 Professor Mark Stewart from the University of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia. We are very happy that we can talk to you and ask you some questions about the cost ACT-1402 on quantifying the value of structural health monitoring. Okay, so maybe to start up, can you outline what your activity has been and how it has developed? Okay, well my activity has been really working with some very key researchers within the cost action. So I've been working with with Sebastian, Simone, Michael Faber, and what we've been looking at is really the value of information, how it affects systems resiliency. And some of the workers also have also been focusing on counterterrorism measures for buildings and bridges and how we can use updated information to really give us a bit more information about future projections about a hazard and also the resilience of infrastructure. About the topic of the action, the value of information of structural health monitoring, probably you knew about this before the action, but is there something that you learned working in the action together with these participants that you just mentioned? Okay, you can't spit it out, that's a tough question to ask. Well, I mean, what I've learned about the cost action is how well engaged European researchers are with each other and how they can build critical mass on fairly key projects and also gives opportunities for people like myself who are obviously long way from Europe to work with some international leaders within Europe on these particular projects. So I think that's a great benefit is it actually allows a lot more networking within Europe and also outside of Europe, because that's quite difficult in many other parts of the world. Okay, thank you. Did our network we built across Europe that influence your network? Maybe not really, right? Because you already have a very large network and we also have to admit that the activities or the joint activities with you, they are rather focused as you're outlined on individual work with Simona and short term scientific mission and short term scientific mission of myself and also with Michael Faber. So yes, in this sense, our also financial capacities for engaging beyond Europe are a little limited. So yes, but coming back to the part of the research, how does our work influence your future research? What do you see as potentials or issues you may have identified? Well, I think what I think is important is that you can establish collaboration and that's been a really great aspect of this cross-action and the opportunity to work with people that I normally wouldn't have worked with in the past. So it made me to get to know Sebastian a lot better and also Simona and Michael already knows I don't need to know any more about Michael. But that gave me the opportunity to work with people I really haven't worked with before and for them particularly to be able to come to Australia and work on joint joint particular projects. So I see this as a start of a long term collaboration between us and some of the key and the topic of it is extremely relevant to some of my work on Canada Terrorism and Homeland Security where there is a lack of detailed information. There's a lot of worst-case thinking, a lot of subjective thinking and so to have so come up with some with some value of information and some structured models can really I think help inform the future about how we about the data needs we need to collect about how to protect infrastructure against some of these unusual threats such as terrorism and even climate change as well particularly. Somehow you anticipated the questions that I was going to ask you which was what is what will be according to you the impact of this action on beyond science I mean for science for the industry and the society. Do you think in your country it will have a could have a large impact or it's still something that needs time Oh yeah it always takes time but I think a lot of aspects of the cost action really is about public policy decision making. Now we're trying to convince asset owners or governments or regulators about how best they can manage their own particular infrastructure now and into the future. So and I think a benefit of this of cost action is that it can be it can be evidence-based so so it's so it's quantifiable it's it's transparent it's rigorous it's scientific and that helps when you're talking to public policy makers that you've actually got some science behind it and you've actually got evidence about how best to proceed in the future and the feedback that obviously at least Australia has been fairly positive even though the modeling could be quite quite complicated they can see that it's bigger and that there's evidence behind some of the recommendations that we can make. Okay thank you very much for your insights and thoughts and we hope to keep in touch beyond the cost action and I'm sure we will yeah we also hope that we um yeah that maybe one or the other researcher out of our network may even enlarge your large network so let's see thank you very much. Okay that's the problem where can I see you in Australia next? Yeah we would see maybe for sure now is the time here where we wish we would be in Australia with ice and mold but I see but I see by the view at ICASP in Korea and