Editorial

Abstract

EditorialThe most shocking statistic in the papers in this issue is the fact that 45% to 60% of construction accidents are down to poor design. Given that engineers have a duty of care, this suggests, at best, the design guidelines and codes of practice they are using are incorrect and, at worst, the engineers have failed to appreciate the hazards and their consequences. It is hazards, both natural and anthropogenic, that are the common thread that runs through the four articles in this issue, with the emphasis being on the need to identify the hazards and undertake a risk assessment as part of the design process to take account of all consequences over the life cycle of a project from inception, through development, construction and operation, to decommissioning. This comprehensive approach applies not only to the asset but also to the natural, built and social environments in which it sits.The first full-length paper (Kumaraswamy et al., 2018) argues that core management frameworks for disasters should be formulated in advance. Any disaster, whether natural or anthropogenic, creates a turbulent environment in which many stakeholders operate. Thus to improve resilience, there is a need for public-private-people partnerships to mobilise private finance and expertise, and social capital. It requires non-governmental organisations, communities, professional bodies, trade associations, government and media to work together to a common goal at all stages in rescue, recovery and regeneration as these stakeholders are central to resilience both of the environment and the people who use it. Management frameworks that include procurement and delivery frameworks need to be prepared in advance to avoid unnecessary delays following a disaster. While design focuses on ultimate and serviceability limit states, durability and cost, the resilient characteristics of an asset need to be understood to assess its vulnerability and, therefore, the consequences of a hazard.A case study, which applies these principles, is the subject of the second full paper (Mowll and Russell, 2018) which focuses on the vulnerability of the road networks around Wellington, New Zealand if subject to an earthquake, a highly likely event. Rescue, recovery and regeneration are critically dependent on the road network. A multi-stakeholder approach to produce a strategic plan based on hazard mapping was used to enhance resilience of the infrastructure and produce an emergency plan with a defined level of service. Stakeholder engagement allowed issues to be understood from all perspectives to enable targeted interventions post-disaster.While the effects of natural and anthropogenic disasters are uncertain, planned intervention on existing assets, the subject of the remaining two articles, also creates uncertainty because of the legacy capacity of the asset and the effect of loading during operation for which they were designed.The paper by Lohmann (2018) covers the top-down demolition of buildings in which the floor loads due to debris and plant, and the c...