Case studies
The case studies are how the IMP is tested. Each applies the framework to a real UK region, and between them they exercise different parts of it.
Why more than one
No single case study uses the whole framework. Each is shaped by the hazard it addresses and the question the region poses.
Read together, they show that the framework transfers: the same structure supports a rainfall study on the Strategic Road Network, a flood study of an urban conurbation, and an urban heat study, without being rebuilt each time.
The three documented case studies
| Case study | Region | Hazard | Principal models |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cambridgeshire | Strategic Road Network around Greater Cambridge | Rainfall, assessed empirically | Gravity model, GLM Resilience Model |
| North East England | Tyne and Wear | 1-in-30-year heavy rainfall | CityCAT, MATSim, POESE |
| Greater Manchester | Greater Manchester | Urban heat | UrbClim, HiREx |
What each one demonstrates
Cambridgeshire exercises the empirical track. It combines projected demand growth with observed rainfall sensitivity to identify vulnerable links across a wide network extent, without agent-based simulation.
North East England exercises the full simulation chain, from climate scenario through flood hazard to agent-based transport simulation and the complete POESE metric set. It is the most complete application of the framework.
Greater Manchester exercises the heat pathway, which the other two do not touch at all, coupling neighbourhood-scale urban climate modelling to metre-scale exposure.
Two further case studies
| Case study | Status |
|---|---|
| Dover to Folkestone line | Not yet documented in the handbook |
| GB and freight | Not yet documented in the handbook |
Both are listed in the agreed handbook structure but have no content in the source document yet. Their pages exist so their URLs and sidebar positions are fixed now rather than after publication.
A note on structure
Two case studies have unfilled sub-headings
The North East England and Greater Manchester sections each contain a "How the IMP was applied" block with three headings that were never filled in:
| Heading | Status |
|---|---|
| Tools | Present, no content |
| Inputs per module | Present, no content, apart from one tool name in North East England |
| Outputs per module | Present, no content |
Where the accompanying figure or narrative supplies the information, it has been documented on those pages and attributed to its source. Where it does not, the gap is flagged.