Financial forces aligning behind resilience The positive news is that financial forces are increasingly aligning with the more rational approach. The smart choice is becoming the obviously more economical choice. This provides a stronger impetus for resilient infrastructure than any policy or climate argument. In the U.S., rising insurance premiums⁴ on homes in vulnerable areas and doubts over the future of FEMA⁵ are weakening the safety net that have allowed developers and cities to externalise climate risk. As that risk gets repriced, it will be reflected in lower interest rates for truly resilient infrastructure – helping offset the higher upfront cost. The municipal bond market, which funds the majority of U.S. public infrastructure, is increasingly rewarding a long-term approach. The average maturity of U.S. municipal bond issuance has lengthened from 16 years a decade ago to 20 years in 2025, according to SIFMA data – extending the horizon over which investors must consider operational and maintenance performance⁶. Much longer durations are becoming more common. New York’s Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge is now financed with bonds running through 2056⁷. Chicago's City Council in early 2025 approved an USD 830 million bond issue with a 40-year repayment schedule to fund road, bridge and other infrastructure projects⁸. What resilience looks like The financial case for durable infrastructure has always been there. Every $1 invested in resilience saves $13 in economic impact, damage and cleanup costs after the event, a 2024 report produced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found⁹. The
Thinking in systems, not projects
Why resilient cities outperform Project mindset
Cities leading the way on resilient infrastructure have one thing in common – they think in systems rather than one-off projects. Their infrastructure choices reinforce one another, targeting a “triple bottom line” of economic, social and environmental returns. Amsterdam has learned to adapt its water management over centuries. Rather than just fighting rising water, it has found ways to live with it and use it to support its broader resilience goals. The nutrient-rich silts created by centuries of river and marine sediment have given the Netherlands some of Europe's most productive farmland, while windmills that began as pumping mechanisms have evolved into a renewable energy source. Amsterdam’s latest use of its canal system for transport consists of a fleet of autonomous electric water taxis, contributing to the city’s target of being a fully circular economy by 2050 12 .
System mindset – Lowest lifecycle cost – Network and system focus – Whole-of-life value decision – Economic, social and environmental returns – Planned resilience.
– Lowest upfront costs – Individual asset focus – Capital expenditure decisions – Single outcome – Reactive maintenance
Water Transport
Communities Energy
Economic activity
New Orleans provides a powerful example of why. After Hurricane Katrina, the Army Corps rebuilt the city's levees to a 100-year storm standard, a major upgrade from pre-Katrina defenses, though still short of the 500- year standard that many engineers and state officials believe is necessary. When Category 4 Hurricane Ida struck in 2021, the levees protecting New Orleans held, even as some unprotected suburbs outside the system flooded. Engineers involved in the rebuild noted the system likely exceeded its official 100-year standard and was closer to a 200-year benchmark 10 . Unfortunately, that contrasts with the ageing and inadequate state of levees throughout the country. The country’s 24,000 miles of levees have an average age of 60 years, with maintenance patchy and often deferred 11 . Many of them are earth embankments built decades ago to protect farmland, but now play a crucial role in protecting densely populated neighbourhoods from floodwaters. Financial realities mean that not every infrastructure project needs to be built to the maximum standard. Spending can be calibrated to the scale of risk and designed to enable cities to withstand and recover from extreme events rather than emerge completely unscathed. Applying this “functional recovery” standard in practice, a city could aim to keep two lanes of a highway open during a flood rather than all four or prioritise a dam that protects a nuclear power plant over one that protects a sparsely populated area. Reasonable resilience goals could be no deaths, continued commerce and to allow recovery to begin.
$1 $13 13x Invested Saved Returned
strongest business case in infrastructure
10 | GHD | Nexus Magazine
Nexus Magazine | GHD | 11
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online