Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Executive Summary
This comprehensive project plan presents a strategic and practical solution to increasing temperatures in the city of London. The three proposals presented are promotion of a standardised greening strategy for existing projects, establishment of a development policy for new infrastructure and creation of heatwave warning systems. Through a comparative review of these options, the first option was selected due to its practicality and optimal outcome.
The proposed project plan will be implemented for a period of seven years at a cost of £4.8 million. The work breakdown structure indicates that the project has four implementation phases that run concurrently. The only major risks identified in the project plan are delay and operational challenges. Stakeholder matrix suggests that the plan will face minimal rejection since it caters for the interests of all parties.
Proposals for Developing and Adapting to Increasing Temperatures in the City of London
In order to create a plan for managing increasing temperatures in the city of London, it is imperative to examine the current city-wide planning approach, collaborative framework among stakeholders and the decision makingprocess (Musco 2016). Moreover, there is a need to integrate a holistic thinking to proactively manage the risks posed by increasing temperatures in order to design a sustainable climate-proofing system (Rannow and Neubert 2014). In order to manage the heatwave risk, the city of London should consider implementing the following proposals.
-
Option 1: The department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in collaboration with other stakeholders should create and institutionalise comprehensive overheating standards applicable for public, workplace and home facilities, including public transport, schools and healthcare premises (McDonald 2015).
-
Option 2: The GLA, developers and London Boroughs should put in place policies aimed at controlling new infrastructural development to ensure that these projects reduce and minimise further intensification of the citys urban heat island (UHI) impact (Yamagata and Maruyama 2016). This means that there should be a clear plan on approval of appropriate construction and design in private and public projects within the city of London.
-
Option 3: There should be a comprehensive short and long-term plan to accommodate the needs of vulnerable persons, especially children, older people and people with pre-existing illness through a multiagency emergency planning centre equipped with the latest gadgets for tracking and monitoring the rising temperatures (Konvitz 2016). For instance, the current emergency planning agencies, such as London Resilience, Health Protection Agency, local authorities and Primary Care Trust should be merged into a multiagency UHI management team (Gotham and Greenberg 2014). This multiagency should then create a tested and coordinated plan for reducing the potential impacts of heat waves within the city of London.
Option Appraisal and Recommendation
Option 1: Promotion of Standardised Greening of Existing Projects
Although high temperatures are not a serious challenge in London at present, the ever rising global warming might increase the citys UHI. In order to address this challenge, London City might consider a policy paper on green roofing and cool roofing in all existing projects across London (Fleming et al. 2018). The policy should recommend installation of green roofs in old buildings that are compatible and make it a mandatory requirement for any new construction project.
Green roofs have the potential of insulation during winter and reduction of overheating during summer. In buildings that are not structurally sound to accommodate green roofing, the campaign should focus on encouraging owners to install cool roofs (Watt and Hunt 2018). Borrowing from the success story of Camden and Newark cities, deciduous trees along the streets will provide shade during summer (Seltenrich 2016). Moreover, a mixture of deciduous and conifer trees will effectively reduce the negative effects of wind tunnels along the street. These trees should be planted at the right place while putting into account factors such as shading during summer, root penetration and longevity.
The proposed standardisation of green projects in the city of London should take at least 7 years for existing infrastructure. The timeline runs concurrently for all the activities. This period is adequate for passing relevant laws, establishing institutions and rolling out a public campaign or mobilising resources. As captured in table 1, the timeline is subdivided into implementation stages. This proposal is projected to cost between 4.5 and 4.8 million pounds.
The costing was based on conservative values of similar projects that have been executed in other cities such as Tokyo (Fleming et al. 2018). The only risk associated with this proposal is limited or lack of Stakeholder cooperation, especially among the private developers and residents of London. However, this risk is minimal and might only affect 10% of the project. As captured in table 1, the risk mitigation process will involve a well organised public campaign to enlighten the stakeholders on the benefits of this project.
Table 1: Summary of cost, timeline and risks associated with option 1.
Option 2: Standardisation of New Infrastructural Development
There is a need for the city of London to pass the relevant legislative framework to ensure that new projects adhere to the cool city regulations. This means that the UHI guidelines should be transformed into a green policy for any new project coming up in London. For instance, it is imperative for the stakeholders to adapt a multi-institutional approach in approval, subsidising and monitoring new projects (Benmarhnia et al 2016).
This option has no timeline since it will be a permanent legislative policy for controlling new projects across the city of London. In order to make the proposal effective, star ratings will apply for different types of projects, depending on their density, purpose and location. As captured in table 2, the cost of legislation, putting in place institutions and subsidising the construction activities is estimated at 4 million pounds. The only risk associated with this option is limited or lack of general endorsement by the stakeholders (Fleming et al. 2018). However, this risk is minimal since new projects will enjoy subsidies.
Table 2: Summary of cost, timeline and risks associated with option 2.
Option 3: Establishment of Heat Warning Systems
The city of London should advance the progress made by the UK National Heatwave Plan to ensure that its intervention strategies are effective and sustainable in short and long-term. The proposed improvements in the current Heat Health Warning System (HHWS) will require a multi-agency collaboration (Mamadouh and Wageningen 2017). Therefore, the HHWS proposed will be modified to address the needs of the homeless population via the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), establish cool centres(air-conditioned public places) in the event of a heatwaveand setup a buddy system where home with ventilation may accommodate the vulnerable during a heatwave.
Moreover, the action plan will also include institutionalisation of guidelines for modifying the existing building to minimise high indoor temperatures (Alberti 2016). As captured in table 3, the cost of this option is estimated at 5 million pounds with a timeline of 5 years. The only risk associated with this plan is limited funding. However, a budget of 5 million pounds is adequate for a basic model.
Table 3: Summary of cost, timeline and risks associated with option 3.
Comparative Review of the Three Options
A comprehensive comparative review was performed for the three options in order to select the most effective in making London a cool city. The review examined the cost implications, benefits and risks as captured in table 4.
Table 4: Selecting the best option.
Table 5: Scorecard Comparison.
Project Plan: Option 1
Based on a comparative review and scorecard of the three options, the first option was picked due to its high magnitude of impact and practicality on offering preventive and sustainable solution to increasing temperatures in the city of London.
Scope
Based on the analysis of the three scenarios, option 1 was selected as the best plan for reducing increasing temperatures in the city of London. The proposed project aims at remodelling the existing infrastructural development, the creation of wind tunnels and the planting of trees to reduce temperatures in the city. The objective of the project is to ensure that the city of London has a sustainable, practical and effective heat management system within 7 years. Therefore, the project deliverables are the establishment of an Urban Heat Island Action Area (UHIAA), green and cool roofing support, logistical execution of wind tunnels and planting of trees.
Each deliverable will be reviewed against the set timeline and progress (Nagendra 2016). The primary considerations and assumptions are a fixed budget of 5 million pounds, adequate qualified personnel and full support by all the stakeholders. Critical success factors are completion within the pre-set timeline and at least the 80% success rate. The project management will use the 360 degree feedback criterion to track these success factors.
Project Objectives
-
Create a natural cooling system within London that would reduce heat during summer seasons.
-
Create an organization that would further develop and promote the use of greenery within the city landscape.
-
Create a series of public spaces that contribute to the visual style of London and address its ecological problems.
-
Collaborate with the London government to find funding and implement the idea.
-
Identify, prevent or mitigate risks that could arise in relation to project implementation.
-
Ensure effective communication among stakeholders.
-
Allocate roles and responsibilities in a manner that ensures flawless project execution.
-
Implement various tools to assist project development and assessment of its results.
Project Deliverables
-
Construction ventilation/wind channels.
-
Construction of green roofs and planting street greenery that creates vital public spaces.
-
Establishment of UHIAA that ensures public-private partnership in the sphere of urban development.
-
Establishment of a project team which includes London government as the key stakeholder, funding source, and manager.
-
Creation of a risk assessment tool that includes actions to address, prevent, and mitigate them.
-
Establishment of organization breakdown structure, stakeholder management plan, and chart of team member responsibilities.
-
Development of quality control measurements and assign them to team members.
Project Assumptions
Within the framework of this project, it could be reasonable to assume that the London government and the mayor will be interested in financing this project. The reason for this is the fact that the project is aligned with London Environment Strategy (Greater London Authority, 2018). The second assumption is that it will be possible to receive extensive public support and establish public-private cooperation due to the fact that the project proposes a positive change to the citys environment. In addition, it could be assumed that London would greatly benefit from such a project and its success will foster other similar initiatives that will be guided by UHIAA.
Constraints and Considerations
One of the core constraints is the quality of works and materials that, if not ensured, could undermine the success of the project, increase the budget and violate the deadlines. Therefore, addressing this issue is among the key considerations during the planning and implementation stages. Another constraint that might affect the successful construction of the objects is the support and effective guidance of the London Government.
They might find this initiative not worth financing and allocate the city funds elsewhere. In this case, the project will require a redesign to find additional sources of funding. The final constraint is the timeline. 7 years appears to be a considerable amount of time that could encompass economic and political changes. Brexit, for instance, according to Gudgin, Coutts, Gibson, and Buchanan (2018), will take a toll on the countrys GDP which may cut the spendings on urban development projects.
Success Criteria
One of the success criteria is the acquisition of funding and support of the London administration. Other milestones will include gathering a multi-skilled and experienced team of managers and workers that would be motivated to contribute at the top of their capacity. Additionally, the projects success will depend on the ability of the construction team to build the necessary object within the deadline and project budget.
Critical Success Factors
The most beneficial environment for the projects success is the provision of the required amount of funding, meeting all deadlines, and provision of the high-quality of constructed objects. Meeting these goals will ensure that the project will not only achieve its goals but will be an example for further work in this direction. The creation of an organization that could incorporate highly trained individuals and establishes public-private partnership will enable the project to address all its goals and continue to yield benefit for London.
Planning and Control
The project schedule is divided into four phases. As captured in table 6, the work breakdown structure is organised into project initiation, project plan, execution and control and closing phases.
The approach to executing the plan will adapt four phases that are expected to be completed within 7 years. Each phase is expected to take 2 years, with the exception of the last stage. The rationale for breaking the project in four phases was informed by the need to carry out an organised and easy to follow process (Kahn 2013). As captured in table 6 and chart 1, the milestones, critical activities and decision gates are explained under each stage.
Organisation
As captured in figure 1 and table 7, the organisational breakdown structure of the project consists of multi-talented professionals with adequate skills to implement a project of this magnitude. The key partners who will help deliver this project are local governmental and non-governmental authorities across the city of London.
Table 7: Organisational breakdown structure.
Table 8: Project Responsibilities.
Risks
Operational and technological risk: Since the timeframe for the project is fixed, the plan has to be completed within seven years. The inflexible allocation of time for project completion exposes the plan to the risk of challenging reporting channels, especially in tracking progress at each stage (Ng and Ren 2015). The technical and operational risk is categorised as high.
Economic and financial risk: Since the main financier is the city of London authority, which is an external insti
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.