Urban Resilience and Infrastructure Risk Reduction Training Course

Participants can characterise priority hazards using evidence, climate information and uncertainty statements.

• Hazard typologies covering hydrometeorological, geological, technological and biological events
• Climate hazard trends derived from observations, projections and local records
• Return periods, event magnitude and probability interpreted for planning decisions
• Compound events assessed through concurrent hazards and shared vulnerabilities
• Climate scenario narratives used to test long-term infrastructure assumptions
• Uncertainty statements documented without delaying proportionate risk-reduction decisions

Participants can assess who and what is exposed, vulnerable and able to cope.

• Exposure inventories covering population, buildings, infrastructure and economic activity
• Social vulnerability indicators disaggregated by income, age, disability and tenure
• Physical vulnerability functions linked to hazard intensity and asset condition
• Institutional capacity assessed through mandates, staffing, budgets and coordination
• Participatory risk assessment methods capturing community knowledge and priorities
• Data quality checks for completeness, spatial resolution, timeliness and bias

Participants can create a transparent risk register and prioritise treatment decisions.

• Risk statements written with source, event, consequence and affected services
• Likelihood-consequence matrices calibrated using defined scoring criteria
• ISO 31000 risk treatment logic applied to urban risk registers
• Residual risk estimated after existing controls and planned measures
• Risk appetite and tolerance thresholds set for essential municipal services
• Priority rankings tested against equity, feasibility, urgency and cost

Participants can use spatial evidence to identify development controls and risk-reduction priorities.

• Risk layers combining hazards, exposure, vulnerability and critical facilities
• GIS map interpretation for floodplains, heat islands and evacuation constraints
• Land-use zoning controls matched to hazard intensity and occupancy risk
• Development screening criteria for settlements, industry and public facilities
• Setbacks, easements and buffer zones specified for high-risk locations
• Risk-sensitive upgrading options for informal settlements and underserved districts

Participants can identify critical assets and define acceptable service interruptions.

• Criticality criteria covering life safety, service demand and economic consequences
• Asset registers structured by function, location, condition and ownership
• Service-level objectives defined for water, power, transport and health
• Criticality scoring distinguishes single points of failure from redundant assets
• Failure mode and effects analysis applied to essential service assets
• Maintenance backlogs assessed as drivers of infrastructure vulnerability

Participants can map dependency relationships and analyse cascading service failures.

• Dependency mapping identifies physical, digital, geographic and organisational links
• Causal loop diagrams trace feedback between infrastructure disruption and demand
• Cascading failure pathways analysed from initiating event to community impacts
• Interdependency matrices compare upstream suppliers and downstream service users
• Common-cause failures identified across co-located infrastructure and shared corridors
• Cross-utility coordination protocols specified for disruption escalation decisions

Participants can select proportionate structural and operational measures for priority risks.

• Structural measures include elevation, floodproofing, redundancy and protective works
• Non-structural measures cover maintenance, operating rules and development controls
• Safe-to-fail design accommodates overload without catastrophic service collapse
• Fail-safe design protects people during component malfunction or power loss
• Design standards reviewed against future climate loads and asset lifecycles
• Option screening compares effectiveness, constructability, affordability and maintenance needs

Participants can assess nature-based measures alongside engineered infrastructure interventions.

• Nature-based solutions reduce flood, heat, erosion and water-quality risks
• Catchment restoration linked to downstream drainage and water-supply resilience
• Urban greening strategies target heat exposure and public health outcomes
• Hybrid infrastructure combines engineered drainage with retention and infiltration features
• Ecosystem service valuation identifies co-benefits and maintenance responsibilities
• Land tenure and community stewardship risks assessed before implementation

Participants can design warning and preparedness arrangements linked to operational actions.

• End-to-end early warning links monitoring, forecasting, communication and response
• Impact-based forecasting translates hazard information into expected service consequences
• Trigger-action protocols assign decisions before thresholds are exceeded
• Emergency operations centre functions coordinate information, resources and public messages
• Evacuation planning addresses routes, shelters, accessibility and transport capacity
• Public warning messages tested for clarity, timing, reach and protective action

Participants can prepare continuity and recovery arrangements for critical urban services.

• Business impact analysis identifies maximum tolerable periods of disruption
• Continuity strategies cover alternate sites, backup power and mutual aid
• Recovery time objectives set targets for priority systems and functions
• Damage and loss assessment separates direct, indirect and wider economic effects
• Build Back Better principles incorporated into post-disaster reconstruction decisions
• Recovery governance assigns authority, financing controls and community participation

Participants can establish governance arrangements and communicate risk for informed action.

• Institutional mapping clarifies mandates, overlaps, gaps and decision rights
• Stakeholder analysis identifies affected groups, influence and engagement priorities
• Risk communication principles address uncertainty, trust and protective behaviour
• Community engagement plans include accessible formats and feedback mechanisms
• Public-private coordination arrangements define data sharing and mutual support
• Accountability matrices assign owners, approvers, contributors and informed parties

Participants can compare resilience options and prepare an investment case.

• Cost-benefit analysis compares avoided losses with intervention lifecycle costs
• Multi-criteria analysis ranks options with monetary and non-monetary criteria
• Lifecycle costing includes capital, operations, maintenance, replacement and residual value
• Distributional analysis identifies who receives benefits and bears implementation costs
• Financing sources include municipal budgets, insurance, grants and climate funds
• Resilience business cases link interventions to service, fiscal and social outcomes

Participants can convert selected measures into a governed and measurable implementation plan.

• Theory of change links activities, outputs, outcomes and resilience objectives
• Implementation roadmaps sequence quick wins, capital projects and policy reforms
• Work breakdown structures define tasks, dependencies, resources and milestones
• Resilience indicators measure service continuity, exposure reduction and preparedness
• Monitoring plans specify baselines, targets, data sources and reporting cycles
• After-action reviews capture lessons following incidents, exercises and near misses

Participants can assemble evidence and decisions into a coherent draft resilience plan.

• Problem statements define place, population, services and priority disruption scenarios
• Risk profiles consolidate hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity evidence
• Critical infrastructure findings identify dependencies, bottlenecks and recovery priorities
• Intervention packages combine land-use, engineering, preparedness and governance measures
• Implementation sequencing reflects urgency, affordability, dependencies and institutional readiness
• Draft plan sections tested against decision-maker needs and available evidence

Participants can build, review and present a complete urban resilience and infrastructure risk-reduction action plan.

• Scope a city, district, corridor or service-system resilience challenge
• Compile a defensible risk register and critical infrastructure dependency analysis
• Prioritise interventions using risk scores, equity criteria and investment evidence
• Prepare implementation roadmap with owners, milestones, budgets and indicators
• Review action plans against peer challenge and stakeholder decision requirements
• Present recommendations, assumptions, residual risks and next-step governance actions