Electricity System and The Water Management System16
.
These tools are examples of the array of tools that have the potential to improve / augment Urban
Resilience. A key role of HARMONISE will be to host relevant tools such as these and drive
awareness of them via the embedded semantic search functionality.
15
http://securipedia.eu/mediawiki/index.php/Welcome_to_Urban_Securipedia 16
http://w3.siemens.com/topics/global/en/sustainable-ities/resilience/Pages/home.aspx)
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the front s
4 HARMONISE Forward Plan
4.1 HARMONISE Forward Plan
To achieve aim of addressing the current gaps in policy and practice outlined in this report,
Forward Plan will be adopted. The major steps are outlined in Figure
are included in Table 2. The relationship between the plan activities and the major gap
depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 3 HARMONISE Forward Plan
Finalise Scope (WP1)
Optimise Platform (WP2) and Toolset (WP3)
Undertake Case Studies to help embed functionality (WP4)
Test and Improve Platform and Tools (WP5)
Disseminate, Educate and Commercial Exploitation (WP6)
HARMONISE Protocol:
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
version v1.0
Use, duplication or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the front sheet of this document.
23
Forward Plan
HARMONISE Forward Plan
aim of addressing the current gaps in policy and practice outlined in this report,
. The major steps are outlined in Figure 3. The detailed
are included in Table 2. The relationship between the plan activities and the major gap
HARMONISE Forward Plan
Optimise Platform (WP2) and Toolset (WP3)
Undertake Case Studies to help embed functionality
Test and Improve Platform and Tools (WP5)
Disseminate, Educate and Commercial Exploitation (WP6)
stakeholder engagement
Holistic integration
Protocol: HAR_RPT_
Rev. v. 1.0
heet of this document.
aim of addressing the current gaps in policy and practice outlined in this report, a
. The detailed Plan activities
are included in Table 2. The relationship between the plan activities and the major gap activities is
Disseminate, Educate and Commercial
Holistic integration
Proof of concept
Offer BSOA solutions
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
24
Table 2 HARMONISE Forward Plan Activity and Rationale
Plan Activity Rationale
Stakeholder
Engagement:
Ongoing through case studies and dissemination activities to
identify needs, practices and processes.
Platform Optimisation: Identify key operating parameters required to allow the
HARMONISE platform to effectively interact with the
stakeholder community likely to use the platform.
HARMONISE aims to develop a holistic urban resilience
information platform that will host and enable a portfolio of
search, diagnostic, scenario modelling, management and
educational tools. As the HARMONISE project progresses an
initial repository and workspace will organically transform
into an interactive knowledge platform with associated toolset
by the end of the project.
Toolset Optimisation: Identify array of tools available for Urban Resilience use –
determine opportunities to host these in a comprehensive
toolset. Identify scope for additional tool development within
the remit and budget of HARMONISE
Integrated Holistic
Resilience
Enhancement:
Achieved by linking the tools with the interactive semantic
intelligence platform. Information on existing tools to
enhance urban resilience (albeit in a non explicit manner) will
be provided; however in order to address the current disparate
nature of such tools the platform will also provide associated
information on the economic and social context appropriate to
each use and the implications for inappropriate application.
Or in turn social / economic requests would be allied to
technical and cost data etcetera, to drive a holistic approach.
Thus, end-users are presented with a comprehensive range of
solutions that they might not have considered previously. A
holistic approach will inevitably require incorporation of
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
25
existing buildings and infrastructure and it is envisaged that
the HARMONISE platform will include engineering,
construction and retrofit tools. Tools, such as adaptive
capacity analysis will be developed to facilitate the successful
incorporation of such structures within different urban
contexts.
Education Activity
Development:
Linked to Platform, Tool and dissemination material
development, needs derived from the Stakeholder
Engagement should be considered and addressed to provide a
range of educational opportunities across a range of
educational level. This activity will become part of the post
project legacy of HARMONISE and will form part of the
commercial exploitation activity.
Dissemination material
development:
Linked to tool identification and development, to the extent
that tools could include documents and best practice guides.
Along with these tools, context specific guidance documents
could be provided that demonstrate how similar actions have
resulted in different outcomes depending on the urban
context. Information gained from analysis of the case studies
could be utilised in this respect. This activity will become part
of the post project legacy of HARMONISE and will form part
of the commercial exploitation activity.
Awareness Raising: A number of educational tools in the form of guidance
documents could also be hosted on the platform. As part of
this, end users could ‘search’ the platform for information or
guidance by specific threat; by type of urban built
infrastructure; by type of urban context; or by type of end user
(e.g. search by profession – engineer; planner; architect etc) to
ensure a personalised user experience. This can be provided
as part of the envisaged HARMONISE virtual centre of
excellence. In addition, HARMONISE can be considered as a
repository of information, guidance, knowledge base,
particularly through the development of the interactive
semantic intelligence platform.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Figure 4 HARMONISE Forward Plan: Link to Gap Addressing Measures
Engagement of stakeholders
Comprehensive selection of relevant information on urban resilience in Europe
The enhanced use of digital technologies and ‘big data’
Platform functionalities and tool(s)
Computer supported collaborative design
Prioritising risks and enabling ‘Trade Off’s’
Better financial modelling
Fostering a more long term, strategic perspective
Better Training and education
The development of bespoke guidance/frameworks
Addressing physical planning restraints
HARMONISE Protocol:
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Art version v1.0
26
MONISE Forward Plan: Link to Gap Addressing Measures
• Stakeholder Engagement, Awareness Raising
• Platform Optimisation Stakeholder Engagementinformation on urban resilience in Europe
• Platform Optimisation, Tool identificationThe enhanced use of digital technologies
• Platform Optimisation, Tool identification
• Holistic functionalityComputer supported collaborative design
• Holistic functionality
• Holistic functionality
• Integrated holistic resilience enhancementFostering a more long term, strategic
• Education Activity Development
• Dissemination material development
• Dissemination material developmentAddressing physical planning restraints
Protocol: HAR_RPT_
Rev. v. 1.0
Stakeholder Engagement, Awareness Raising
Platform Optimisation Stakeholder Engagement
Platform Optimisation, Tool identification
Platform Optimisation, Tool identification
Integrated holistic resilience enhancement
Dissemination material development
Dissemination material development
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
27
5 Summary of HARMONISE Contributions Beyond State of the Art and Conclusion
5.1 HARMONISE Contributions Beyond State of the Art
In addressing the identified gaps, HARMONISE can contribute BSOA in a number of key ways as
follows:
• HARMONISE can make the strategic case for urban resilience in the context of economic
growth, prosperity, urban and social regeneration and new opportunities for growth. It can
assist in addressing a lack of strategic direction around urban resilience in the
development of National and City level planning strategy.
• Provide a ‘green book’ which enables infrastructure professionals to undertake risk
assessment, cost-benefit and value for money analyses of incorporating resilience counter
measures into projects at the earliest stage of the lifecycle
• In providing a holistic definition for the concept of urban resilience, HARMONISE can
incorporate existing ‘tools’ and feed into the shaping of new objectives for future urban
development.
• HARMONISE aims to provide planning and design guidelines to include indicators for
urban resilience; innovative urban design solutions to enhance resilience against a range of
natural and man-made threats; and performance criteria to evaluate and monitor
effectiveness of proposed solutions.
• HARMONISE will facilitate the design and planning process of new large scale urban built
infrastructure projects through providing an evidence base to inform negotiation between
the proposers of such projects and the decision makers within local / city authorities.
• As part of these processes new educational tools for built environment practitioners will
be developed to enhance their understanding and awareness of the urban resilience concept.
• HARMONISE aims to establish a proactive educational programme that will facilitate
dynamic integration of urban resilience and security best practice into the planning, design
and analysis of large scale urban environments. This educational product therefore
advances professional development and knowledge for understanding the optimal
approaches and responses to promote urban resilience. Harmonise will examine existing
processes, tools, models, from well-established industries and highlight how they can be
adopted for wider use (e.g. military, nuclear etc.)
• Workshops organised as part of this programme will be directed towards key end users
and policy makers from across a variety of different fields in order to promote a holistic
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
28
approach to urban resilience and security in a manner that aligns with the day to day
practice of these professions.
• A dissemination resource pack will also be prepared as part of the dissemination process
for the project that will encompass appropriate reports, papers, guidelines and policy,
together with best practice guides for user involvement and participation. These will be
made available in both hard and soft copy formats (different compositions and versions are
envisaged, depending on the topic or context).
• A major conference on urban resilience will also be organised as part of the
HARMONISE project. This deliverable will represent a key strand in the enhancement of
urban resilience and the betterment of security understanding and awareness in large scale
urban built infrastructure.
5.2 Conclusion
Results from Work Package 1 elements have clearly demonstrated that whilst an array of tools,
practices and processes exist which, in their entirety, populate the field of urban resilience, there is
a significant gap in terms of a holistic overview. Existing planning, design and engineering
approaches and the burgeoning field of ‘sustainability’ combine to provide a confusing and
‘opaque’ landscape which is further complicated by discipline specific terminology, a ‘silo
mentality’ and a tendency towards short term decision making - exacerbated by political and
financial expediency. There are gaps in the provision of tools and the skill sets required to
maximise their potential and also gaps in the knowledge about available tools. Increasingly, vast
quantities of data and knowledge are available, presenting an ‘attention conundrum’ for policy
makers and practitioners, who can struggle to navigate and make coherent choices regarding
products, approaches and techniques. There is a need to both expand and focus the knowledge of
relevant stakeholders regarding urban resilience matters and to place at their disposal the
technological tools now increasingly available to them in their decision making around large scale
built infrastructure.
HARMONISE will act to address these issues by building a holistic solution – a Platform able to
host a wide range of relevant material and with the semantic search functionality which can ‘make
sense’ of it, hosting an array of existing and newly developed tools, brought together in one place
and oriented to the requirements of the user.
However, technological tools alone cannot enhance the resilience of cities and their associated
large scale built infrastructure. Indeed the adoption of these tools will depend, to a large extent, on
whether the wider climate or policy environment will allow such investment to take place.
Similarly, the use of such resilience tools will require that built environment professionals have
received adequate training and education to enable them to extract and recognise their full value.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
29
As such, changing social, political and economic conventions is often as crucial to the success of
city resilience initiatives as upgrading physical assets. In order to provide an adequate ‘enabling
framework’ for resilience enhancements, further guidance is needed. Indeed, within the planning
and design sphere particularly, many of the identified gaps will require these types of ‘soft’ tools
(at least in the first instance) rather than a range of new technologies.
HARMONISE will provide a platform to facilitate this learning process and foster in the evolution
of a holistic Urban Resilience concept, uniting the efforts of involved stakeholders and driving
enhanced Urban Resilience.
The working out of the HARMONISE forward plan will deliver BSOA improvement opportunities
for urban resilience practice. Utilisation of the HARMONISE platform and tools will help secure
BSOA improvements in both practice and policy and will act to fulfil the Project Aim - of
delivering a holistic approach to resilience by systematic actions to help to make large scale urban
built infrastructure secure.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
30
6 References
All references are linked, as footnotes, to external material as appropriate.
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
31
7 Appendix 1 GAP Questions
HARMONISE T1.4 Main Identified Gaps and Associated Key Questions
The need to pay attention to long-
term adaptation as part of a broader
and more strategic approach to
resilience thinking
• What tool(s) could be developed to support
longer term strategic decision making?
• What scope for HARMONISE on identifying /
contextualising / interpreting Europe wide
emerging threats?
Limited strategic thinking • What platform functionality / tool(s) could be
developed to encourage / facilitate cross
disciplinary and multi-phase (design through
to operate) co-operation
• How can HARMONISE act to penetrate
institutional and discipline ‘silos’ to build
better integration and support joined-up
management to enable resilience to take
place
A lack of leadership and political
support
• How can the HARMONISE project interact
between fragmented operational entities
responsible for resilience and the political
process, to facilitate strategic decision
support.
• How can Harmonise facilitate a decentralised
resilience management approach?
The need to consider multiple
viewpoints in a transparent and
participatory process
• What are the key considerations preventing
participation?
• Who needs to participate, in what format?
• How can the HARMONISE project contribute
to a raised awareness of urban resilience and
contribute to an improved participatory
process?
• What can be done to promote a realistic
understanding of the costs and benefits
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
32
involved in providing resilient places and the
limitations of what can be achieved in terms
of finance, engineering and planning
• How can HARMONISE act to promote and
host a dialogue between government and the
public regarding the extent and level of
resilience acceptability
The development of bespoke
guidance/frameworks
• Which particular aspects of practice could be
enhanced or supported by a formal
statement of best practice
• What / where are there regulatory
inadequacies hampering the process of
achieving Urban Resilience?
• How can Harmonise build solutions to these?
Better training and education • How are the concepts underpinning Urban
Resilience currently viewed by educators and
professional organisations?
• Which professions require educational
enhancement, in which areas?
• What are the educational niches which
Harmonise can seek to fill?
Better measurement of vulnerability
including role of spatial data -linked
to the issue of Europe wide threats
• How are broader threats such as extreme
weather currently contextualised at more
local scales?
• What are the pertinent inadequacies of
current hazard identification and mitigation
practices?
• How can context specific risk awareness and
appropriately scaled response be enhanced?
The enhanced use of digital
technologies and big data
• What issues and problems are there which
could be addressed with enhanced
availability and analysis of data?
• How can emerging technologies, such as
sensor data, ‘smart cities’ and social media be
embedded / utilised to enhance Urban
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
33
Resilience or to build capacity for future
enhancement?
Better financial modelling (including
consideration of duel use
technologies)
• What are the key issues preventing
appropriate financing of resilience?
• What are the opportunities to ‘leverage’
other activities to provide additional returns
on investment?
• What are potential alternative forms of
funding?
Products and Practices • What are the current inadequacies of
mainstream products and practices which
inhibit better Urban Resilience practice (such
as over reliance on bollards, inadequate /
expensive components)?
• How can HARMONISE act to combat poor
practice and promote improved practices and
products?
Fundamental Question • What gaps does HARMONISE seek to address,
in what way, for whom?
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
34
8 Appendix 2 Relevant Stakeholders
Lack of Strategic Direction: Central Government Officials with responsibility
for resilience-type activities (national level
policy) together with urban and regional planning
practitioners at a regional and local level.
Disparate Approaches to Assessing
‘Resilience’
Practitioners at a regional and local level
including: • Architects and planners (and other built
environment professionals such as
surveyors or civil engineers)
• Urban & regional planning, spatial
planning, professional bodies,
architectural associations (chambers)
• Members of government agencies &
organizations with security tasks e.g.
Members of relief organizations, rescue
services, (federal) police, military, river
and flood managers etc.
• Insurance companies and risk managers
c) Lack of Awareness of ‘Resilience’
Concept:
Both Central Government Officials with
responsibility for resilience-type activities
(national level policy) and built environment
practitioners at regional and local level
Prioritising Risks and assessing ‘Trade
Off’s’:
Practitioners at a regional and local level
including: • Architects and planners (and other built
environment professionals such as
surveyors or civil engineers)
• Urban & regional planning, spatial
planning, professional bodies,
architectural associations (chambers)
• Members of government agencies &
organizations with security tasks e.g.
Members of relief organizations, rescue
services, (federal) police, military, river
and flood managers etc.
• Insurance companies and risk managers
How can the Market (specifically
consumer preferences) be aligned with
Planning practitioners at the local level
SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_
SECURITY: PU
D1.3 Action Plan Report on Strategies and Practice
Beyond the State of the Art version v1.0
Rev. v. 1.0
35
Resilience Objectives?
Lack of Tools to address the Context
Specific elements of Resilience
Both Central Government Officials with
responsibility for resilience-type activities
(national level policy) and built environment
practitioners at regional and local level,
particularly planning practitioners.
Need for Improved Guidance on
‘Designing In’ Resilience
Practitioners in the field of urban planning,
architecture and urban design at the local level
h) Need for new or adapted Resilience
Language:
Central Government Officials with responsibility
for resilience-type activities (national level
policy) together with urban and regional built
environment practitioners at a regional and local
level
Potential Lack of Political and
Practitioner Support
Planning practitioners at the regional and local
levels
Assessing the Resilience of Planning
Systems
Central Government Officials with responsibility
for resilience-type activities (national level
policy) together with urban and regional planning
practitioners at a regional and local level