Welcome to the B&C COMMUNITY WEBSITE | Visit the B&C JOURNAL WEBSITE

www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/chronic-climate-risks-urban-infrastructure.html

Chronic Climate Risks to Urban Infrastructure

The case is clear for climate adaptation. What frameworks and actions are needed to address climate-related risks?

As the climate is changing, urban areas around the world face multiple risks of both acute and chronic climate hazards. Sarah Greenham & Emma Ferranti (University of Birmingham) consider the impacts on urban infrastructure of these different risks and what kinds of actions are needed to address them.

In the UK the July 2022 heatwave saw 40°C observed for the first time, resulting in the first ever red warning for extreme heat i.e. "a very likely risk to life, substantial disruption, and possibly widespread damage to property and infrastructure". Impacts were reported for railways (track buckles, overhead cables sagging, cancelled and reduced train services), airports and roads (flight suspensions and road closures following asphalt lifting or melting), and the power network (power cuts due to overheating equipment). Additionally, in December 2024 Storm Darragh resulted in red, amber, and yellow warnings for wind and rain across the UK western coastline, with impacts reported on power infrastructure (2.3 million customers lost power, reports of power lines falling), marine transport (pier damage), as well as airports and railways (service cancellations and closures).

Urban areas also face chronic risks i.e. "longer term challenges that can erode our economy, community, way of life and/or national security" (HM Government 2025). Chronic climate risks arise more slowly and operate over longer time scales. These include: increases in average temperature and heat stress, changing seasonality such as extended warm seasons; sea level rise and coastal erosion; sustained changes in rainfall that put pressure on drainage systems and sewage overflows (increases), or drought conditions, water scarcity, and subsidence (decreases). Impacts are less obvious in the short-term, being incremental and cumulative, but lead to persistent impacts, reduced asset performance, and gradually increased operational and maintenance costs. Examples include road degradation, reduction in the quality of green infrastructure and its wider services, and disruption of port operations from sea level rise.

Addressing both acute and chronic risks to urban infrastructure is a shared responsibility across multiple actors. Although infrastructure assets may be owned by a specific organisation, in the tangled web of our urban environments, the resilience of a particular asset often depends on the actions of another organisation. For example, the inundation of private and/or public buildings because of surface water flooding following an acute heavy rainfall may be a short-term consequence of problems with drainage assets, that are the responsibility of the highways team and the wastewater utility provider. Over the longer term, this flood risk is a consequence of a longer-term shift to more heavy rainfall patterns and could be exacerbated by the creep of impermeable surfaces across the urban area and reduced green infrastructure. Accordingly, no single organisation can manage all aspects of climate resilience, but understanding the risks an organisation or community faces, is a step towards building resilience.

UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

The UK National Risk Register (NRR) outlines the most serious risks facing the country. This is supplemented by the 2025 Chronic Risk Analysis (CRA), that overviews 26 medium-long-term risks that may exacerbate those risks within the NRR. Climate change is one of these risks. Additionally, the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 mandates a 5-year rolling cycle of adaptation reporting and national climate change risk assessments, which informs national adaptation planning. This provides a structure under which some actors operating in the urban environment can consider the climate risks impacting their infrastructure or operations. The UK’s fourth government Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) will be published in 2027, underpinned by an independent technical report (CCRA-IA4; Lowe et al. 2026) and the Well-Adapted UK report, produced by the Climate Change Committee (CCC 2026). These utilise the scientific evidence base and organisation-specific information provided via the Adaptation Reporting Power (ARP) process mandated by the Climate Change Act that invites a range of infrastructure providers and bodies with functions ‘of a public nature’ to provide reports on how they manage climate risk. The CCRA-IA4 reviews climate risks to infrastructure across the 2030s, 2050s, and 2080s time horizons under different levels of global warming. Accordingly, this risk assessment provides the framework for synthesising chronic infrastructure risks, which are considered in the Well-Adapted UK report. However, both documents utilise existing reports and studies, so where there is no evidence, no chronic risks are considered. Moreover, while national infrastructure providers typically submit ARP reports, there was only one local authority report preceding 2024 (the Greater London Authority in 2012). Encouragingly, 12 local authorities and two combined authorities submitted an ARP report in the fourth round (ARP4) in 2024, but the evidence for chronic risks to local infrastructure, or to private or public buildings in urban areas remains a major evidence gap. This matters, because awareness and quantification of climate risks is needed to make the business case for climate adaptation.

From risk assessments to adaptation action

The Well-Adapted UK report estimates that the overall cost of climate change to the UK is currently 0-2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In a warming world without adaptation, these costs could increase to 1-5% of GDP – roughly equivalent to £60-£260 billion today – by 2050. Furthermore, the median benefit-cost ratio of adapting UK infrastructure is 5:1 (CCC 2026). Thus, the case for adaptation is clear, but the reality is challenging. There are multiple adaptation frameworks to support climate adaptation (e.g. Figure 1). These are typically iterative, and require the organisation to define the scope, data, and adaptation options, before proceeding to implementation, which must be supported by monitoring, evaluation, and reporting to measure the effectiveness of actions.

<strong>Figure 1.</strong> The iterative climate change adaptation cycle. <em>Source: </em>adapted from Greenham et al. (2022)
Figure 1. The iterative climate change adaptation cycle. Source: adapted from Greenham et al. (2022)

The framework is straightforward, but practical application in the urban environment is complex, for there are multiple infrastructure owners and operators, from public and private sectors, with multiple questions to consider at every step. For example:

  •        Should there be one risk assessment for the whole urban area, or should each organisation conduct one?
  •        Who is responsible for deciding adaptation actions?
  •       Who should govern and finance these actions?
  •      How can the adaptation process be inclusive and support vulnerable communities, who are often disproportionately impacted by infrastructure failures?

Considering the example of surface water flooding of private and/or public properties, actors include at least: utility providers; the local authority; and property owners, residents, and users, for the duration of the climate risk. Furthermore, who pays for the adaptation actions and the monitoring and evaluation, and who benefits? This is particularly complex for chronic risks, where impacts are typically slow to manifest and incremental, and the lifetime of the risk may be different to the lifetime of the infrastructure owners and users.

There are, however, some good practice examples of cross-sectoral work addressing chronic climate risk across the UK. The Thames Estuary T2100 Programme brought together multiple actors including the Environment Agency, the Greater London Authority, Thames Water, Transport for London (TfL), port operators, property developers, landowners, local communities, and more, to plan climate resilience to sea-level rise and storm surges along the Thames Estuary until 2100 (Defra 2023). More recently, TfL advanced its system-wide understanding of the interdependent climate risks facing its transport infrastructure and operations (TfL 2024). This was a pioneering study, and urban areas need more interdependent risk mapping exercises across multiple sectors, underpinned by shared risk registers, such as the National Underground Asset Register. The Rapid Adaptation Pathways Assessment (RAPA) Toolkit developed by ADEPT in collaboration with the Environment Agency helps local authorities bring stakeholders together to undertake strategic and flexible decision-making for long-term climate risks such as coastal erosion (ADEPT 2025). RAPAs have been piloted by local authorities in South Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, and West Sussex and are part of ongoing research on the WM-Adapt project in the West Midlands (WMCA 2026).

Untangling the web for a well-adapted UK

The UK was not built for the current or future climates, but a well-adapted UK can be achieved if the right action is taken across society (CCC 2026). Climate change impacts are often felt locally, and adaptation requires multiple actors and actions operating and bound by policies at local, regional, and national scales. Multi-level governance frameworks (e.g. Figure 2) help visualise the necessary information flows and can strengthen the horizontal and vertical links across different policies and strategies. They can also reveal policy gaps or opportunities where governance structures are needed. Via stakeholder engagement, there is a means to integrate the perspectives of the communities, residents, and other interested parties such as businesses and market-based organisations from the outset of adaptation planning and action.

<strong>Figure 2.</strong> Multi-level climate change governance framework. <em>Source: </em>produced by the
        CAMINE project.
Figure 2. Multi-level climate change governance framework. Source: produced by the CAMINE project.

Within the UK, there is a disconnect between the predominantly national-level climate adaptation reporting cycle and the local-level management of local infrastructure.  However, climate adaptation is gaining prominence at the regional level, with the West Midlands and West of England Combined Authorities submitting ARP4 reports. Combined Authorities have an increasingly important leadership role in regional climate action via advocacy and regional capacity building (e.g. WM-Adapt), although urban planning (and thus the opportunity for climate adaptation actions) is within local authority remit, where financial constraints are typically greatest. Additionally, Local Resilience Forums, which typically co-ordinate disaster response to acute climate risks can bridge between local-national and acute-chronic risk management, if they can engage with regional and national adaptation processes.

To conclude, everyone has a part to play in climate resilience. Moving forwards, greater focus is required to increase the adaptive capacity of all communities and organisations so they can undertake risk assessments and adaptation measures. To facilitate this, the UK Government must deliver a strong fourth National Adaptation Plan (2028-2033) with the necessary underpinning finance to address risks outlined in CCRA4-IA. Climate adaptation must become business as usual and a way of life for all.

References

ADEPT. (2025). Rapid Adaptation Pathways Assessment (RAPA) Toolkit. https://www.adeptnet.org.uk/documents/rapid-adaptation-pathways-assessment-toolkit

The Climate Change Act 2008, c.27. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27  

Climate Change Committee (CCC). (2026). A Well-Adapted UK. The Fourth Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/a-well-adapted-uk/  

Defra. (2023). Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100). https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/thames-estuary-2100-te2100  

Greenham, S., Workman, R., Ferranti, E., et al. (2022). Climate-Resilient Transport: A policy guide for low-income countries in Africa and South Asia. https://www.piarc.org/ressources/documents/d46f198-37980-HVT047_UoB_AfTR-CC_KO4_PolicyGuide_Revised_06.pdf

HM Government. (2025), Chronic Risks Analysis. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6890acc9e8ba9507fc1b09a6/Chronic_Risks_Analysis__CRA_.pdf

Lowe, J.A., Harrison, M., and Perks, R.J. (2026). CCRA4-IA Technical Report. https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/publications/technical-report-ccra4-ia/

Transport for London (TfL). (2024). Climate change and interdependency risks for London's land based transport sector.https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-arp4-climate-interdependencies-project-abbreviated-report-2024.docx

West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). (2026). West Midlands Adapt (WM-Adapt) https://www.wmca.org.uk/what-we-do/environment-energy/adapting-to-climate-change/west-midlands-adapt-wm-adapt/

Latest Peer-Reviewed Journal Content

Journal Content

Decolonising time: vernacular villages and the politics of heritage temporality
R Al-Rabady

Commutes to alternative workplaces: GHG emissions and physical activity
J Taylor, L Thoen, A Espinosa Mireles De Villafranca, P Anashin, J Vanhatalo, D Milián Bernal & I Okkonen

Nine ‘myths’ about the building stock of Great Britain
S Evans, P Steadman, A Neto-Bradley, D Humphrey, R Liddiard,H Shamsi, J Palmer & G Simons

Critical Reconstruction Theory and the invention of post-disaster response
G Lizarralde, D Wachsmuth, F Özdoğan & M Cossu

Post-war reconstruction-as-knowledge practice: Fukui’s dual disaster recovery
A Y F Urushima & K Yamaguchi

Critical reflections on the process of interdisciplinary building science research
G T Morgan, M F Touchie, J Robinson, A Jakubiec & J Tran

Comparing technical disassembly potential methods for concrete and timber buildings
N Westerholm, A Tuure, S Pajunen & M Kuittinen

One-stop shops as leverage points for renovation sufficiency
G Pardalis & M Sula

Creating resilient cities: advocacy and planning for equity-based recovery
A Paidakaki

Impact of glazed balcony design on daylight in Finnish apartments
L Jegard, R Castaño-Rosa & S Pelsmakers

Climate-related risks: implications for municipal governments in Brazil
C Nastari Fernandes, P Ciminelli Ramalho & F Lima-Silva

Changing land-use metrics in mass housing: Türkiye case study
M S Çepni, A K Kutluca, T Salihoğlu, A Atmaca & S Mintemur

Personal comfort systems for adults with intellectual disabilities
K Exss, M Trebilcock, P Wegertseder-Martínez, S Schiavon & H Zhang

How buildings shape occupant movement: a systematic review and framework
G Chinazzo & N Wang

Rethinking the second life of post-disaster and post-conflict temporary housing
N Akdede, B Ö Ay & İ Gürsel Dino

Embodied carbon impacts of residential development siteworks: new assessment framework
P Comerford, O Kinnane, R O’Hegarty & P Crowe

Horizontal building extensions: potential in Finnish blocks of flats
J Tarpio & P Lehtovuori

Post-disaster reconstruction and ethics: the power of social capital
B Ubesingha, G Ofori, G Agyekum-Mensah & D Frings

Towards net zero: sectoral ambitions and global trends in building decarbonisation
C E Caballero-Güereca, J Vogel, N Alaux, C M Ouellet-Plamondon, J Silva Santana, G Foliente, T Lützkendorf & A Passer

Climate literacy and labour agency in vocational education and training
J Calvert, V Price, C Winch, L Clarke, M Sahin-Dikmen, P-L Bilodeau & E Dionne

Towards a new neighbourhood-scale climate risk-adaptation approach
C Rigoni, S Oliveira, O Romice, A Moreno-Rangel & A Chatzimichali

Sharing energy renovations know-how through citizen–professional knowledge networks
C Foulds, S Royston, A Aggeli, A Crowther & R Robison

Environmental impacts of reclaimed bricks: comparing different deconstruction methods
E Salmio & S Huuhka

eCOMBINE: framework for energy, comfort, behaviour and a multi-domain environment
V M Barthelmes, C Karmann, V Gonzalez Serrano, K Lyu, J Wienold, M Andersen, D Licina & D Khovalyg

Living labs as ‘agents for change’ [editorial]
N Antaki, D Petrescu & V Marin

See all peer reviewed articles

Latest Commentaries

Chronic Climate Risks to Urban Infrastructure

As the climate is changing, urban areas around the world face multiple risks of both acute and chronic climate hazards. Sarah Greenham & Emma Ferranti (University of Birmingham) consider the impacts on urban infrastructure of these different risks and what kinds of actions are needed to address them.

Photo: courtesy of Howayda al-Harithy

Lebanon’s history has been shaped by recurrent cycles of war, disaster, and economic collapse, with each episode leaving enduring imprints on the country’s urban and social fabric. Howayda al-Harithy (American University of Beirut) critically examines Lebanon’s historical cycles of destruction and reconstruction. Recovery involves more than rebuilding buildings; it requires a framework that is people-centered, heritage-led and place-specific together with an emphasis on restoring social relations, cultural identity, community agency while addressing structural inequalities.

Join Our Community

Join Our Community

The most important part of any journal is our people – readers, authors, reviewers, editorial board members and editors. You are cordially invited to join our community by joining our mailing list. We send out occasional emails about the journal – calls for papers, special issues, events and more.

We will not share your email with third parties. Read more