More than 60% of civil engineers do not feel climate change is prioritised sufficiently in infrastructure design and delivery, according to new research by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).

A survey of 900 UK-based ICE members found that more than half (66%) of infrastructure professionals felt greenhouse gas emissions were given less or far less importance than they would like.

Some 59% said the same for climate change adaptation. A lack of joined-up thinking (47%) was seen as the primary blocker for both issues, while absence from the project brief (44%) was second.

The survey was carried out in collaboration with the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) Design Group and based around its Design Principles for National Infrastructure. The findings informs a report published today, entitled What Makes Good Design?

The report presents findings around civil engineers’ awareness and understanding of good design and makes a series of recommendations for industry stakeholders and policy decision-makers.

Among its findings, the survey showed:

• While many infrastructure professionals consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change adaptation sometimes, this does not happen always or often.
• Only 15 per cent of civil engineers consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change adaptation at all times during their work.
• Demographics is the least considered issue among civil engineers when considering the impact of their work, while quality of life is the most considered.
• Engineers consider “improvements to people’s quality of life” more than any other issue in the survey – more than three-quarters of respondents (76%) claimed that they considered the issue always or very often. Only 4% said they never or rarely considered it.

"Climate regarded as least addressed design principle within the survey"

Rachel Skinner, ICE President, commented:

“Civil engineers use their influence to help address society’s biggest challenges – the accelerating climate emergency, population growth, dwindling biodiversity, water scarcity and urbanisation. Design expertise is absolutely pivotal to creating the right solutions and long-run outcomes for people and our natural systems, today and for generations to come.

“Good design begins at the moment that initial concepts are identified to solve specific problems in a particular context, and continues through the project lifecycle. The importance of good design is now, quite rightly, reflected in the Government’s decision to have board-level design champions on all nationally significant infrastructure projects.”

Judith Sykes FICE, the report’s steering group lead and NIC Design Group member, said:

“In the context of the industry’s net-zero aspirations, it may surprise some that climate is regarded as the least addressed design principle within the survey. Good design remains critical if we are to use our limited resources to find creative approaches to meeting our carbon reduction targets, deliver on the levelling-up agenda and create healthy communities.

“With a greater understanding of how the principles are understood, this research enables us to improve our strategic decision-making processes and foster a design culture in infrastructure delivery. This requires collaborating with organisations such as ICE that are committed to elevating design practice.”

At least a quarter of respondents (27%) feel every issue in survey was given insufficient importance

Respondents were surveyed on topics related to the design principles of climate, people, places and value, with at least a quarter of respondents (27%) feeling every issue was given insufficient importance.

When asked what would encourage the industry to focus more on outcome-based solutions, the top answer was incorporating a business model that valued outcomes (59%), followed by looking beyond the boundaries of the site and project (56%) and more collaboration with complementary expertise (51%).

Myriad responses came back from different sectors, with those working in civil engineering structures highlighting the importance of iterative design and being able to question the brief (54%). Those in building and property suggested changes were needed in standards and processes (47%) as well as culture (56%).

Water sector commended for engagement and outcomes approach

The water sector underlined the importance of engaging with end users (42%). Commenting on consideration given to the issues, engineers working in flood management reported the highest levels of consideration for most of the issues, engineers in energy and water reported the highest levels of consideration for the full lifecycle of the project. 22% of water engineers always consider future changes to demographics and population – more than double that of any other sector.

“The time that water companies spend understanding their communities could be transferred to other sectors…… it might be possible for other sectors to learn from the working practices in the water industry,” the report says.

The survey looked at how well engineers understand outcomes-based solutions, as opposed to traditional output-based design and delivery methods, and the perceived barriers to working in this way.

Outcome-based methods are becoming more prevalent in infrastructure, particularly in the water sector, where there is an active drive for no-build solutions (e.g. working with farmers to reduce run-off into watercourses to reduce the burden on infrastructure).

However, the report cautions that even where outcome-based solutions are common, engineers still feel that clients do not recognise the true value of the planning and design inputs needed to deliver no-build outcomes.

For example (from a water sector consultant): “Outcome focus is common in work for the Environment Agency. But this is coupled with tight target fees. Outcome focus costs money, but lowest bid tenders encourage quick, easy design completion.”

The report concludes that in general, the civil engineering industry does not put enough emphasis on the outcomes it is trying to achieve

Regulatory framework contributes to greater progress in regulated sectors

The report suggests that one reason regulated sectors such as water and energy have made more progress in considering lifecycle costs is because they have a greater customer and outcome focus, and the regulators have played an important role in achieving this.

In the water sector, for example, much of the income that water companies request to raise in their business plans to the regulator, Ofwat, is required for maintaining or renewing assets and therefore must be justified – which in turn requires robust asset management programmes derived from an analysis of asset life and an understanding of asset failure.

The report says that the way the water industry allocates spending via the role of the ‘Common Framework’ is also important. This requires water companies to look backwards to assess how assets have performed, to analyse what the company needs now and then look forwards to consider how parameters such as demand will change how assets will deteriorate. “This puts the sector ahead of most others in its understanding of asset management,” the report concludes.

Recommendations include need for integrated infrastructure planning & business models that value outcomes

The report concludes with a number of recommendations to make further progress - ICE said it now needs to build on the findings of the survey, particularly when it comes to interfacing with other industry bodies and working towards a pipeline of design champions.

The recommendations on the following key issues are aimed at building both design skills and organisational culture to promote design excellence in infrastructure projects.

• Climate
• People, places and value
• Integrated infrastructure planning
• Business models that value outcomes
• A good brief
• Design champions
• Creating an evidence base on the value of design

Based on the survey and subsequent report, ICE is creating a climate literacy programme and plans to mirror that in its requirements for both Membership and Fellowship grades. It will also develop its Continuing Professional Development programme to convey best practice in design, in collaboration with other institutions.

Elsewhere among the report’s recommendations is for frameworks for people, places and value to sit alongside existing carbon accounting tools such as PAS 2080. ICE has begun working with industry partners towards an update for the standard.

Click here to download What makes good design?