SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE HAR RPT SECURITY: PU …harmonise.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/D1-3-HARMONISE... · 2015-03-10 · SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_

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:


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,


= 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,


= 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



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


SECURITY: PU



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.


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



Rev. v. 1.0


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


SECURITY: PU



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).


SECURITY: PU



Rev. v. 1.0


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-


SECURITY: PU



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.


SECURITY: PU



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)


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



Rev. v. 1.0


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


SECURITY: PU



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:


Art version v1.0

8

HARMONISE Gap Approach



shop’ for resilience information. It provides a comprehensive selection of


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


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.




would also aid the development of a more holistic approach to urban resilience.

Protocol: HAR_RPT_

Rev. v. 1.0



shop’ for resilience information. It provides a comprehensive selection of


udies. With its semantic intelligence, the

users to combine different data fragments and produce new implicit


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




to urban resilience.


SECURITY: PU



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:


Art version v1.0

9




the HARMONISE consortium, taking cognisance of the guidance provided by


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)


plinary ‘silos’ and identify platform and tool functionality that enables a more holistic,


up management to enable resilience to take place.


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 consortium, taking cognisance of the guidance provided by


users and other project

ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011)


plinary ‘silos’ and identify platform and tool functionality that enables a more holistic,



situations were selected based


SECURITY: PU



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/


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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.


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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”


SECURITY: PU



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/


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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)


SECURITY: PU



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:


version v1.0


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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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.


SECURITY: PU



Figure 4 HARMONISE Forward Plan: Link to Gap Addressing Measures



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:


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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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.


SECURITY: PU



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.


SECURITY: PU



Rev. v. 1.0

30

6 References

All references are linked, as footnotes, to external material as appropriate.


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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?


SECURITY: PU



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


SECURITY: PU



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


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


policy) together with urban and regional planning

practitioners at a regional and local level

Documents

SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE HAR RPT SECURITY: PU …harmonise.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/D1-3-HARMONISE... · 2015-03-10 · SP1-Cooperation-312013-HARMONISE Protocol: HAR_RPT_