Redesigning resilient infrastructure research

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

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

5 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationNATO Science for Peace and Security Series C
Subtitle of host publicationEnvironmental Security
PublisherSpringer Verlag
Pages81-119
Number of pages39
VolumePartF1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2017

Publication series

NameNATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security
VolumePartF1
ISSN (Print)1874-6519

Fingerprint

infrastructure
incentive
education and training
human rights
simulation
education
weather
resource

Keywords

  • Adaptive governance
  • Critical infrastructure
  • Human resilience development
  • Integral theory
  • Organizational resilience
  • Resilience economics
  • Resilience engineering
  • Resilience processes
  • Resilient infrastructure education
  • Socio-technical systems integration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Science(all)

Cite this

Seager, T., Clark, S. S., Eisenberg, D. A., Thomas, J. E., Hinrichs, M. M., Kofron, R., ... Alderson, D. L. (2017). Redesigning resilient infrastructure research. In NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security (Vol. PartF1, pp. 81-119). (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security; Vol. PartF1). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3

Redesigning resilient infrastructure research. / Seager, Thomas; Clark, Susan Spierre; Eisenberg, Daniel A.; Thomas, John E.; Hinrichs, Margaret M.; Kofron, Ryan; Jensen, Camilla Nørgaard; McBurnett, Lauren R.; Snell, Marcus; Alderson, David L.

NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Vol. PartF1 Springer Verlag, 2017. p. 81-119 (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security; Vol. PartF1).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Seager, T, Clark, SS, Eisenberg, DA, Thomas, JE, Hinrichs, MM, Kofron, R, Jensen, CN, McBurnett, LR, Snell, M & Alderson, DL 2017, Redesigning resilient infrastructure research. in NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. vol. PartF1, NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security, vol. PartF1, Springer Verlag, pp. 81-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3
Seager T, Clark SS, Eisenberg DA, Thomas JE, Hinrichs MM, Kofron R et al. Redesigning resilient infrastructure research. In NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Vol. PartF1. Springer Verlag. 2017. p. 81-119. (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3
Seager, Thomas ; Clark, Susan Spierre ; Eisenberg, Daniel A. ; Thomas, John E. ; Hinrichs, Margaret M. ; Kofron, Ryan ; Jensen, Camilla Nørgaard ; McBurnett, Lauren R. ; Snell, Marcus ; Alderson, David L. / Redesigning resilient infrastructure research. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Vol. PartF1 Springer Verlag, 2017. pp. 81-119 (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security).
@inbook{af9d985632864ea59e37cb4ced8a6b86,
title = "Redesigning resilient infrastructure research",
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.",
keywords = "Adaptive governance, Critical infrastructure, Human resilience development, Integral theory, Organizational resilience, Resilience economics, Resilience engineering, Resilience processes, Resilient infrastructure education, Socio-technical systems integration",
author = "Thomas Seager and Clark, {Susan Spierre} and Eisenberg, {Daniel A.} and Thomas, {John E.} and Hinrichs, {Margaret M.} and Ryan Kofron and Jensen, {Camilla N{\o}rgaard} and McBurnett, {Lauren R.} and Marcus Snell and Alderson, {David L.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "PartF1",
series = "NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
pages = "81--119",
booktitle = "NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C",
address = "Germany",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Redesigning resilient infrastructure research

AU - Seager, Thomas

AU - Clark, Susan Spierre

AU - Eisenberg, Daniel A.

AU - Thomas, John E.

AU - Hinrichs, Margaret M.

AU - Kofron, Ryan

AU - Jensen, Camilla Nørgaard

AU - McBurnett, Lauren R.

AU - Snell, Marcus

AU - Alderson, David L.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Adaptive governance

KW - Critical infrastructure

KW - Human resilience development

KW - Integral theory

KW - Organizational resilience

KW - Resilience economics

KW - Resilience engineering

KW - Resilience processes

KW - Resilient infrastructure education

KW - Socio-technical systems integration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028336648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028336648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3

DO - 10.1007/978-94-024-1123-2_3

M3 - Chapter

VL - PartF1

T3 - NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security

SP - 81

EP - 119

BT - NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C

PB - Springer Verlag

ER -