Search

The increasing cyber connectivity of vehicles and between vehicles and infrastructure will drastically reshape mobility in the coming decades. Although the advent of connected mobility is expected to benefit travelers and society by smoothing traffic, improving rider convenience, and reducing accidents, the augmented cyber components in connected and autonomous vehicles and related infrastructure also give rise to cyber attacks on the transportation system. Yet, little attention has been paid to transportation cyber resilience. This paper thus proposes an investigation on this topic with a comprehensive literature review. Cyber components and plausible autonomous mobility systems operation scenarios are discussed, before identifying possible cyber attacks to autonomous mobility systems at the vehicle and system levels. The discussion then moves to existing practices to enhance cybersecurity, and several strategies are investigated toward enhancing autonomous mobility system cyber resilience. At the vehicle level, creating layers and separation to reduce cyber component connectivity and deploying an independent procedure for data collection and processing are important in vehicle design and manufacturing. At the system level, recommended strategies include keeping redundancy in transportation capacity, maintaining a separate road network, and deploying different sub-autonomous mobility systems.

Building resilience against shocks has become a pillar of sustainability. By understanding how the different components of an economy interact in times of crisis, we can design resilience strategies that go beyond building walls or dams. We formulate an original agent-based model to explore a crucial pathway through which a disaster affects the economy: the transport–supply chain nexus. The model simulates the behaviour of firms facing transport and supply disruptions and estimates the resulting indirect losses. As an illustration, the model is used to assess the criticality of Tanzanian roads, which are vulnerable to floods. We report three main results. First, the model generates maps that identify the transport infrastructure assets that are most critical for specific supply chains: roads that are most important for food security are different from those supporting international trade, for instance. Second, economic losses from transport disruptions increase non-linearly with the duration of disruptions, highlighting the benefit from fast repairs. Third, by combining economic and transport modelling, we can consider a broader spectrum of interventions. Beyond strengthening the transport system, it is also possible to make supply chains more resilient to disruption with, for instance, sourcing decisions or inventory management. Assessing the performance of an economy in times of crisis is a difficult task. This study presents an agent-based model capturing the behaviour of firms facing transport and supply disruptions due to natural disasters, and shows possible paths to reinforce infrastructure and supply chain resilience.

Poor people are disproportionally affected by natural hazards and disasters. This paper provides a review of the multiple factors that explain why this is the case. It explores the role of exposure (often, but not always, poor people are more likely to be affected by hazards), vulnerability (when they are affected, poor people tend to lose a larger fraction of their wealth), and socio-economic resilience (poor people have a lower ability to cope with and recover from disaster impacts). Finally, the paper highlights the vicious circle between poverty and disaster losses: poverty is a major driver of people’s vulnerability to natural disasters, which in turn increase poverty in a measurable and significant way. The main policy implication is that poverty reduction can be considered as disaster risk management, and disaster risk management can be considered as poverty reduction.

As development and adaptation are closely intertwined, assessing the benefits of adaptation by focusing only on how it reduces climate impacts could lead to misleading policy advice. In some cases, trying to minimize climate impacts could lead to inferior outcomes. It is preferable to explore how policies influence the absolute level of metrics of interest in scenarios with climate change rather than to focus on how they influence incremental climate impacts. Evaluation of climate adaptation policies typically compares differences between scenarios with different levels of, or without, climate change. Many policies, however, address development simultaneously, and focusing only on climate change impacts may not identify the best outcome.

Thousands of scenarios are used to provide updated estimates for the impacts of climate change on extreme poverty in 2030. The range of the number of people falling into poverty due to climate change is between 32 million and 132 million in most scenarios. These results are commensurate with available estimates for the global poverty increase due to COVID-19. Socioeconomic drivers play a major role: optimistic baseline scenarios (rapid and inclusive growth with universal access to basic services in 2030) halve poverty impacts compared with the pessimistic baselines. Health impacts (malaria, diarrhea, and stunting) and the effect of food prices are responsible for most of the impact. The effect of food prices is the most important factor in Sub-Saharan Africa, while health effects, natural disasters, and food prices are all important in South Asia. These results suggest that accelerated action to boost resilience is urgent, and the COVID-19 recovery packages offer opportunities to do so.

Climate change puts at risk all current and future transport projects. Investing proactively in climate adaptation of transport infrastructure is paramount to providing resilience and sustainable transport systems that may promote social and economic growth. Despite the importance of such investments, the financial resources of many road administrations are constrained, creating an urgent need to allocate these resources efficiently to capture the highest social, environmental, and economic benefits. This paper aims to tackle this issue by presenting a methodology to prioritize climate change adaptation interventions based on a set of economic, social, and risk reduction criteria. This method uses a network-wide approach to the road system in order to capture co-benefits, redundancies, and costs of disruption of road segments due to flood events. All underlying data in each of the criteria is part of a geospatial database that includes the location of agriculture, fishery production areas, high poverty, and flood maps. The methodology was developed at the request of the World Bank Africa Team to support the Government of Mozambique to prioritize climate change adaptation intervention in two central provinces, Zambezia and Nampula. After combining criteria for agriculture, fishery, poverty, network criticality, and hazard risk, the results suggest that most roads in the coastal districts of these provinces could be identified as top priority for climate change adaptation interventions.

The economic impact of climate change has typically been considered at regional or national levels. This Perspective assesses impacts at household level to determine effects on poverty and the poor. It shows how rapid development could reduce these impacts. Analysis of the economic impact of climate change typically considers regional or national economies and assesses its impact on macroeconomic aggregates such as gross domestic product. These studies therefore do not investigate the distributional impacts of climate change within countries or the impacts on poverty. This Perspective aims to close this gap and provide an assessment of climate change impacts at the household level to investigate the consequences of climate change for poverty and for poor people. It does so by combining assessments of the physical impacts of climate change in various sectors with household surveys. In particular, it highlights how rapid and inclusive development can reduce the future impact of climate change on poverty.

Infrastructure systems form the backbone of every society, providing essential services that include energy, water, waste management, transport and telecommunications. Infrastructure can also create harmful social and environmental impacts, increase vulnerability to natural disasters and leave an unsustainable burden of debt. Investment in infrastructure is at an all-time high globally, thus an ever-increasing number of decisions are being made now that will lock-in patterns of development for future generations. Although for the most part these investments are motivated by the desire to increase economic productivity and employment, we find that infrastructure either directly or indirectly influences the attainment of all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including 72% of the targets. We categorize the positive and negative effects of infrastructure and the interdependencies between infrastructure sectors. To ensure that the right infrastructure is built, policymakers need to establish long-term visions for sustainable national infrastructure systems, informed by the SDGs, and develop adaptable plans that can demonstrably deliver their vision. Investing in infrastructure systems will lock-in patterns of development for future generations. This study finds that infrastructure either directly or indirectly influences the attainment of all of the Sustainable Development Goals, including 72% of the targets.

Transport infrastructure is exposed to natural hazards all around the world. Here we present the first global estimates of multi-hazard exposure and risk to road and rail infrastructure. Results reveal that ~27% of all global road and railway assets are exposed to at least one hazard and ~7.5% of all assets are exposed to a 1/100 year flood event. Global Expected Annual Damages (EAD) due to direct damage to road and railway assets range from 3.1 to 22 billion US dollars, of which ~73% is caused by surface and river flooding. Global EAD are small relative to global GDP (~0.02%). However, in some countries EAD reach 0.5 to 1% of GDP annually, which is the same order of magnitude as national transport infrastructure budgets. A cost-benefit analysis suggests that increasing flood protection would have positive returns on ~60% of roads exposed to a 1/100 year flood event., Spatial distribution has been rarely studied in global disaster risk models. Here the authors address damaged networked infrastructure at the asset level for a wider range of hazards and reveal a global Expected Annual Damages ranging from $3.1 to 22 billion with a particular vulnerability of transport infrastructure in Small Island Developing States.

From serving our most basic needs to enabling our most ambitious ventures in trade and technology, infrastructure services are essential for raising and maintaining people’s quality of life. Yet millions of people, especially in low- and middle-income countries, are facing the consequences of unreliable electricity grids, inadequate water and sanitation systems, and overstrained transport networks. Natural hazards magnify the challenges faced by these fragile systems. Building on a wide range of case studies, global empirical analyses, and modeling exercises, Lifelines lays out a framework for understanding infrastructure resilience—the ability of infrastructure systems to function and meet users’ needs during and after a natural shock—and it makes an economic case for building more resilient infrastructure. Lifelines concludes by identifying five obstacles to resilient infrastructure and offering concrete recommendations and specific actions that can be taken by governments, stakeholders, and the international community to improve the quality and resilience of these essential services, and thereby contribute to more resilient and prosperous societies.

This review examines the literature on the welfare impacts of infrastructure disruptions. There is widespread evidence that households suffer from the consequences of a lack of infrastructure reliability, and that being connected to the grid is not sufficient to close the infrastructure gap. Disruptions and irregular service have adverse effects on household welfare, due to missed work and education opportunities, and negative impact on health. Calibrating costs of unreliable infrastructure on existing willingness to pay assessments, we estimate the welfare losses associated with blackouts and water outages. Overall, between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of GDP would be lost each year because of unreliable infrastructure -- electricity, water and transport.

The economy of the United Republic of Tanzania is growing fast but remains vulnerable to disasters, which are likely to worsen with climate change. Its transportation system, which mainly consist of roads, often get disrupted by floods. How could the resilience of the transportation infrastructures be improved? We formulate a new type of model, called DisruptSCT, which brings together the strength of two different approaches: network criticality analyses and input–output models. Using a variety of data, we spatially disaggregate production, consumption, and input–output relationships. Plugged into a dynamic agent-based model, these downscaled data allow us to simulate the disruption of transportation infrastructures, their direct impacts on firms, and how these impacts propagate along supply chains and lead to losses to households. These indirect losses generally affect people that are not directly hit by disasters. Their intensity nonlinearly increases with the duration of the initial disruption. Supply chains generate interdependencies that amplify disruptions for nonprimary products, such as processed food and manufacturing products. We identify bottlenecks in the network. But their criticality depends on the supply chain we are looking at. For instance, some infrastructures are critical to some agents, say international buyers, but of little use to others. Investment priorities vary with policy objectives, e.g., support health services, improve food security, promote trade competitiveness. Resilience-enhancing strategies can act on the supply side of transportation, by improving the quality of targeted infrastructure, developing alternative corridors, building capacity to accelerate post-disaster recovery. On the other hand, policies could also support coping mechanisms within supply chains, such as sourcing and inventory strategies. Our results help articulate these different policies and adapt them to specific contexts.

This paper explores the benefits and the costs of strengthening infrastructure assets to make them more resilient, reducing the repair costs and infrastructure disruptions caused by natural hazards. Strengthening infrastructure assets in low- and middle-income countries would increase investment needs in power, transport, and water and sanitation by between $11 billion and $65 billion a year, i.e. 3 percent of baseline infrastructure investment needs. The uncertainty pertaining to the costs and benefits of infrastructure resilience makes it difficult to provide a single estimate for the benefit-cost ratio of strengthening exposed infrastructure assets. To manage this uncertainty, this paper explores the benefit-cost ratio in 3,000 scenarios, combining uncertainties in all parameters of the analysis. The benefit-cost ratio is higher than 1 in 96 percent of the scenarios, larger than 2 in 77 percent of them, and higher than 4 in half of them. The net present value of these investments over the lifetime of new infrastructure assets -- or, equivalently, the cost of inaction -- exceeds $2 trillion in 75 percent of the scenarios and $4.2 trillion in half of them. Moreover, climate change makes the strengthening of infrastructure assets even more important, doubling the median benefit-cost ratio.

Beyond the Gap: How Countries Can Afford the Infrastructure They Need while Protecting the Planet aims to shift the debate regarding investment needs away from a simple focus on spending more and toward a focus on spending better on the right objectives, using relevant metrics. It does so by offering a careful and systematic approach to estimating the funding needs to close the service gaps in water and sanitation, transportation, electricity, irrigation, and flood protection. Exploring thousands of scenarios, this report finds that funding needs depend on the service goals and policy choices of low- and middle-income countries and could range anywhere from 2 percent to 8 percent of GDP per year by 2030. Beyond the Gap also identifies a policy mix that will enable countries to achieve key international goals—universal access to water, sanitation, and electricity; greater mobility; improved food security; better protection from floods; and eventual full decarbonization—while limiting spending on new infrastructure to 4.5 percent of GDP per year. Importantly, the exploration of thousands of scenarios shows that infrastructure investment paths compatible with full decarbonization in the second half of the century need not cost more than more-polluting alternatives. Investment needs remain at 2 percent to 8 percent of GDP even when only the decarbonized scenarios are examined. The actual amount depends on the quality and quantity of services targeted, the timing of investments, construction costs, and complementary policies. Finally, investing in infrastructure is not enough; maintaining it also matters. Improving services requires much more than capital expenditure. Ensuring a steady flow of resources for operations and maintenance is a necessary condition for success. Good maintenance also generates substantial savings by reducing the total life-cycle cost of transport and water and sanitation infrastructure by more than 50 percent.

Rural accessibility is the only metric used in the Sustainable Development Goals to track progress toward better transport services in low- and middle-income countries. This paper estimates the rural accessibility index, defined as the proportion of the rural population who live within 2 kilometers of an all-season road, in 166 countries using open data. It then explores the cost of increasing the rural accessibility index in 19 countries, using an algorithm that prioritizes rural roads investments based on their impact on rural access and connectivity. Investment costs quickly balloon as the rural accessibility index increases, questioning the affordability of universal access to paved roads for many countries by 2030. If countries spent 1 percent of their gross domestic product annually on the upgrade of rural roads, even under optimistic assumptions on growth of gross domestic product, rural accessibility would only increase from 39 to 52 percent by 2030 across all developing countries. Alternative solutions to rural integration must thus be implemented in the short run until countries can afford to increase significantly access to all weather roads. For example, drones that supply regular food and medicine supply to remote communities are much more affordable than roads in the short term.

This paper explores the investments needed to achieve universal access to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030, and the additional operation and maintenance costs these investments entail. It also explores the drivers of these costs, by exploring hundreds of scenarios that combine alternative assumptions on the level of service targeted, population growth, urbanization, industrial demand, and technology cost. The main driver of electrification costs is found to be the tier of service offered to newly connected households. The annual investment required to reach universal access varies between US$14.5 billion per year on average for the basic access scenarios (0.7 percent of the region's gross domestic product per year over the period) and US$22.7 billion on average for the high-quality scenarios (1 percent of gross domestic product). In the basic access scenario, costs depend mostly on industrial demand, which takes a large share of total demand. In the high-quality scenarios, costs depend on urbanization rates, as it is cheaper to connect urban households to the grid. Investment costs are not sufficient to provide reliable service, and when operations and maintenance are accounted for, total costs increase to US$39.7 billion on average for the basic scenarios and US$61.5 billion on average for the high-quality scenarios.

The new scenario framework developed by the climate change research community rests on the fundamental logic that a diversity of socio-economic pathways can lead to the same radiative forcing, and therefore that a given level of radiative forcing can have very different socio-economic impacts. We propose a methodology that implements a "scenario discovery" cluster analysis and systematically identifies diverse groups of scenarios that share common outcomes among a database of socio-economic scenarios. We demonstrate the methodology with two examples using the Shared Socio-economic Pathways framework. We find that high emissions scenarios can be associated with either high or low per capita GDP growth, and that high productivity growth and catch-up are not necessarily associated with high per capita GDP and high emissions. We adapt scenario discovery cluster analysis to explore socioeconomic scenario diversity.A diversity of scenarios with high cumulative CO2 emissions is explored.High emissions scenarios can be associated with either high or low per capita GDP growth.Diverse scenarios can correspond to any of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways domains.