Guidance Ellen MacArthur Foundation
This report illustrates, across five key areas, how designing out waste, keeping materials in use, and regenerating farmland can significantly reduce emissions. It demonstrates how businesses, financial institutions, and policymakers can build a resilient economy while playing a valuable role in reaching climate targets.[1]
Guidance Arup
This report evaluates ways in which circular economy principles can be applied to the decommissioning of existing energy power plants, exploring the social, economic, and environmental benefits for local communities and surrounding areas. It further explores applications of circular economy principles in the design and operation of new power plants.[2]
Guidance Curtin University
This guidance introduces the magnitude and variety of net-positive end-of-life challenges to encourage the development of reasonable policies for current and future decommissioning projects. It provides the basis for the interdisciplinary thinking involved in delivering integrated decommissioning policies that incorporate circular economy principles to maximise value throughout the life cycle of energy infrastructure.[3]
Guidance World Bank
This provides practical guidance for designing national adaptation strategies and mainstreaming climate resilience into development planning. It also offers tools and actions to identify adaptation needs, prioritise interventions, and guide implementation and monitoring.[4]
Guidance United Nations
This handbook offers comprehensive guidance on infrastructure asset management, with Chapter 6 dedicated to climate resilience, covering climate impact on assets, hazard and risk assessment, and O&M-phase interventions to mitigate climate risk.[5]
Guidance Institute of Asset Management
This guide provides practical guidance on six core resilience capabilities for asset management, from horizon scanning and risk management to interdependency mapping and incident response.[6]
Guidance C40 Cities
This report outlines methodologies for assessing interdependencies between urban infrastructure systems. It also presents city-level pilot studies demonstrating practical application.[7]
Guidance Schuldt et al.
This report synthesises findings from 3,200+ construction studies, identifying extreme temperatures, precipitation, and high winds as the primary weather drivers of schedule delays, workforce productivity loss, and materials and equipment damage on construction sites. It provides the empirical foundation to justify climate risk preparedness in construction planning.[8]
Guidance ICSI
This guide bridges the gap between risk assessment and construction specification, offering port-specific resilience options (Table 6.1) including heat-resistant material requirements and digital infrastructure adaptation measures (Box 2.2), making it an actionable port resource for practitioners defining Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) requirements.[9]
Guidance European Commission
This guidance integrates climate proofing with project cycle management, environmental impact assessments (EIA), and strategic environmental assessments (SEA) processes. It serves as a mandatory compliance framework for any infrastructure project seeking EU funding (InvestEU, CEF, ERDF, Cohesion Fund).[10]
