Technical and organizational challenges in the risk management of road infrastructures

Abstract

This paper outlines a theoretical framework for the risk management of road infrastructures from the perspective of organizational studies and engineering science. The framework moves beyond the traditional approach analysing each road infrastructure in isolation, and adopts the emerging systemic approach aimed at optimizing the interrelation between infrastructures, while at the same time extending this approach by considering actors as well as infrastructures. The initial focus is on the interaction between the parts (infrastructure and related actors) within a system (infrastructure and related actors within administrative boundaries) with a focus on two organizational modes: coordination and fragmentation. The choice between coordination and fragmentation depends on the span of safety and the level of risk. Furthermore, coordination and fragmentation offer useful insights for decision-makers by addressing specific modes of governance aimed at avoiding a lack of cooperation and ineffective responses. The paper then examines satellite data obtained from differential interferometric synthetic aperture radar (DInSAR) in a geographical information system (GIS) platform. The aim is to identify the span of safety within a system, concerning specific infrastructures with the related actors, and to assess the risk levels for road infrastructures. The approach is intended to identify the most appropriate organizational mode. The potential of this approach was tested in a sample area of Rome (Italy), and the results reveal a significant span of safety with a common negligible risk, and a subspan of safety with a moderate risk. In the first case, coordination between the parts is desirable. As a result, long-term and fully shared solutions can be adopted, including joint planning operations and standard operating rules. In the second case, fragmentation is indicated, with more flexible solutions characterized by sharing and local autonomy.

Keywords:

• Infrastructure risk management
• coordination/fragmentation
• span of safety
• level of risk
• DInSAR monitoring

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Prof. William Bromwich for his painstaking attention to the copy-editing of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The concept of “risk management” is considered in broad terms to include maintenance and intervention plans and strategies.

2 The term “local” is used to identify an analysis scale or a geographical area within administrative boundaries (e.g., regional or sub-regional).

3 Among all the possible combinations, the ones that are realistically possible are highlighted.

4 Fragmentation is excluded in the case of a common low level of risk affecting a limited number of infrastructures (i.e., sub-group) since there are no specific scale advantages in comparison to one-off interventions.