Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Redesigning Resilient Infrastructure Research

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Resilience and Risk

Abstract

Despite federal policy directives to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure systems to extreme weather and other adverse events, several knowledge and governance barriers currently frustrate progress towards policy goals, namely: (1) a lack of awareness of what constitutes resilience in diverse infrastructure applications, (2) a lack of judgement about how to create resilience, (3) a lack of incentives that motivate resilience creation, and (4) obstacles that prevent action or reform, even where incentives exist, within existing governance systems. In this chapter, we describe each of these barriers in greater detail and provide a catalog of theories for overcoming them. Regarding awareness, we contrast four different characterizations of resilience as rebound, robustness, graceful extensibility, and sustained adaptability. We apply Integral Theory to demonstrate the necessity of integrating multiple investigative perspectives. Further, we illustrate the importance of recognizing resilience as a set of processes, in addition to resources and outcomes, and the difficulty of measuring quality and quality of resilience actions. Regarding judgement, we position infrastructure as the principal mechanism by which human rights are realized as human capabilities, and propose applying theories of human development such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to identify the most critical infrastructure in terms of the services they provide to end users. Regarding a lack of incentives, we examine the modes and tools of financial analysis by which investments in resilience infrastructure may be prioritized and find two failings: the difficulty of estimating the monetary value of optionality, and the problem of exponential discounting of future cash flows. Regarding obstacles to action, we describe a hierarchy of adaptive actions applicable to physical infrastructure and the essential dimensions of organizational maturity that determine how these adaptive actions might be initiated. Additionally, we discuss the difficulty of education and training for resilient infrastructure systems and propose simulation gaming as an integrative research and education approach for capturing lessons learned from historical catastrophes, play-testing scenarios, sharing knowledge, and training a workforce prepared for the challenges of the post-industrial infrastructure age. Finally, we suggest establishing a National Network for Resilient Infrastructure Simulation to coordinate research and practice focused on interactive case studies in resilient infrastructure systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Thomas Jefferson’s time, the printing press was a technology platform considered so essential to freedom of speech that it was written directly into the 1st amendment. In today’s age, this right might be expressed as freedom to tweet.

  2. 2.

    Other multidimensional lists and conceptions of human well-being have been generated and vary according to the questions that each author seek to address and the context of operation; see Alkire (2002) and Hall et al. (2010) for a discussion and comparison of different approaches.

  3. 3.

    Maslow acknowledges that his hierarchy suggests a degree of fixity, even though some people will be motivated by needs in a different order. He discusses how the hierarchy does not usually occur in a step-wise fashion as the pyramid implies. A more realistic description of the hierarchy is decreasing percentages of satisfaction as one moves up the pyramid.

  4. 4.

    Maslow’s hierarchy has resonated across many disciplines, from psychology, to education, business, engineering, and technology because it organizes a very complex topic into a cognitively appealing and intuitive model. Its popularity stems from the model’s relative simplicity and hierarchical nature which allows for more practical application, yet these characteristics are also heavily criticized. Alkire (2002) argue that dimensions of human development should be nonhierarchical because what seems most important to an individual will change over time, depending on the situation and context. Others contend that people are capable of higher order needs such as love and belonging, even if their basic psychological needs are unmet.

  5. 5.

    Moral hazard refers to the externalization of risks to third parties, even in the absence of the intent to cause harm (Pauly 1968). Where the benefits of risk taking accrue to those making the decision to take risks, but the downsides accrue to others, the distortion causes decision-makers with “skin in the game” (Taleb 2012) to place irresponsible bets with poor expected social outcomes. The complementary concept is moral luck (Nagel 1993), which refers to the tendency to judge the moral worthiness of actions by their outcome, rather than intent. Because in complex systems, outcomes will never perfectly align with intentions, judging exclusively on the basis of outcome leaves open the possibility that some poor, or irresponsible decisions may nevertheless be judged morally worthy simply out of good fortune. A more complete description of the relationship between these two fascinating philosophical concepts and resilience must be left for some future publication.

  6. 6.

    Conation is an obscure word that describes volition, or willful action. Conation describes behavior that is purposeful striving, rather than recreational or hedonic.

Further Suggested Readings

  • Abt C (1970) Serious games. Viking Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Achard S (2006) A resilient, low-frequency, small-world human brain functional network with highly connected association cortical hubs. J Neurosci 26(1):63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adibi MM, Fink LH (2006) Restoration from cascading failures. IEEE Power and Energ Mag 4(5):68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberts D, Huber RK, Moffat J (2010) NATO NECe C2 Maturity Model, Available at: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA555717. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Alderson DL, Doyle JC (2010) Contrasting views of complexity and their implications for network-centric infrastructures. IEEE Trans Syst ManCybernPart A Syst Hum 40(4):839–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alderson DL, Brown GG, Carlyle WM (2014) Assessing and improving operational resilience of critical infrastructures and other systems. In: Bridging Data and Decisions, INFORMS pp 180–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderson DL, Brown GG, Carlyle WM (2015) Operational models of infrastructure resilience. Risk Anal 35(4):562–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander DE (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. NatHazards Earth Syst Sci 13(11):2707–2716. Available at: http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/2707/2013/. Accessed 30 Jan 2014

  • Alkire S (2002) Dimensions of human development. World Dev 30(2):181–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson G et al (2005) Causes of the 2003 major grid blackouts in North America and Europe, and recommended means to improve system dynamic performance. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20(4):1922–1928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres RU, Axtell R (1996) Foresight as a survival characteristic: when (if ever) does the long view pay? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 51(3):209–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry J (1997) Rising tide: the great Mississippi flood of 1927 and how it changed America. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Ross H (2012) Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Soc Nat Resour 26(1):5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno GA (2004) Loss, truama, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely adverse events? Am Psychol 59(1):20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowser M (2016) Last night the district failed to deploy the necessary resources in response to the snow – for that I am sorry. Twitter 21 January 2016. Available at: https://twitter.com/mayorbowser/status/690196235593080832. Accessed 13 Feb 2017

  • Brewer G, Shubik M (1979) The war game: a critique of military problem solving. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y-Z, Huang Z-G, Zhang H-F, Eisenberg DA, Seager TP, Lai Y-C (2014) Extreme events in multilayer, interdependent complex networks and control. Sci Rep 5:17277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cioppa TM, Lucas TW, Sanchez SM (2004) Military applications of agent-based simulations. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation conference. IEEE, pp 165–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark SS, Chester MV (2016) A hybrid approach for assessing the multi-scale impacts of urban resource use: transportation in phoenix, Arizona. J Ind Ecol 21(1):136–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark SS, Berardy A, Hannah M, Seager TP, Selinger E, Mikanda JV (2015) The role of tacit knowledge in facilitating globally distributed virtual teams: lessons learned from using games and social media in the classroom. Connexions 3(1):113–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark SS, Chester MV, Seager TP (2017) The vulnerability of interdependent urban infrastructure systems to climate change: could phoenix experience a Katrina of extreme heat? Climactic Change. Under review. Prepublication draft. Available at https://awsum.box.com/v/2017Clark-KatrinaExtremeHeat. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Connor K (2006) Assessment of resilience in the aftermath of trauma. J Clin Psychiatry 67(2):46–49

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defense (DoD) (2016) DoD directive 3020.40: mission assurance, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Washington, DC, Effective: November 29, 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2013) National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP): partnering for critical infrastructure security and resilience. Available at: https://www.dhs.gov/national-infrastructure-protection-plan. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Dörner D (1996) The logic of failure: recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, D.A., Park, J., Kim, D., Seager, T.P. (2014). Resilience analysis of critical infrastructure systems requires integration of multiple analytical techniques. Figshare. Available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3085810.v1. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Esbjörn-hargens S (2010) An overview of integral theory. In: Esbjörn-hargens S (ed) Integral theory in action: applied, theoretical, and constructive perspectives on the AQAL model. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 33–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Esbjörn-hargens S, Zimmerman MA (2009) Integral ecology, uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world. Integral Books, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn SE (2016) Five impediments to building societal resilience. In IRGC Resource Guide on Resilience pp 1–4. Available at https://www.irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Flynn-Five-Impediments-to-Building-Societal-Resilience.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2017

  • Fox-Lent C, Bates M, Linkov I (2015) A matrix approach to community resilience assessment: an illustrative case at Rockaway Peninsula. EnvironSyst Decis 35:209–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganin AA, Massaro E, Gutfraind A, Steen N, Keisler JM, Kott A, Mangoubi R, Linkov I (2016) Operational resilience: concepts, design and analysis. Sci Rep 6:19540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GAO (2013) Critical infrastructure protection: DHS list of priority assests needs to be validated and reported to congress. United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653300.pdf

  • GAO (2014) Critical infrastructure protection: DHS action needed to enhance integration and coordination of vulnerability assessment efforts. United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665788.pdf

  • Gim C, Kennedy EB, Spierre Clark S, Millar CA, Ruddell B (2017) Institutions in critical infrastructure resilience. J Infrastruct Syst Under review. Prepublication draft available at https://awsum.box.com/v/2017Gim-InstitutionalLayering. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Google Ngram (2017a) https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=resilience&year_start=1800&year_end=2015&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cresilience%3B%2Cc0. Accessed 14 Feb 2017

  • Google Ngram (2017b) https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=risk_NOUN%2Crisk_VERB%2Cresilience&year_start=1800&year_end=2015&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crisk_NOUN%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Crisk_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cresilience%3B%2Cc0. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Grant R (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17:109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant GB, Seager TP, Massard G, Nies L (2010) Information and communication technology for industrial symbiosis. J Ind Ecol 14(5):40–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall J et al (2010) A framework to measure the progress of societies, OECD statistics working papers, 2010/05. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5km4k7mnrkzw-en

  • Hamilton C, Adolphs S, Nerlich B (2007) The meanings of “risk”: a view from corpus linguistics. Discourse Soc 18(2):163–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond J (2004) Simulation in critical care and trauma education and training. Curr Opin Crit Care 10(5):325–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah ST, Avolio BJ, May DR (2011) Moral maturation and moral conation: a capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Acad Manag Rev 36:663–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden BY (2016) Time discounting and time preference in animals: a critical review. Psychon Bull Rev 23:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hays RT et al (1992) Flight simulator training effectiveness: a meta-analysis. Mil Psychol 4(2):63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs MM, Seager TP, Tracy SJ, Hannah MA (2017) Innovation in the knowledge age: implications for collaborative science. Environ Syst Decis In press. doi:10.1007/s10669-016-9610-9

  • Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2014) Resilience engineering and the built environment. Build Res Inf 42(2):221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (2007) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Homeland Security Council (HSC) (2007) National strategy for homeland security. The White House, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard DW (2009) The failure of risk management: why it’s broken and how to fix it. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin AR (2000) Historical case studies: teaching the nature of science in context. Sci Educ 84(1):5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu N, Garayev V (2014) Structure and network performance: horizontal and vertical networks in emergency management. Adm Soc 48(8):931–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu N, Garayev V, Wang X (2013) Sustaining networks in emergency management. Public Perform Manag Rev 37(1):104–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschen D, Bouffard F (2009) Keeping the lights on and the information flowing. IEEE Power and Energ Mag 7(1):50–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneebone R (2003) Simulation in surgical training: educational issues and practical implications. Med Educ 37(3):267–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb DA (2014) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. FT press

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin S, Fox-Lent C, Eisenberg DA, Trump BD, Wallace S, Chadderton C, Linkov I (2015) Benchmarking agency and organizational practices in resilience decision making. Environment Systems and Decisions 35(2):185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Bridges T, Creutzig F, Decker J, Fox-Lent C, Kröger W, Lambert JH, Levermann A, Montreuil B, Nathwani J, Nyer R (2014) Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat Clim Chang 4(6):407–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madni AM, Jackson S (2009) Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering. IEEE Syst J 3(2):181–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Sproull LS, Tamuz M (1991) Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organ Sci 2(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masten AS (2014) Ordinary magic: resilience in development. The Guilford Press, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Munoz G (2015) Capistrano Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano, Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three, Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00594579. Available at http://wilcoxbenumof.blazonco.com/files/articles/G048969.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Nagel T (1993) Moral luck. In: Russell P, Deery O (eds) Essential readings from the contemporary debates. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • National Security Council (NSC) (2007) National Continuity Policy Implementation Plan. The White House, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Navvaro P (2004) On the political economy of electricity deregulation—California style. Electr J 17(2):47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noltemeyer AL, Bush KR (2013) Adversity and resilience: a synthesis of international research. Sch Psychol Int 34(5):474–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol 41(1–2):127–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ 9(2–3):33–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M (2006) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M, Sen A (1992) The quality of life. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson K, Morton L (2012) The impacts of 2011 induced levee breaches on agricultural lands of Mississippi River valley. J Soil Water Conserv 67(1):5A–10A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang M (2014) Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC, Convertino M, Linkov I (2013) Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal 33(3):356–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly MV (1968) The economics of moral hazard: comment. Am Econ Rev 58(3, Part 1):531–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit F et al (2015) Analysis of critical infrastructure dependencies and interdependencies. Argonne National Lab Report ANL/GSS-15/4. Available at: http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2015/06/111906.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2017

  • Petrenj B, Lettieri E, Trucco P (2012) Towards enhanced collaboration and information sharing for critical infrastructure resilience: current barriers and emerging capabilities. Int J Crit Infrastruct 8:107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrenj B, Lettieri E, Trucco P (2013) Information sharing and collaboration for critical infrastructure resilience – a comprehensive review on barriers and emerging capabilities. Int J Crit Infrastruct 9(4):304–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pourbeik P, Kundur PS, Taylor CW (2006) The anatomy of a power grid blackout. IEEE Power Energ Mag 4(5):22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinaldi SM, Peerenboom JP, Kelly TK (2001) Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Syst Mag 21(6):11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski J, Seager TP, Selinger E, Spierre SG, Whyte KP (2013) An experiential, game-theoretic pedagogy for sustainability ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):1323–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski J, Spierre SG, Selinger E, Seager TP, Adams EA, Berardy A (2015) Intergroup cooperation in common pool resource dilemmas. Sci Eng Ethics 21(5):1197–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sage D, Zebrowski C (2016) Resilience and critical infrastructure: origins, theories and critiques. In: Dover R, Huw D, Goodman MS (eds) The Palgrave handbook of security, risk and intelligence. Palgrave MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Seager TP (2008) The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 17(7):444–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager TP, Hinrichs MM (2017) Technology and science: innovation at the international symposium on sustainable systems and technology. Environ Syst Decis In press. doi:10.1007/s10669-017-9630-0

  • Seager TP et al (2007) Typological review of environmental performance metrics (with illustrative examples for oil spill response). Integr Environ Assess Manag 3(3):310–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager TP, Selinger E, Whiddon D, Schwartz D, Spierre S, Berardy A (2010) Debunking the fallacy of the individual decision-maker: an experiential pedagogy for sustainability ethics. In: Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), 2010 IEEE international symposium on IEEE, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Seager TP, Gisladottirb V, Mancillas J, Roege P, Linkov I (2017) Inspiration to operation: securing net benefits vs. zero outcome. J Clean Prod 148:422–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selinger E, Sadowski J, Seager TP (2015) Gamification and morality. In: Waltz SP, Deterding S (eds) The gameful world: approaches, issues, applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 371–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Selinger E, Seager TP, Spierre, S, Schwartz D (2016) Using sustainability games to elicit moral hypotheses from scientists and engineers. Rethinking climate change research: clean technology, culture and communication, Routledge, pp 117–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1999a) Commodities and capabilities. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1999b) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2–3):291–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stranger W (2013) California wastewater rates: life after Bighorn v Verjil. California Water Law J. Available at: http://waterlawjournal.com/california-wastewater-rates-life-after-bighorn-v-verjil

  • Taleb NN (2005) Fooled by randomness: the hidden role of chance in life and in the markets. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb NN (2012) Antifragile: things that gain from disorder. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson RD, Jorczak RL (2008) A conceptual framework for the empirical study of instructional games. In: O’Neil HF, Perez RS (eds) Computer games and team and individual learning. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JB, Watts Sussman S, Henderson JC (2001) Understanding “Strategic Learning”: linking organizational learning, knowledge management, and sensemaking. Organ Sci 12(3):331–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toft B, Reynolds S (2016) Learning from disasters. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilber K (2001) A theory of everything: an integral vision for business, politics, science, and spirituality. Shambhala Publications, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler R (2006) Does ‘better’ discounting lead to ‘worse’ outcomes in long-run decisions? The dilemma of hyperbolic discounting. Ecol Econ 57(4):573–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods DD (2015) Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 141:5–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav A et al (2007) Teaching science with case studies: a national survey of faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using cases. J Coll Sci Teach 37(1):34

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zautra A, Hall J, Murray K (2008) Community development and community resilience: an integrative approach. Community Dev 39(3):130–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S-P, Huang Z-G, Dong J-Q, Eisenberg DA, Seager TP, Lai Y-C (2015) Optimization and resilience of complex supply-demand networks. New J Phys 17(6):063029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman R, Restrepo CE (2006) The next step: quantifying infrastructure interdependencies to improve security. Int J Crit Infrastruct 2:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziv A, Small SD, Wolpe PR (2000) Patient safety and simulation-based medical education. Med Teach 22(5):489–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the guidance provided in extended conversations with Drs. Stephen Flynn of Northeastern University, David Woods of The Ohio State University, and Igor Linkov of the US Army Engineer and Development Center. Also, Dr. David Alexander of University College London provided feedback and encouragement in the development of Fig. 3.2. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation awards 1,441,352 and 1,360,509, the Department of Defense (DOD) Grant11967796-ONR-Navy Enterprise Partnership Teaming with Universities for National Excellence (NEPTUNE), and the DOD Defense Threat Reduction Agency award HDTRA1–11-16-BRCWMD-PerE). The content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Federal Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sustainable Engineering & The Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, 85287, AZ, USA

    Thomas P. Seager, Susan Spierre Clark, Daniel A. Eisenberg, John E. Thomas, Margaret M. Hinrichs, Ryan Kofron, Camilla Nørgaard Jensen, Lauren R. McBurnett & Marcus Snell

  2. Center for Infrastructure Defense, Operations Research Department, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, 93943, CA, USA

    David L. Alderson

Authors
  1. Thomas P. Seager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Spierre Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel A. Eisenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John E. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Margaret M. Hinrichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ryan Kofron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Camilla Nørgaard Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lauren R. McBurnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marcus Snell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. David L. Alderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas P. Seager .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts, USA

    Igor Linkov

  2. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    José Manuel Palma-Oliveira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Seager, T.P. et al. (2017). Redesigning Resilient Infrastructure Research. In: Linkov, I., Palma-Oliveira, J. (eds) Resilience and Risk. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1122-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1123-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation