O f course, nearly everyone would potentially a replacement. Yet cities have effectively been opting for the cheap roof for decades. Urban planners and political leaders tend to fixate on the upfront capital cost of new infrastructure, understandable given their fiscal restraints and the short political calendar. But it’s a false economy, the only rational cost to focus on is the entire infrastructure life cycle. As cities globally come under increasing climate stress, the costs of that approach are growing and risk becoming unsustainable. choose the 30-year roof. It’s easy to see that the cheaper option isn’t fiscal prudence – it’s a decision to pay more over time on repair, maintenance and Over 800 million people living in 570 cities could be at risk from sea level rise by 2050 if emissions continue on their current trajectory¹. In the U.S., climate disasters have cost the economy USD 6.6 trillion over the past 12 years². Yet funding for climate resilience is
falling far short of what’s required. Some 124 U.S. cities reported seeking USD 40.8 billion in climate resilience funding in 2024, against an overall investment need of USD 62.7 billion³. The need for a different approach is clear: policymakers need to prioritise durability and cost-effectiveness across the whole life cycle and to treat infrastructure as a system rather than a series of disconnected ribbon- cutting events.
The resilience funding gap is widening
USD 62.7B
Investment required
USD 40.8B
Funding sought Funding shortfall
Why cities can no longer afford the “cheap” infrastructure option
USD 21.9B
Imagine you’re a homeowner in need of a new roof. One option will last 10 years; the other 30. Both jobs require the same labour, but the more durable solution has a 5 percent premium
for higher-quality design and materials. Maria Lehman Business Development Leader - Region GHD
8 | GHD | Nexus Magazine
Nexus Magazine | GHD | 9
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online