Embedding climate adaptation into planning and capital allocation

The Auckland Anniversary storm and Cyclone Gabrielle occurred within a fortnight of each other in early 2023. This period was pivotal for Auckland Transport in understanding asset resilience and planning for future climate conditions. With over 2,000 landslides across Auckland’s road network alone, communities were cut off and access was reduced for many across the region.  

A quiet realisation unfolded as we rushed to build back, reconstruct lost sections of road and reconnect communities, of just how unaffordable it is to keep responding to emergency situations involving substantial asset losses, let alone the impact of these events when a tragic loss of life occurs. 

Although landslides impacted less than 0.2% of the local road network (around 14 kilometres), the cost to rebuild, largely funded by Crown agencies and others, reached $390 million. This highlighted that the ongoing cycle of storm event – recover and repair is clearly unsustainable. 

While the rebuilding works progressed, consideration of a better way forward began to evolve. This included an understanding of the long-term implications of building back severely damaged sections of the rural road network. While an impacted section of the road was repaired to current design and safety standards, the vulnerability of remaining sections of the road became starkly apparent. Was the repair cost worth it? Was an alternative design standard considered? Could minor improvement works have prevented the slip? Has this locked in a stranded asset or a commitment to keep rebuilding this road? Once built, routes, safety and design standards are effectively locked in for decades to come, and renewals or future repairs to ensure the road remains intact, are influenced by the previous recovery (sunk) costs.    

Understanding the consequences of capital allocation 

Climate impacts are already changing where and how assets fail, how often services are disrupted, and what our customers and communities expect from essential services. From a board perspective, adaptation cannot sit on the margins as a set of “resilience projects”. It needs to be threaded through the core disciplines of strategy, risk appetite, investment prioritisation and assurance over major programmes, so capital decisions remain robust as hazards evolve and uncertainty persists. Capital allocation really is the primary leverage point because it determines the assets and service models we will live with for decades to come. The consequences of this were clearly articulated in the recent National Infrastructure Plan (2026). 

Adaptation ultimately relies on who pays, when, and for what. The Framework signals a transition toward settings that incentivise risk reduction and allow markets to adjust to changing risks. This requires development of new tools for local government and communities to support recovery decisions after significant severe weather events and planned adaptation actions to prevent the extensive damage we continue to witness. When developing new funding tools, we need to be asking whether funding and delivery settings reward “invest to save” decisions, or do they unintentionally encourage rebuilding “like for like” in ways that lock in escalating costs. Are we prepared to make, and defend, transparent recovery choices when a different solution (or a different location) is required? These are hard conversations to have – with public and private asset owners, as well as with our communities. 

Embedding resilience does not require every project to become a specialised climate programme. It requires consistent discipline across the investment lifecycle: early screening of projects and renewals for hazard exposure; clear expectations for design life and levels of service under future climate conditions; an appraisal that uses whole-of-life costs (including disruption and recovery) and does not default to “repair and repeat”; and adaptive approaches where uncertainty is high (for example staging investment, modular design, and defined signals, triggers and thresholds that indicate when a different pathway is needed).  

From a governance perspective, this is about protecting value and managing downside risk: avoiding stranded assets as hazards intensify, reducing the “repair and repeat” cycle that erodes maintenance budgets and/or requires external funding, and making sure post-event recovery spend does not displace planned investment. Bringing climate risk into business cases, option selection and portfolio prioritisation is therefore a practical expression of fiduciary responsibility. 

Adaptation planning requires long-term thinking 

Auckland Transport has recently created a 30-year programme to make small design changes, physical improvements and/or prevention works on the transport network. The programme is improving our understanding of the cost of climate risks, as well as the cost of doing nothing, and will inform the 2027 Asset Management Plan. Over time, the programme will deliver substantial cost savings to Aucklanders. International research has demonstrated the value of proactive prevention over recovery works with a cost benefit ratio to the tune of 1:4. For every dollar spent on prevention, $4 of repair works are saved. This has been confirmed with an assessment of the recovery versus likely prevention costs associated with the 2023 storm recovery repairs.  

Auckland Transport gained valuable insights from the response and recovery phases of the 2023 storm events: 

1. While building back immediately seems like the only solution when in a crisis, pre-planned adaptation responses that consider long-term implications, need to be in place before the emergency event. Starting now is good. 
2. Blaming the lack of, or waiting for, central government guidance, the right set of tools to support funding options or perfect and complete data sets before making decisions, prevent us from getting started.  
3. Planning for climate hazards and funding small, targeted prevention works alongside regular maintenance deliver better value than staying in a recurring “repair and repeat” cycle. 

Dr Cathy Bebelman is a scientist working as a researcher and consultant in the public and private sectors, with linear infrastructure networks for over 25 years. She is known for translating strategy into delivery, working closely with consultants and contractors to implement practical, forward-looking solutions. Cathy is Chief Scientist and currently leads the Science and Sustainability Group for Auckland Transport.