Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:13:25.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2023

Sunil K. Sinha*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management (SWIM) Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Craig Davis
Affiliation:
Manager, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Paolo Gardoni
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
Meghna Babbar-Sebens
Affiliation:
School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Michael Stuhr
Affiliation:
Director, Portland Water Bureau, Portland, OR, USA
Dryver Huston
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Stephen Cauffman
Affiliation:
Resilience Services Branch, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Arlington, VA, USA
William D. Williams
Affiliation:
Asset Management, Black & Veatch Management Consulting, Alpharetta, GA, USA
Leon G. Alanis
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico
Hardeep Anand
Affiliation:
Deputy Director, One Water Strategy, Miami-Dade County, FL, USA
Anmol Vishwakarma
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Sunil K. Sinha; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Water is often referred to as our most precious resource, and for a good reason – drinking water and wastewater services sustain core functions of the critical infrastructure, communities, and human life itself. Our water systems are threatened by aging infrastructure, floods, drought, storms, earthquakes, sea level rise, population growth, cyber-security breaches, and pollution, often in combination. Marginalized communities inevitably feel the worst impacts, and our response continues to be hampered by fragmented and antiquated governance and management practices. This paper focuses on the resilience of water sector (drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater [DWS]) to three major hazards (Sea-Level Rise, Earthquake, and Cyberattack). The purpose of this paper is to provide information useful for creating and maintaining resilient water system services. The term resilience describes the ability to adapt to changing conditions and to withstand and recover from disruptions. The resilience of DWS systems is of utmost importance to modern societies that are highly dependent on continued access to these water sector services. This review covers the terminology on water sector resilience and the assessment of a broad landscape of threats mapped with the proposed framework. A more detailed discussion on two areas of resilience is given: Physical Resilience, which is currently a major factor influencing disruptions and failures in DWS systems, and Digital Resilience, which is a rapidly increasing concern for modern infrastructure systems. The resilience of DWS systems should be considered holistically, inclusive of social, digital, and physical systems. The framework integrates various perspectives on water system threats by showcasing interactions between the parts of the DWS systems and their environment. While the challenges of change, shock and stresses are inevitable, embracing a social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach will allow us to better understand and operationalize resilience.

Type
Overview Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

Services provided by water lifeline infrastructure (e.g., drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater [DWS] systems) are critical to modern societies. However, stresses from aging and external threats (e.g., sea level rise, floods, earthquakes) on existing DWS systems and the current practice of siloed governance and management of DWS systems have worsened the vulnerabilities in many communities, especially in the marginalized ones. This paper presents a new framework on managing the resilience of DWS systems in the water sector to three major hazards (Sea-Level Rise, Earthquake, and Cyberattack). The new framework embraces a social–ecological–technical system-of-systems approach and a whole-life approach to allow communities to better understand and operationalize short-term to long-term resilience in their DWS systems. The framework also endorses the integration of the goals of sustainability and resilience for overcoming global water challenges, and provides insights via case studies on how communities could identify technologies and policies that promote both goals in the near term and in the far future. Finally, a case is made for using emerging digital technologies and Artificial Intelligence to operationalize the proposed framework in communities. We should consider how general trends, and digital technology including digital twins and artificial intelligence and machine learning, as well as cloud and edge computing offer opportunities for the future of sustainable and resilient water infrastructure systems.

Introduction and background

Promoting resilience is a growing need due to the increased frequency and magnitude of distruptive events affecting the lifeline infrastructure systems that support communities. Services provided by water lifeline infrastructure (e.g., drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater [DWS] systems) are critical to modern societies. Herein, we refer to the water sector as consisting of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems. The Drinking water systems provide potable water for consumption. Wastewater systems include sanitary systems that collect industrial and consumer-used water for cleaning and disposal. Stormwater systems that collect surface runoff, and may be contaminated by human activities, for cleaning and disposal. In some urban areas, the sanitary and storm systems are managed as combined systems. Collectively, these three systems in the water sector are defined as DWS systems in this paper. Major cities, which are the economic backbone of the nation, cannot exist without access to safe water sources, and the ability to treat wastewater, and return water to the environment (Sinha and Graf, Reference Sinha and Graf2014).

The increasing interest in resilience has resulted in numerous definitions. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defines resilience as ‘the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, or adapt to actual or potential adverse events’ (NRC, 2012). As a common thread to all definitions, resilience is seen as the ability of a system to withstand external perturbation(s), adapt, and rapidly recover to the original or a new level of functionality. However, we believe that resilience should be conceptualized not only in relation to a perturbation, but as part of the entire life of a system. Resilience is a function of the state of the system at any time. As a result, improving resilience also means improving the reliability of the system under normal and also under stressed conditions. Although there is significant high-quality information available on resilience-related topics (e.g., hazard and vulnerability assessment, risk assessment and management, and loss estimation, as well as disaster resilience itself), there is no integration framework that also provides a central source of data and models/tools to the owners and managers of water infrastructure systems, community planners, policymakers, and other decision-makers. Such a framework can help in defining and measuring the resilience throughout the lifetime of infrastructure systems. Developing a better description of resilience and metrics and tools for defining and measuring the resilience DWS infrastructure system is an important step in meeting the challenge of water sector resilience at the community scale.

Resilience for the water sector requires a ‘Social–Ecological–Technical System-of-Systems’ and ‘Whole-Lifeapproach to mitigating risks from disruptive events and improving long-term resilience driven by societal needs for sustainability, and social and environmental justice. The Social–Ecological–Technical System-of-Systems approach considers all interactions and interdependencies among subsystems of the water sector in a holistic way. The Whole-Life approach considers the lifespan of infrastructure systems in activities related to planning, design, operations, and renewal of the infrastructure. Resiliency in the water sector integrates and derives information from cyber-space, physical-space, and social-space and the underlying interdependencies within water system-of-systems to improve the overall management of risks from extreme events and optimize life-cycle management. Such considerations facilitate equitable, affordable, efficient, reliable, sustainable, and resilient provision of water infrastructure services, and as a result, sustain long-term health and economic productivity of communities (NSF ERC Policy and Governance Workshop, 2021).

Measuring the resilience of water sector systems and communities, however, poses difficult technical challenges due to a lack of adequate:

  1. (1) understanding of how natural processes in the environment that interact with DWS infrastructure systems can lead to stresses and failures over time;

  2. (2) use of predictive technologies and information on hazards and mitigation strategies by design professionals, standards developers, and emergency managers, for the purpose of promoting resilience-risk-informed behavior, improving performance-based management of complex spatially distributed DWS networks, and accelerating the transfer of results of research into practice; and

  3. (3) standardized methods to assess the resilience of water systems and communities to sudden disasters and chronic stresses during the whole life of water infrastructure systems.

It is already difficult enough to assess the resilience of an individual infrastructure asset. Considering the interdependencies among multiple assets creates additional levels of complexity that have long exacerbated the difficulties in managing interconnected natural, built, and social water systems. It is also important to consider dependencies and interdependencies with other sectors (i.e., energy, agriculture). While there are theories and models for disaster resilience, system reliability and vulnerability analysis, and emergency management, there remain fundamental and methodological gaps related to the analyses of integrated resilient systems. For example,

  1. (1) Efforts are needed to increase the discoverability and accessibility of data on integrated systems. This will help communities understand appropriate uses of data for resilience planning, increase compatibility with community software platforms and models, and standardize data to facilitate the application for utilities, practitioners, and researchers. The development of common data standards and best practices for the curation and dissemination of validated data and tools would reduce the technical burden on utilities as they support community infrastructure.

  2. (2) Available tools continue to be inadequate in their ability to conduct big-data analytics for resilience, conduct a comprehensive assessment of consequences and vulnerabilities, and employ time-varying multi-objective optimization and community-level platforms for long-term decision support. Additionally, regional resilience tools often are limited in engaging and collaborating with end-users to align the technical requirements of analytical tools to community decision-support needs.

The water sector should develop a synthesizing framework capable of articulating the explicit inputs for the resilience analysis of DWS infrastructure. The framework needs to consider different adverse event scenarios (e.g., acute service disruptions, chronic stress like aging and deterioration, and uncertain natural hazards and malevolent threats); the support of different resilient management processes (e.g., during pre-event mitigation and post-event recovery), the incorporation of flexible and robust engineering practices; and integration with various quantitative modeling approaches and qualitative analysis methods. This includes the integration of resilience plans into long-range infrastructure plans and the use of innovative technologies for system vulnerability assessment. This will lead to increased service life, minimized disruptions, and faster and less costly response and recovery after the events. Advancements in fundamental knowledge and measurement science will bring tangible changes to the practice with a clear societal impact.

The main goal of this paper is to draw extensively on previous resilience-related work undertaken for infrastructure in general, and in particular in the water sector, for the purpose of:

  1. (1) Examining current practice and gaps in the water sector for management of resilience to sea level rise, earthquakes, and digital hazards.

  2. (2) Identifying future research needs that are driven by a whole-life approach to managing resilience of interconnected social, built, and natural water sector systems.

Water sector infrastructure systems

There are over 155,000 public drinking water systems, and over 16,500 publicly owned wastewater facilities in the U.S. (AWIA, 2018). However, the majority of the population is served by a small number of mostly large or very large systems that are predominantly owned and operated by municipalities in the United States (AWWA, 2011). While individual utilities vary widely in size and complexity, Figure 1 shows a typical water flow path through drinking water and wastewater infrastructure under normal operations (NIAC, 2016). Drinking water and wastewater systems are some of the most important sectors for ensuring and protecting the health of the nation.

Figure 1. Typical drinking water and wastewater operations. Source: NIAC.

The crisis in Flint, Michigan (MDAG, n.d.), and the crisis in post-hurricane Puerto Rico (Vick, Reference Vick2023) reveal how a loss of safe drinking water can devastate entire communities, regions, and even countries. Also, the loss of water services can cripple other critical infrastructures and trigger additional disruptions with significant cascading effects. An analysis of vulnerability assessments conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis (OCIA) (USDHS, n.d.) revealed that among surveyed critical infrastructure that depend upon water for core operations, the services degraded 50% or more within 8 h of losing drinking water services. Figure 2 shows the impacts on interdependent critical facilities when the water infrastructure system is unable to provide the desired level of service. Further, operational costs, capital costs, and increasing/expanding regulation are also included among the top five water sector issues (NIAC, 2014).

Figure 2. Infrastructure interdependencies on water sector. Source: NIAC.

A system-of-systems and whole-LIFE approach

Resilience is a seemingly difficult concept to define due to the many perspectives that exist in different fields (e.g., engineering resilience (Pimm, Reference Pimm1984), ecological resilience (Holling, Reference Holling1996), social-ecological resilience (Carpenter et al., Reference Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel2001), social resilience (Adger, Reference Adger2000), development resilience (Pasteur, Reference Pasteur2011; Barrett and Constas, Reference Barrett and Constas2015), socio-economic resilience (Mancini et al., Reference Mancini, Salvati, Sateriano, Mancino and Ferrara2012), community resilience (Norris et al., Reference Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche and Pfefferbaum2008), and psychological resilience (Tugade et al., Reference Tugade, Fredrickson and Barrett2004). Further, not every hazard occurs in the same geographical region of the U.S. For instance, cities on the west coast are more vulnerable to earthquakes so their resiliency definition and plans incorporate damages that result from earthquakes (i.e., liquefaction). Cities on the east coast include resiliency definitions leaning toward hurricanes. The metrics for measuring resiliency are based on the size of expected degradation in the quality of infrastructure and requires knowledge of robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity to recovery, as presented in Figure 3. The water sector resilience framework should, therefore, consider a system-of-systems approach that takes into account the complex interactions and interdependencies in the water infrastructure systems. This perspective is inspired by the SETS (Social–Ecological–Technical systems) framework which highlights the importance of coordinating natural, built, and social systems for water management, and understanding their interactions and the factors that affect urban ecosystem services (Mukheibir et al., Reference Mukheibir, Howe and Gallet2014; Chester et al., Reference Chester, Grimm, Redman, Miller, McPherson, Munoz-Erickson and Chandler2015; FAO and WWC, 2018; Hager et al., Reference Hager, Mian, Hu, Hewage and Sadiq2021; Pokhrel et al., Reference Pokhrel, Shrestha, Hewage and Sadiq2022). The SETS framework also highlights the importance of hybridity in infrastructure, which is the built environments coupled with landscape-scale biophysical structures and processes.

Figure 3. Functionality curve for water sector infrastructure systems. Source: NIST.

The Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-21 (White House, 2013) identified 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, networks, and physical conditions are vital to the security, national economy, and public well-being. A large portion of the critical infrastructure systems in the U.S., such as water systems, was built before some of the modern risk and resilience issues were identified. There are inherent vulnerabilities in such legacy systems. The resilience of critical infrastructure has become a particularly important discussion topic after recent disasters that crippled regional infrastructure and left many communities stranded without basic infrastructure and utilities services, or access to emergency facilities. To address the need to enhance resilience, federal agencies, as well as states and cities, have developed conceptual guidelines for the assessment and improvement of resilience at the community and regional level scale (Walpole et al., Reference Walpole, Loerzel and Dillard2021). Figure 4 shows potential hazards in the United States, illustrating the importance of multi-hazard community resilience, preparedness, and planning. Meanwhile, the state of the practice for critical infrastructure asset management has been predominantly corrective-reactive. Most of the focus has been on condition as a basis for maintenance and operation of the asset inventory, rather than addressing design and operation practices to improve performance and resiliency of the network at the level of the system.

Figure 4. National hazard map for the United States. Source: USDHS.

To shift this paradigm, many federal, state, and local agencies as well as research institutions have initiated programs to develop guidelines for modern performance-based approaches to ‘system-level and whole-life’ management of infrastructure systems. Another notable gap in science and practice is the consideration of interdependencies (either internal within the sector system or external with other sectors). It is critical to include an analysis of disruptions that may originate in one sector and cascade into another sector. System-wide resilience management with a systematic focus on life-cycle resilience can deliver safe, efficient, survivable, and reliable water systems. The proposed approach is driven by the transformative integration of existing technologies, knowledge, data, models, and tools across related and disparate disciplines and facilitated by fundamental science and knowledge for water sector infrastructure resilience.

The increasing reliance on digital capabilities to operate water systems makes them more efficient and secure against traditional threats such as extreme events and physical failures. At the same time, digitalization can create additional vulnerabilities in the system and can expose the water sector to cyberattacks. While cyberattacks remain responsible only for a small fraction of water service disruptions, the potential damage is significant and increasing quickly. We should consider digital resilience as encompassing the various ways the water sector uses digital tools and systems to quickly recover from or adjust to crises, including cyberattacks. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a common water sector response was to turn to digital technologies to maintain certain levels of activity and service delivery during the pandemic (OECD, 2020). This included the use of digital platforms and the implementation of intelligent sensor and communication technologies. A continued dependence on digital platforms also means that the utility workforce now needs new training paradigms in order to effectively use current and upcoming new technologies and protect themselves from ever-increasing malicious attacks. Resilient technologies, workforce and cyberinfrastructure managed by utilities can also serve a necessary inputs to trustworthy data analytics and decision support systems that can ultimately create a resilient water sector and society. A conceptual digital resilience framework for water sector information systems is shown in Figure 5 (Bodeau et al., Reference Bodeau, Graubart, Heinbockel and Laderman2015; USDHS, 2015; NIST, 2018).

Figure 5. A digital resilience framework.

A holistic understanding of dependencies and interdependencies is required to improve the resilience of the water sector systems. An example of dependency is a water pumping station dependent upon electric power to operate. An example of interdependency is the electric power system being dependent upon water from the pumping station to generate the power needed by the pumping station. An interdependency is a more complicated concept than a dependency. Dependencies and interdependencies among natural, built, and social infrastructure systems play a crucial role in defining the instantaneous and long-term performance, resilience, and sustainability of infrastructure system services. In the literature, there are several descriptive classifications of dependencies and interdependencies (Rinaldi et al., Reference Rinaldi, Peerenboom and Kelly2001; Zimmerman, Reference Zimmerman2001; Dudenhoeffer et al., Reference Dudenhoeffer, Permann, Manic, Perrone, Wieland, Liu, Lawson, Nicol and Fujimoto2006; Halfawy et al., Reference Halfawy, Vanier and Froese2006; Gardoni and Murphy, Reference Gardoni and Murphy2008; Buldyrev et al., Reference Buldyrev, Parshani, Paul, Stanley and Havlin2010) based on different dimensions. Figure 6 shows an example of natural, built, and social systems interactions for water sector.

Figure 6. Different dimensions of infrastructure systems interdependencies.

To facilitate mathematical modeling, we could consider the classification of interdependencies developed by Sharma et al. (Reference Sharma, Nocera and Gardoni2020), as shown in Figure 7. This classification considers the epistemology dimension, which is needed to define the type and form of the interdependencies’ models. As the first step in the implementation of this general classification, we can identify the specific dependencies of water infrastructure systems (natural, engineered, and socio-economic water systems). In the second step, we can identify the interdependencies of other supporting infrastructure systems. For example, the water infrastructure has operational and performance interdependencies with power infrastructure due to the requirement of power for the operation of pumps and other treatment facilities. Also, water infrastructure has episodic recovery interdependencies with transportation infrastructure to support the movement of crews, equipment, and material. After classifying the dependencies and interdependencies, we can develop the respective mathematical models for the resilience management of integrated water infrastructure systems.

Figure 7. A classification of infrastructure systems interdependencies. Source: Carpenter et al. (Reference Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel2001).

The nexus of sustainability and resilience

Resilience and sustainability are two separate terms and concepts that are often used interchangeably, sometimes without fully understanding what they mean. To reap the full benefit of combining resilience thinking with sustainable development, the nexus between the two concepts needs to be both understood and appreciated. Sustainability ensures that current and future generations are not compromised with respect to the environment, the economy, the society or human health (often informally referred to as people, profit, planet). Resilience refers to the ability to withstand and recover quickly from disruptions or shocks such as natural and/or manmade hazards and/or cyber-attacks. Some frameworks define sustainability as a goal and resilience as a feature of the goal (Roostaie et al., Reference Roostaie, Nawari and Kibert2019). Others define each as a goal in themselves (Boakye et al., Reference Boakye, Murphy, Gardoni and Gardoni2019; Faber, Reference Faber and Gardoni2019; Gardoni and Murphy, Reference Gardoni and Murphy2020; Trejo and Gardoni, Reference Trejo and Gardoni2023). Regardless of the framework, sustainability and resilience are complementary and interlinked concepts, since without resilience it is not possible to operationalize sustainability.

DWS water systems, similar to other critical infrastructure, are a part of the massive public infrastructure investments that are resource intensive and are critical for sustaining the well-being of our communities. However, similar to many other infrastructure systems, existing water infrastructure systems are aging and are overburdened, while new infrastructure is being established to meet new demands. The survivability or rapid restoration ability of these infrastructure systems is critical to the rapid recovery of our communities during and post-disaster. That recovery ensures that our economic life, social fabric, and public health systems are not only sustainable but are also resilient and ready to serve our communities through and post-disaster. The key is balancing of sustainability-driven and resilience-driven performance goals in water infrastructure systems, as graphically illustrated in Figure 8. The future of water management for overcoming global water challenges lies in successfully using technologies and policies that promote the global water cycle for both sustainability goals (i.e., environmental, social, and economic goals) and resilience goals (i.e., robustness, redundancy, rapidity, and resourcefulness).

Figure 8. Graphical representation of the nexus of sustainability and resilience.

Water systems, similar to other critical infrastructure, are a part of the massive public infrastructure investments that are resource intensive and are critical for sustaining the well-being of our communities. However, similar to many other infrastructure systems, existing water infrastructure systems are aging and are overburdened, while new infrastructure is being established to meet new demands. The survivability or rapid restoration ability of these infrastructure systems is critical to the rapid recovery of our communities during and post-disaster. That recovery ensures that our economic life, social fabric, and public health systems are not only sustainable but are also resilient and ready to serve our communities through and post-disaster. The key is balance. The future of water management for overcoming global water challenges lies in successfully using technologies and policies that promote the global water cycle for both sustainability and resilience (Argyroudis et al., Reference Argyroudis, Mitoulis, Chatzi, Baker, Brilakis, Gkoumas, Vousdoukas, Hynes, Carluccio, Keou, Frangopol and Linkov2022). Integrating the management of water in all its forms – drinking, storm, waste, and the natural surface water and groundwater resources– is the only way to solve our current and future water challenges. Sustainable water infrastructure that is designed to minimize environmental impacts and resource use is also more likely to be able withstand and recover from hazards, both natural and human caused, because it is adaptable and flexible. Likewise, water infrastructure that is designed for resilience through redundancy, designed above code minimums, and leverages backup systems for robustness is also more likely to be sustainable over the long term because it can withstand or rapidly recover from natural and human-caused hazards. A lack of resilience also harms the sustainability triple bottom line, especially when particular vulnerable groups or systems excessively struggle to recover. For example, one may argue that when additional costs are incurred in trying to make DWS systems resilient to regional hazards, the cost of water services may become unaffordable for some customers. Such countereffects can be mitigated via interventions such as financial tools (e.g., governmental investments) that subsidize the initial investment on upgrading the DWS systems for resilience. In such scenario, when vulnerable communities with upgraded DWS systems are affected by disruptions then their recovery is not invariably more expensive and it takes less time to recover (thereby, also supporting sustainability goals).

Considering the number and magnitude of hazards that a community may face, disruption is inevitable – the ability to resist, absorb and become stronger is the differentiator. The ability to either repel impact in the first place or recover from impact in the short and medium term is of course central to building resilience but it is also crucial to developing long-term water sector sustainability. An integrated water management approach (Alanis and Sinha, Reference Alanis and Sinha2014) that seeks to disrupt the current siloes in the water sector is better prepared to advance the scientific understanding of and managing risks and challenges associated with short-term, medium-term, and long-term resilience in the water sector. Such an approach is also more effective at engaging with partners and stakeholders at all levels (e.g., citizens, agencies, environmentalists, social scientists, public officials, and industry) in order to develop innovative solutions for mitigating impacts from hazards, while also supporting a healthy ecosystem and economic growth. Figure 9 illustrates how the integrated water sector management under normal, stressed, and catastrophic events provides a comprehensive framework for guiding decisions and investments for both sustainable and resilient water services.

Figure 9. An integrated framework for water sector management and governance.

The costs and challenges associated with implementation

According to the findings compiled in the National Climate Assessment Report (USGCRP, Reference Reidmiller, Avery, Easterling, Kunkel, KLM, Maycock and Stewart2018), climate change is already causing more frequent and severe weather across the U.S. Extreme storms, heat waves, wildfires, and floods are becoming regular events rather than rare ones. The report’s authors clearly state that action must happen soon, and it must be significant. ‘The severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce these impacts and to adapt to the changes that will occur’, they write. If there is one clear lesson from the federal report, it is that we need to anticipate and prepare for extreme weather-related events, rather than simply react to them – the cost of critical infrastructure failure is too high. The study by the National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) (MHMC, 2019) found that mitigation saves up to $13 per $1 Invested. We need to invest in resilient and sustainable infrastructure.

Undoubtedly there is a cost to the utility of not investing in resilience. There are expenses associated with being prepared for a disaster and having the ability to rapidly respond and recover lost services. Based on the size of an event, there is a duration of potential lost services and the costs associated with that. Customers have a tolerance level for how long water and wastewater services outages can last. The tolerances are different for each customer, for example, hospitals cannot tolerate service outages for very long without extreme consequences to the community, while a sports complex may tolerate long service outage durations. For different events, the costs of response, recovery, and community services outages (including the community losses) may be acceptable. In many cases, however, there may be justification to make resilience improvements to the system to reduce the possibility of service losses during a disaster and/or the service loss duration.

A key challenge facing utilities is finding the right balance between the need to invest in chronic issues such as aging infrastructure with the need to invest in resilience enhancement to guard against acute threats. In addressing aging infrastructure investment, utility managers have increasingly adopted good practice asset management approaches that help to identify the best balance of performance, cost and risk. Typically, these approaches consider risk reduction per $ USD spent and/or lifecycle net present value (NPV) cost of ownership of different investments to justify and prioritize spending. As utilities consider how best to deal with their resilience issues, they will need to identify the type and level of mitigations and how these are combined with other investments to develop an optimized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Figure 10 summarizes some of the key considerations and the interaction between risk-based asset management, resilience programs and the assessment of financial impact of the overall investment budget. Typically, these resilience mitigation investments, have a wide range of costs associated with them, from relatively inexpensive planning studies, through operational solutions to significant capital investments.

Figure 10. Critical resilience decisions illustrating types of risk mitigation strategies.

Investments in improving asset resilience can be considered in four broad types, shown in Figure 11. Investments in improving asset Resistance are focused on hardening against damage or disruption, while investments in Response and Recovery ensure that levels of service are restored as quickly as possible after an event. Both these types of investment (shown in dark blue below) need to be integrated into the CIP under purely resilience-related drivers. These investments need to demonstrate a tangible cost–benefit. They need to be scored in a way that allows the systematic comparison and prioritization against investments of other drivers, like aging infrastructure, growth or regulatory.

Figure 11. Types of infrastructure resilience.

Reliability investments are those that ensure that assets can operate under a wide range of conditions and are more robust, while Redundancy investments provide back up capacity. These investment types can be considered incremental investments that improve resilience by augmenting or increasing the capacity of existing assets. As part of asset lifecycle planning, assets are replaced with more reliable, redundant infrastructure to build resilient networks over time. When considered over the lifecycle of the assets, such investments may provide considerable benefit for relatively small incremental costs. Resilience does not always need to be expensive! In fact, when incorporating resilience thinking, there are activities which can improve infrastructure resilience at no cost or even with a cost savings. The plans often need to be system-level to show how each project works for incremental improvement, as resilience is not easy to achieve by separately looking only at one project at a time. The plans should clearly identify the cost-effectiveness of these resilience improvements.

Resilience has traditionally not been a central component of utility capital improvement plans, but rather a parallel, somewhat peripheral activity. With the increased challenges faced by Utilities in providing resilient service, investments in resilience are more important than ever and need to be brought into the mainstream of Utility planning and asset lifecycle management. The most important aspect is to incorporate resilience thinking into the organization to systematically identify what needs to be done. If this is achieved, plans can be made that allow for continuous improvements that target an objective resilience state at some time in the future. Clearly, resilience investments need to be evaluated in a systematic way and compared with investments of different types to ensure a balanced capital improvement plans that is fiscally prudent and delivers levels of service at an optimal cost/risk balance. Integrating resilience into master planning and CIP development needs to be more widely adopted to ensure that an investment backlog does not build which puts resilient infrastructure out of the reach of utilities.

Physical and digital resilience literature review

The literature review was conducted in two stages: First, a literature search on resilience-related material in bibliographic databases identified five key domains (Physical, Ecological, Societal, Economics, and Engineering) as the key fields for understanding resilience in infrastructure systems (Alanis, Reference Alanis2013; Sinha and Alanis, Reference Sinha and Alanis2014). Digital resilience arose as a separate cross-cutting domain separately, and was mainly related to cyber-security in digitalized infrastructure. The second stage of the literature review explored the concept of resilience in networked infrastructure systems like DWS that operate within the dynamics of natural, social, and built environments (Pearce and Vanegas, Reference Pearce and Vanegas2002; Pedicini et al., Reference Pedicini, Stolte, Sinha and Smith2014). The societal environment drives DWS infrastructure to form and function through demand. The natural environment imposes constraints on resources available for satisfying those demands. Hence, the resilience of DWS systems should consider influences and interactions across all these networked systems to address comprehensively the specific challenges (Biggs et al., Reference Biggs, Gordon, Raudsepp-Hearne, Schlüter, Walker, Biggs and Schlüter2015; Preiser et al., Reference Preiser, Biggs, De Vos and Folke2018; Glazer et al., Reference Glazer, Tremaine, Banner, Cook, Mace, Nielsen-Gammon, Grubert, Kramer, Stoner, Wyatt, Mayer, Beach, Correll and Webber2021; Farhad and Baird, Reference Farhad and Baird2022; Reed et al., Reference Reed, Hadjimichael, Moss, Brelsford, Burleyson, Cohen, Dyreson, Gold, Gupta, Keller, Konar, Monier, Morris, Srikrishnan, Voisin and Yoon2022). The NIAC report (NIAC, 2016) on water sector resilience has highlighted the importance of interdependencies, the need to address emerging risks, and the significant challenge of the funding needed for improvements to systems. Resiliency was first explained for ecological systems (Holling, Reference Holling1973). Since then, many definitions have been proposed outside of the water sector (Walker et al., Reference Walker, Holling, Carpenter and Kinzig2004; White House, 2007; ANSI/AWWA, 2010; Alanis and Sinha, Reference Alanis and Sinha2013; Ayyub, Reference Ayyub2014; AWIA, 2018) and specific to the water and wastewater sector (Butler et al., Reference Butler, Farmani, Fu, Ward, Diao and Astaraie-Imani2014; Matthews, Reference Matthews2016; Shin et al., Reference Shin, Lee, Judi, Parvania, Goharian, McPherson and Burian2018; Ebrahimi et al., Reference Ebrahimi, Mortaheb, Hassani and Taghizadeh-yazdi2022). Most definitions hold three characteristics of resilience: (1) the amount of change a system can undergo, or the amount of stress it can sustain and still retain the same controls on functions and structure; (2) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization; and (3) the degree to which the system expresses capacity for learning, adaptation, and recovery. Other work specific to the water sector has been around major challenges (Goldbloom-Helzner et al., Reference Goldbloom-Helzner, Opie, Pickard and Mikko2015; Juan-Garcia et al., Reference Juan-Garcia, Butler, Comas, Darch, Sweetapple, Thornton and Corominas2017; Kuisma et al., Reference Kuisma, Nickum, Bjornlund and Stephan2020; Lawson et al., Reference Lawson, Farmani, Woodley and Butler2020; Pamidimukkala et al., Reference Pamidimukkala, Kermanshachi, Adepu and Safapour2021), frameworks and modeling techniques for measuring resilience and resilience in the context of numerous disasters and multiple concurrent crises (Balaei et al., Reference Balaei, Wilkinson, Potangaroa and McFarlane2020; Knodt et al., Reference Knodt, Fraune and Engel2022; Saikia et al., Reference Saikia, Beane, Garriga, Avello, Ellis, Fisher, Leten, Ruiz-Apilánez, Shouler, Ward and and Jiménez2022).

The five domains of resilience presented in the context of physical and digital resilience are presented below.

Physical resilience

Infrastructure assets need to maintain physical integrity to function above the expected level of service. The physical resiliency of a water system can be described as the ability of different assets like pipelines, treatment plants, and so forth to reduce the magnitude and/or duration of disruptive events and to provide uninterrupted or to restore rapidly levels of services to acceptable levels. The resilience of physical systems’ can be measured based on attributes like asset condition, network design, deterioration rate, and time to recovery as metrics that represent the ability to absorb, adapt and recover.

DWS infrastructure systems are built interfaces between the natural environment and societal needs, and therefore are affected by dynamic ecologic processes and also feed impacts back on the natural environment. Ecological resilience of water and wastewater infrastructure systems considers the ability of the natural system to move to an equilibrium state, after being affected by disruptions like contamination due to sewers overflows, flooding due to water main failures, water extraction and other major shocks and stresses due to natural-built system interactions. Ecological resilience acknowledges the fact that ecosystems frequently do not return to the original state after disruption, but instead reach a new equilibrium, as occurs in other fields such as economics. The ecology approach to resilience inspired developments in the engineering resilience field, significantly with the paper ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’ (Holling, Reference Holling1973). Ecological resilience includes complex models with regime shifts, thresholds, and multiple equilibriums (Abel et al., Reference Abel, Cumming and Anderies2006; Davidson et al., Reference Davidson, Jacobson, Lyth, Dedekorkut-Howes, Baldwin, Ellison, Holbrook, Howes, Serrao-Neumann, Singh-Peterson and Smith2016; Krievins et al., Reference Krievins, Plummer and Baird2018; Kang et al., Reference Kang, Bowman, Hannibal, Woodruff and Portney2023; Palilionis, Reference Palilionis2023). Ecosystem resilience is related to sustainable development, and therefore a resilient built environment (including infrastructure systems) incorporates ecological considerations.

Social resilience includes among others, the role of agents such as organizations and businesses (West and Lenze, Reference West and Lenze1994; Quarantelli, Reference Quarantelli1999; Prud’homme, Reference Prud’homme2008; Sharifi, Reference Sharifi2016), community response to disasters (Mileti, Reference Mileti1999; Anon, 2006), emergency management (Saja et al., Reference Saja, Goonetilleke, Teo and Ziyath2019), societal impacts from infrastructure failure (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Carlson and Petit2011; Meerow et al., Reference Meerow, Pajouhesh and Miller2019), and community effects of infrastructure interdependencies (Davis and Giovinazzi, Reference Davis and Giovinazzi2015; Rose, Reference Rose2016; NAE, 2017). Social resilience has a variety of methods and perspectives (Allenby and Fink, Reference Allenby and Fink2005; Berkes, Reference Berkes2007; Coaffee, Reference Coaffee2008; Keck and Sakdapolrak, Reference Keck and Sakdapolrak2013) that can help improve social resiliency during external shocks that affect water and wastewater infrastructure systems. Social resiliency for water and wastewater infrastructure systems considers the ability of communities served by utilities to tolerate, absorb, cope with, and adjust to three major types of shocks and stresses – (1) disruption of water and wastewater services due to external shocks like tropical storms, floods, earthquakes, and so forth. (2) long term stresses due to water unavailability, declining water quality and frequent disruptions due to poor infrastructure and (3) changing societal habits and urbanization resulting in regional economic transformation and uncertainties.

The economic resilience approach to water and wastewater infrastructure resilience is based on evaluating the financial implications of system preparedness, failure, and recovery such as revenue loss, restoration, and recovery cost; and economic impact on community activities (Qiao et al., Reference Qiao, Jeong, Lawley, Richard, Abraham and Yih2007; Weick and Sutcliffe, Reference Weick and Sutcliffe2007; Jain and McLean, Reference Jain and McLean2009; Vugrin et al., Reference Vugrin, Warren, Ehlen and Camphouse2010; Morris-Iveson and Day, Reference Morris-Iveson and Day2021). Some economic resilience definitions include only post-disruption recovery. Economic resilience is classified into two main types, inherent and adaptive (Rose, Reference Rose2004). Engineering resilience specialties have developed resilience concepts, such as safety, and reliability, among others.

Some resilience developments significant for civil infrastructure systems are generated from structural engineering. The current structural engineering approach to infrastructure resilience is significantly influenced by earthquake engineering (Tabucchi et al., Reference Tabucchi, Davidson and Brink2010). Many papers in structural engineering resilience come from the Multidisciplinary Center for Extreme Event Research (MCEER) ‘R4’ framework and therefore share similar methodologies (Alanis and Sinha, Reference Alanis and Sinha2012a,Reference Alanis and Sinhab). The R4 framework considers resilient systems as having four attributes: robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity (Bruneau et al., Reference Bruneau, Chang, Eguchi, Lee, O’Rourke, Reinhorn, Shinozuka, Tierney, Wallace and Von Winterfeldt2003; Bruneau and Reinhorn, Reference Bruneau and Reinhorn2004; Cimellaro et al., Reference Cimellaro, Reinhorn and Bruneau2006; Reference Cimellaro, Reinhorn and Bruneau2007). Engineering resiliency similarly can be defined as the performance of these systems in the R4 framework, by controlling the amount of service losses when subjected to the shocks and stressors and rapidly returning the basic levels of service to customers after extreme events.

Digital resilience

The increasing use of digital tools like sensory technologies, computational modeling, data repositories, and centralized control systems has resulted in increased connectivity of discrete information system assets and a proliferation of cyber access points, escalating water and wastewater infrastructure system complexity (Adedeji and Hamam, Reference Adedeji and Hamam2020). These systems can be considered ‘Cyber-Physical-Social’ systems owing to the increasing integration of digital and physical assets for achieving societal benefits. The use of digital technologies has enabled utilities to develop decision support systems with improved real-time data and advanced analytics promoting greater reliability, efficiency, and productivity. However, the reliance on digital tools can bring vulnerabilities from the digital space to physical assets, thereby threatening the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of infrastructure services. Previous studies have recommended the use of panoply approaches with multiple layers of protection for data communication services, modeling, and decision support platforms to increase redundancy in digital assets (Mohebbi et al., Reference Mohebbi, Zhang, Christian Wells, Zhao, Nguyen, Li, Abdel-Mottaleb, Uddin, Lu, Wakhungu, Wu, Zhang, Tuladhar and Ou2020). This study also recommended the use of network-based metrics based on techniques like graph theory to identify the strategic locations for redundancy implementation. Recent studies have also investigated the challenges and opportunities for achieving a resilient water sector workforce (Germano, Reference Germano2018), specially since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (Cotterill et al., Reference Cotterill, Bunney, Lawson, Chisholm, Farmani and Melville-Shreeve2020).

Most of the literature in digital resilience investigates the extents of threat and risk mitigation measures for cyberattacks (Sarkar et al., Reference Sarkar, Wingreen, Ascroft and Sharma2021; Kohn, Reference Kohn2023). These studies claim that although cyber attacks can occur from any person anywhere in the world, there are certain threat vectors like weak authentication, network scanning, spear phishing and abuse of access authority, among others that critical infrastructure asset owners face regularly and can be targeted for security improvements (Heeks and Ospina, Reference Heeks and Ospina2018).

Most definitions of digital resilience in the water sector have focused on cybersecurity, especially from threats like cyber-attacks (Mohebbi et al., Reference Mohebbi, Zhang, Christian Wells, Zhao, Nguyen, Li, Abdel-Mottaleb, Uddin, Lu, Wakhungu, Wu, Zhang, Tuladhar and Ou2020). Studies outside of the water sector have proposed different definitions for digital resilience with similar keywords like information systems resilience (Sarkar et al., Reference Sarkar, Wingreen, Ascroft and Sharma2021), digital security resilience (Kohn, Reference Kohn2023) and e-resilience (Heeks and Ospina, Reference Heeks and Ospina2018). We define digital resilience as the ability of the deployed information systems to detect shocks, deter malevolent actors, prevent attacks, absorb major stresses, evolve to address new failure mechanisms, respond by alerting decision-makers, and recover to at least the minimum level of service.

Current frameworks and standards for digital resilience in the water and wastewater sector have recommended risk-based methodologies from the perspective of cyber security (USDHS, 2015; NIST, 2018). In general, the literature defines cybersecurity frameworks for critical infrastructure in two frameworks; mission assurance engineering and cyber resiliency engineering (Mohebbi et al., Reference Mohebbi, Zhang, Christian Wells, Zhao, Nguyen, Li, Abdel-Mottaleb, Uddin, Lu, Wakhungu, Wu, Zhang, Tuladhar and Ou2020). Mission assurance is an emerging discipline that aims to apply systems engineering, risk management, and quality assurance to achieve successful delivery of service to customers. Cyber resiliency engineering seeks to elevate mission assurance by bringing the ever-evolving set of resilience practices into real implementations of cyber infrastructure (Mohebbi et al., Reference Mohebbi, Zhang, Christian Wells, Zhao, Nguyen, Li, Abdel-Mottaleb, Uddin, Lu, Wakhungu, Wu, Zhang, Tuladhar and Ou2020). This definition of cyber resiliency corresponds well with our definition of digital resilience as cyber resilience differs from traditional cyber security. Studies have recommended this broader digital resiliency concept and have developed frameworks with a categorized set of digital resiliency metrics to address the problem comprehensively (Bodeau et al., Reference Bodeau, Graubart, Heinbockel and Laderman2015).

Digital and physical assets should have built-in multiple protection layers (Björck et al., Reference Björck, Henkel, Stirna and Zdravkovic2015) and support the monitoring and analysis of all components. The systems should also utilize techniques such as dynamic positioning (ability to relocate system assets), diversity (using a heterogeneous set of technologies), nonpersistent design (time-limited retention policy), privilege restriction (fine-grained access control), and segmentation (logical and physical separation of components) (Bodeau and Graubart, Reference Bodeau and Graubart2011). Operation and management strategies including periodic education and training programs customized for operations staff, utility managers, and IT staff. It should also be noted that both over and under-regulation can lead to diminished system resilience based on human factors such as an overabundance of information, raised stress levels, and decreased time to perform critical functions (Gisladottir et al., Reference Gisladottir, Ganin, Keisler, Kepner and Linkov2017). Additionally, utilities should also consider their digital resilience and a variety of factors before purchasing the appropriate cyber insurance. These factors include the role of security in the resiliency plans, procedures for the measurement of risks, understanding the impacts of cyber-attacks on critical cyber-physical infrastructures, and processes for the organization to address known digital threats (Tonn et al., Reference Tonn, Kesan, Zhang and Czajkowski2019).

Coastal, seismic, and digital resilience practice review

Each water sector owner and operator manages a unique set of assets and operates under a distinct risk profile. As such, each utility’s risk-management priorities depend on many factors, including utility size, location, assets, distinct risks, governance, availability of adequate funding, and perhaps most importantly, the resources, staff training, and capabilities the utility can access. While each utility is responsible for its own risk management, sector-wide collaboration, national, state, regional, and local initiatives play a major role in boosting the resilience of the water sector as a whole. The current practice of utilities for managing resilience to coastal, seismic, and digital hazards is reviewed in more detail in the following subsections. We propose that similar lessons can be applied to also address numerous other hazards that are not discussed specifically in this section but are relevant to the risk profiles of many water sector utilities.

Coastal resilience

In all countries with access to oceans and bays, the coastal settlement has been the historic location of choice for reasons of commerce, mobility, and the opportunities provided by the waterfront. The United States, with Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf, and Arctic coastlines, has a population distribution concentrated in these coastal areas. Sea level rise, one of the distinctive and well-documented outcomes of warming global air and water temperatures, represents a serious challenge to the built infrastructure of coastal developments, including water sector infrastructure systems as shown in Figure 12 (Azevedo de Almeida and Mostafavi, Reference Azevedo de Almeida and Mostafavi2016; Hummel et al., Reference Hummel, Berry and Stacey2018).

Figure 12. National sea-level rise map for the United States. Source: Sealevelrise.org.

System-of-systems approach for sea-level rise

Utilities like the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) uses a system-of-systems approach to include and manage the water and energy systems. The systems are comanaged to reduce their carbon footprints using specialized sustainability teams for proactively tracking and identifying opportunities that offset GHG emissions and/or optimize indirect energy cobenefits. (Balci and Cohn, Reference Balci and Cohn2014). Additionally, the NYC Wastewater Resiliency Plan studies different systems like the wastewater infrastructure of buildings (including 96 pumping stations and 14 wastewater resource recovery facilities) to identify and prioritize infrastructure that is most at risk of flood damage. Through the study, NYCDEP has developed a set of recommended design standards and cost-effective protective measures tailored to each facility to improve resiliency in the face of future flood events. The East Side Coastal Resiliency project from NYCDEP addresses threats due to sea level rise by reducing flood risk to property, landscapes, businesses, and critical infrastructure while also improving waterfront open spaces and access. An integrated flood protection system across a 2.4-mile span considers different systems like waterfront open spaces, urban streets, residences, businesses, schools and other vital infrastructure, including a pump station and electrical substation. Similarly, the Thames Estuary Asset Management 2,100 (TEAM 2100) Programme in the United Kingdom is a 10-year capital investment programme to refurbish and improve existing tidal flood defenses (UK Government, 2012). This plan focuses on utilizing systems-of-systems approach to protect the social, cultural and commercial value of the tidal Thames, tributaries and floodplain. Other examples include the Sydney Coastal Councils Group that brings together 20 councils within the Greater Sydney Harbor catchment to collaborate with state agencies to develop a whole-of-system Coastal Management Program for Greater Sydney Harbor (Harbour Reference Harbour2015).

Whole-life approach for management of risks

There is a lack of studies investigating the lifecycle management of risks to the water security in the context of coastal resilience. In the current practice, risks associated with sea level rise include: enhanced storm surge beyond historic experience and planning parameters (Jevrejeva et al., Reference Jevrejeva, Williams, Vousdoukas and Jackson2023), decreased efficiency of drainage systems (Boogaard et al., Reference Boogaard, Rooze and Stuurman2023) and increased incidence of inundation from both storm surge-related flooding and rain event flooding (Paulik et al., Reference Paulik, Wild, Stephens, Welsh and Wadhwa2023); the elevation of local ground water tables that may be hydraulically connected to coastal waters (Befus et al., Reference Befus, Barnard, Hoover, Finzi Hart and Voss2020), possibly causing salt water intrusion and greater infiltration and inflow into gravity sewer lines and other underground infrastructure, and increased deterioration of underground infrastructure; and interruption of surface transportation modes needed to support utility operations when flooding occurs. A true understanding of a risk profile also involves the dynamic coupling of groundwater, surface water, and climatic models so that the capital infrastructure planning can be developed more comprehensively.

Consequence

The consequences of these risks can be infrastructure failures, more rapid deterioration of equipment subject to chronic salt water exposure (Sangsefidi et al., Reference Sangsefidi, Bagheri, Davani and Merrifield2023) and the wet-dry cycle with changing groundwater and tide, and the potential for stranded or oversized assets if utility service areas experience chronic flooding to the point that residents and businesses no longer find the area viable for either business or living. The continued availability of affordable insurance can be another factor relevant to the need for and viability of utility infrastructure to serve coastal areas (Rasmussen et al., Reference Rasmussen, Kopp and Oppenheimer2023).

Planning

Planning for sea level rise requires some ability to forecast a probable set of future sea level rise scenarios for the area (Jevrejeva et al., Reference Jevrejeva, Williams, Vousdoukas and Jackson2023). Sea level rise, perhaps surprisingly, does not occur uniformly as it would if water was added to a bathtub. Currents and wind play a definite role, and whether a land mass is subsiding (as along much of the Gulf coast) or rebounding from the pressure of glaciers (as in Alaska and other northern locations) will make a difference (Seitz et al., Reference Seitz, Kenney, Patterson-Boyarski, Curtis, Vélez, Glodzik, Escobar and Brenner2023). Tools needed for this type of analysis include storm surge models that can characterize wave height and surge-related flooding under a variety of tidal, wind, and sea level rise scenarios (Elahi et al., Reference Elahi, Wang, Salcedo-Castro and Ritchie2023; Makris et al., Reference Makris, Tolika, Baltikas, Velikou and Krestenitis2023; Mathew and CA, Reference Mathew and CA2023). In the past sea level has been regarded as a fixed and static condition that varies with tide and wind within some set of confined extremes. Changes due to the expansion caused by ocean warming and the melting glaciers are transferring enormous water volumes from the land to the oceans. Sea level must be considered a dynamic rather than a static factor for planning purposes (Brammer, Reference Brammer2014). It is therefore necessary to forecast sea level rise changes over time to estimate the vulnerability of assets over that time and to formulate risk mitigation measures. Miami-Dade County has undertaken such analyses due to its extraordinary vulnerability to sea level rise (Tompkins and Deconcini, Reference Tompkins and Deconcini2014; Sukop et al., Reference Sukop, Rogers, Guannel, Infanti and Hagemann2018). Southeast Florida, and much of the Gulf and Atlantic coastal areas, are low-lying areas that rely on effective drainage systems to make upland development viable. In many instances, the development of barrier islands has attracted tourists and residents to tropical beaches (Major et al., Reference Major, Major-Ex, Fitton and Lehmann2021). The regional County water and sewer utility has undertaken detailed storm surge modeling using regionally adopted forecasts to evaluate the potential consequences of sea level rise over the remainder of this century, with emphasis on risks to its three coastal sewer plants. With an assumption of about 3 ft of sea level rise by 2075, the storm surge models predict that facilities should be built to about 20 ft of elevation to avoid worst-case storm surge flooding resulting from an extremely high tide and a severe hurricane. Most of the existing infrastructure is at 10–15 ft of elevation.

Design

The design guidelines have been developed for the ongoing reconstruction of much of the sewer infrastructure as required through a federal consent decree. The elevation of facilities where practical will be combined with hardening and waterproofing to mitigate future risks in a cost-effective manner over the projected life of the specific assets being replaced or being added to the system. Of greatest importance during and after an extreme weather event is the ability to maintain flow through the sewer plants, even if treatment is not complete. This requires the availability of power and pumps, electrical switchgear, and control systems. These components tend to be the most vulnerable to flooding conditions. The entire Miami-Dade water and sewer system already can (and does as needed) run off the grid, so long as the generators are not impacted by storm surge or flooding.

Preliminary analysis suggests that the marginal cost of improving resiliency as the system is renewed is in the range of 5% of the capital costs of doing the work. This is a good and necessary investment to make on a progressive basis, being careful to tie the additional investment to the expected life of the facility being replaced. By the time that facility is again in need of replacement, sea level rise forecasts will likely be more certain and technological advances may be available to mitigate risks more cost-effectively. However, considering that Miami-Dade County has three wastewater treatment plants along the coast line and which could be potentially impacted in the future due to the threats of hurricanes and sea level rise, any future planning effort must take into account not only the relocation of these plants inland but also the reversal of wastewater flows in the opposite direction through a system of over 1,000 pump stations.

Sea level rise can also impact the water supply side of utility operations. In South Florida, the very shallow surficial aquifer, the Biscayne Aquifer, is hydraulically connected to the ocean to a depth of about 200 ft at the interface. This means that ground water levels will rise as the sea level rises, impacting the regional drainage system that operates largely on gravity, and salt water intrusion will occur into the region’s primary water supply.

Modeling

The extensive modeling of the surface water and ground water has been done in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey to understand better both drainage consequences and the likely timing of salt water intrusion that could impact water supply wells and water treatment processes. Other areas of the country may rely on surface waters (rivers) that will be similarly impacted, possibly requiring relocation of withdrawal facilities to avoid increased salinity of the supply, or adding treatment to reduce salt content. For southeast Florida, there will be plenty of water in the future, but it may require expensive treatment for drinking water purposes. The more serious issue is whether the regional stormwater system constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers can be retrofitted to keep developed areas dry as the sea level rises and drainage is thereby limited. Considering the unique topography of the region and the existing governance system for managing stormwater in the region (currently managed and implemented by 33 cities and unincorporated Miami-Dade County) a true collaborative governance would be required to ensure resilience for Miami-Dade County. This necessitates an Integrated One Water approach to planning for the watershed.

Utilities cannot operate in a vacuum. They are essential for both public health and a viable economy, but they are also subject to the consequences of other public and private actions and investments. For that reason, the risk assessment and risk mitigation work that utilities need to incorporate as a dynamic component of their planning process should be integrated with these other sectors and stakeholders. This will ensure that common planning assumptions are used for the extent and timing of sea level rise, and that appropriate and consistent actions are being taken for other infrastructure, such as roads, drainage, and building code requirements, to maintain a coordinated approach to creating a realistic assessment of the community’s future. This is not an effort that can be done by a utility alone, but utilities need to be at the table. An example in this direction would be with population growth. Local governments are aggressively implementing infrastructure efforts to modernize transportation and provide more affordable housing, schools and hospitals. Each of these infrastructure elements requires the services of water, wastewater and stormwater facilities. While utilities would need to incorporate the relocation of assets which are going to be vulnerable to storm surge and flooding due to extreme precipitation events or sea level rise, their efforts need to be integrated with the infrastructure planning efforts of other sectors proactively. Utility assets for water and sewer infrastructure are predominantly underground and hence necessitate planning for future relocation of these assets. A concept called ‘Coastal Islands’ for emergency response is also important for many coastal communities because during disaster events they may be completely cut off by landslides, erosion, flooding, and collapsed bridges.

Mitigation

Overall, sea level rise is agnostic of the types of assets or systems it affects. A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems approach to resilience is essential due to the inherent interconnection between utilities and the scale of the effects of sea-level rise. Planners need a new cross-jurisdictional paradigm that considers the system-of-systems and equitable approach to plan mitigation strategies.

Seismic resilience

Thought by many to be mostly a West Coast phenomenon, US national seismic hazard maps indicate that catastrophic seismic events can occur across the country (Figure 13) with notable hazards in the Midwest near St. Louis, MO, and on the east coast near Charleston, SC. Much of the west coast is vulnerable to intense earthquake ground motions, whether it is the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ), the San Andreas fault, or one of the many more local crustal faults, and even inland to Utah in the Basin and Range province. Recent studies show a 16–22% probability of an earthquake of a Magnitude 8.5 or greater on the CSZ in the next 50 years (Goldfinger et al., Reference Goldfinger, Wong, Kulkarni and Beeson2016). This would impact the entire Pacific Northwest and much of Northern California. Water and wastewater facilities are vulnerable to seismic events. Many water distribution facilities including tanks, pump stations, wells, and pipelines are quite old and were not designed with earthquakes in mind. For the large part, earthquakes are unpredictable and immediate, allowing for little response time. Most susceptible to earthquakes are areas where permanent ground deformations can occur like in liquefiable soils, landslides, and fault surface rupture. Many of these areas are not adequately mapped. Some, jurisdictions may not be aware of the extent of the vulnerabilities of their facilities. The lack of as-built drawings for critical facilities may be an issue. Determining the resilience of a facility is difficult if you cannot determine how it was designed and constructed, or modified later. There are many issues to be addressed to ensure water sector resilience to earthquakes. The following subsections identify some of the issues and important questions to be answered to ensure a resilient water sector.

Figure 13. National earthquake map for the United States. Source: USGS.

System-of-systems approach for earthquakes

Previous studies have investigated the interdependencies between the power and water systems in the wake of an earthquake to map the multiple earthquake scenarios representing the Los Angeles area seismic hazard. The analyses consider the fragility characteristics of system components with and without seismic retrofits and other system analyses into a performance criteria (Shinozuka and Dong, Reference Shinozuka and Dong2002; Shinozuka et al., Reference Shinozuka, Chang, Cheng, Feng, O’Rourke, Saadeghvaziri, Dong, Jin, Wang and Shi2004). This performance criterion was developed to map quantitatively the response space, in terms of the technological, economic, organizational, and social dimensions of the earthquake disaster resilience. This study also recommended the integration of water and power performance by concentrating on the pump stations vulnerable to the interruption of power supply. Future work on this area can focus on a more comprehensive integration of these systems with other critical systems, such as emergency response organizations, medical care systems (e.g., acute care hospitals) and highway transportation systems from the viewpoint of community resilience. Similar efforts are underway within many utilities around the world like the Water Seismic Study from the Portland Water Bureau’s as part of the Oregon Resilience Plan (ORP) (Saling and Stuhr, Reference Saling and Stuhr2017); performance and management of the gas, electric, water, wastewater and road networks in Christchurch, New Zealand to rapidly reinstate the functionality of critical infrastructure systems (Giovinazzi et al., Reference Giovinazzi, Wilson, Davis, Bristow, Gallagher, Schofield, Villemure, Eidinger and Tang2011); Tokyo Metropolitan Reslience Project (Furuya et al., Reference Furuya, Hirata and Tamura2019) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) $4.6B Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) (Ortiz et al., Reference Ortiz, Wong, McVicker, Santos and Hatton2012); among others.

Whole-life approach for management of risks

There is a lack of studies investigating the lifecycle management of risks to the water infrastructure in the context of seismic resilience. In current practice, many utilities do not even have the main infrastructure components identified or knowledge on which facilities should be prioritized for restoration.

Know your system

Understanding your system and its vulnerabilities is key to protecting your infrastructure; Do you know which facilities are on bridges or trestles owned and/or maintained by others? Do you know the condition and design standards of these; Do you know what valves to close when the earthquake occurs? Time will be of the essence and a plan for locking down the system will be critical; how long would it take to restore water or sewer service to your system? Have you modeled your system with outage scenarios? Will you be able to adequately communicate with your political body?

Supplies and resources

An adequate inventory of items inside a pump station or other building may not be available. Is the equipment adequately braced? Do you know what resources might be needed for repair work? Do you have adequate materials in stock? Electrical supply and fuel are an issue during a seismic event. Do you have generators? Do you have the fuel available? Coordination with the energy and transportation sectors is crucial.

Resilience planning strategies

Understanding emergency backup options when the water supply is not available is vital. Redundancy within your system and agreements with local partners are both keys. Are there sufficient agreements in place? Is there a Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN) (Whitler and Stormont, Reference Whitler and Stormont2011) in your state and are you a member? Water operators should have discussions with their fire departments. This is key so that expectations can be set and water provision can be quickly restored; Early hazard assessment can help a jurisdiction determine improvements that are best made before the event and that can be included in a Capital Improvement Program. There is also some limited Federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation. Do you want to provide seismic valving on storage tanks? Is it better to maintain storage or allow flow for firefighting even if it means the tank will drain?

Design issues

There is a lack of consistent system seismic analysis and design standards. Resilience is a system-level concept. This requires each component to be designed to ensure the system can perform as intended and restore services after an earthquake promptly to meets societal needs. The system-level design does not require the complete prevention of damage or service outage, but it does require proper management to ensure services are provided to customers and users when they need them in a disaster. Users can adapt during a disaster and utilize alternative means for obtaining water and sewage services for a short timeframe. Alternatives include drinking bottled water; using water from lakes, rivers, and swimming pools to fight fires; and using portable toilets when the sewage collection system is not working. This all requires coordination with the system-level and component-level design assumptions. A good design will perform a systems evaluation with all the known seismic hazards. The analysis uses the post-earthquake damaged system in a hydraulic analysis through tools like Water Network Tool for Resilience (WNTR) (Klise et al., Reference Klise, Bynum, Moriarty and Murray2017a; Reference Klise, Hart, Moriarty, Bynum, Murray, Burkhardt and Haxton2017b; Reference Klise, Murray and Haxton2018) to check the component-level design assumptions and fragilities to ensure the system can perform in a post-earthquake environment to meet expected service recovery times (Abrahams et al., Reference Abrahams, Van Pay, Sattar, Johnson, McKittrick, Bartels, Butcher, Rubinyi, Mahoney, Heintz and Kersting2021). The problem that currently exists is a lack of system-level and component-level performance objectives for the water sector (Gilbert et al., Reference Gilbert, Butry, Helgeson and Chapman2015). Additionally, there is limited information on the fragilities of water systems, which demands further study to improve analysis.

Digital resilience

The increasing cyber-attacks on water sector utilities have forced utilities to address cybersecurity issues under the larger digital resilience umbrella following the current frameworks proposed by different federal agencies and associations (USDHS, 2015; NIST, 2018).

System-of-systems approach for digital resilience

Previous studies have recommended systems thinking approaches for building digital resiliency into the water and wastewater infrastructures that can be regarded as cyber-physical systems (Tuptuk et al., Reference Tuptuk, Hazell, Watson and Hailes2021). The major need in this area is to integrate the computational and physical capabilities to control and monitor physical processes. This is currently being undertaken through the increasing use of ‘smart’ systems due to the emergence of Internet of Things (IoT). Studies have shown that most of the research in this area is related to cybersecurity issues in drinking water systems and can benefit from investigating interdependencies with wastewater, stormwater and irrigation systems (Tuptuk et al., Reference Tuptuk, Hazell, Watson and Hailes2021). The City of Toronto has developed a Digital Infrastructure Plan to tackle issues from the digital-social systems like personal information and privacy, security, data management, procurement, intellectual property, consumer protection among others (Patriarca et al., Reference Patriarca, Simone and Di Gravio2022). Similarly, Singapore has developed a National Cybersecurity Masterplan as part of the Smart Nation vision (Chia, Reference Chia2016). The plan recommends integrating of all the city’s services by enhancing the digital resiliency through investments in new technologies, regular cybersecurity training and awareness programs for employees, and coordination across multiple city agencies and partners. Other efforts to study the cyber-physical systems in Israel have shown that the answer to future cyber security challenges should include a greater integration of both the private and public sector, and of local and national governments rather than applying a top-down centralized approach through national programs (Tabansky, Reference Tabansky2017).

Whole-life approach for management of risks

Efforts to include lifecycle management of risks and enhancing digital resilience are few. Efforts include building digital resiliency throughout the lifecycle based on the cloud applications for managing data and performing optimizations wastewater treatment plants and pipelines at the BlueKolding utility in Denmark (Regmi, Reference Regmi2022). The main challenge observed in this case was the uncertainty in the beginning of the journey of cloud application and replacement of entire IS systems with new technologies. In contrast, the use of lifecycle approach for deploying digital tools for the Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg (WBL) utility in the Netherlands helped them successfully roll out features in small increments starting with a successful Proof of Concept, after which a pilot was done on one of WBL’s wastewater collection and conveyance systems (containing six pumping stations). After the successful pilot, the solution was rolled out to the collection and conveyance systems of all 17 wastewater treatment plants (149 pumping stations in total). Similar success was observed for the Kempner Water Supply Corporation in the US where the application of digital tools to operate pump stations and to control optimally variable frequency drives (VFD) and pumps to assess efficiency while accounting for dynamic system conditions. This resulted in the overall reduction of lifecycle costs, 23% energy savings and reduction by 77% of peak pressure transients during pump starts and stops, from 152 to 35 psi (Regmi, Reference Regmi2022).

Furthermore, Tuptuk et al. reviewed existing research efforts until Tuptuk et al. (Reference Tuptuk, Hazell, Watson and Hailes2021) to enhance the security of water as cyber-physical systems (Tuptuk et al., Reference Tuptuk, Hazell, Watson and Hailes2021). They found that water systems have received lesser attention when compared to other critical infrastructure with most of the studies focusing on cybersecurity of drinking water treatment, supply and distribution, owing to its criticality (Patriarca et al., Reference Patriarca, Simone and Di Gravio2022). However, the digital transformation of utilities with reliance on technologies like sensors, wireless data communication, cloud computing, databases, and control systems may introduce new uncertainties in the collected data and create localized or system-wide shutdowns due to software bugs, extreme climatic conditions, and irregular power supply (Oberascher et al., Reference Oberascher, Dastgir, Li, Hesarkazzazi, Hajibabaei, Rauch and Sitzenfrei2021).

Inevitably issues of human factors arise. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, utilities are looking for creative solutions in the form of better telecommunication tools to enhance their workforce resilience to protect worker safety and retain knowledge from the retiring workforce. The City of Fort Myers has investigated the effectiveness of Augmented or Mixed Reality (A/MR) knowledge management systems to aid their efforts with institutional knowledge capture and transfer as well as providing the operational staff with safe tools to perform their functions remotely (Aldridge and Newberg, Reference Aldridge and Newberg2022). Frameworks such as Safe and SuRe (Butler et al., Reference Butler, Farmani, Fu, Ward, Diao and Astaraie-Imani2014) can also help utilities in raising awareness of the need to tailor approaches to encourage the necessary cultural change across the water sector. Humans can also present major challenges and abuse their access privilege to disrupt services. In contrast, the famous cyber-attack in 2000 on Maroochy Water Services in Australia was an intentional, targeted attack by a knowledgeable person on an industrial control system necessitating the utility to focus on controlling internal attacks by disgruntled employees and identifying ways to retake control of hijacked systems (Abrams and Weiss, Reference Abrams and Weiss2008). As digital resilience is very context-dependent, many utilities have created protocols and strategies to enhance their cyber resilience. For example, the City of Boca Raton in Florida concluded that it needed solutions to better manage its network traffic and monitor plant floor security after an external cyberattack locked up its water treatment plant’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system causing the plant to shut down for nearly 8 h (Horta, Reference Horta2007). More recent case studies stress the importance of having cyber forensic systems in place to understand the types of malware and their behavior, develop more robust cybersecurity protocols, and prevent future attacks (Binnar et al., Reference Binnar, Dalvi, Bhirud and Kazi2021).

Future perspective for water sector resilience

To ensure water sector resilience, in the future, it will be essential to take a more proactive and forward-looking approach that leverages technology, data, and innovative solutions. The use of data and technology will play a key role in enhancing water sector resilience. This includes the use of real-time monitoring systems, predictive analytics, and artificial intelligence to optimize water management and reduce the impact of disruptions. The adoption of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, for example, will provide valuable data on water consumption and distribution, enabling water utilities to quickly identify and respond to stresses and needs. Robust cybersecurity measures will need to be implemented to protect against cyberattacks, as well as the development of physical security measures, such as backup systems, to ensure continuity of service in the event of accidental or malevolent disruptions.

Sustainability and resilience depend on each other but they also may call for diverging actions. Because of this, it is essential to find the right balance with tradeoffs. Sustainability calls for sensible and parsimonious use of limited resources, and a minimal impact on the environment. The sustainable practices based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework strategies support water sector infrastructure and create sustainable communities. At the same time, long-term sustainability depends on infrastructure resilience where the infrastructure built today can serve communities for many years, weathering possible disruptions without the need for major reconstruction. However, infrastructure resilience often calls for significant use of scarce resources with significant environmental impact, which in turn hurts sustainability. A crucial challenge that will likely be the focus of significant research in the coming years is to find solutions that are both sustainable and resilient (NSF ERC, 2019). Also, we need to develop methodologies and metrics to measure resiliency of future water sector infrastructure systems and/or vulnerabilities. Since we may create inadvertently future risks with our current decisions.

Data and models for a virtual representation of reality will provide powerful tools to inform and educate through benchmarking, performance metrics, and explaining decision-making. Integrated risk and resilience management strategies will require models to predict: (1) the time-varying state of infrastructure accounting for the effects of deterioration; (2) multi-hazards induced physical damages to infrastructure components; (3) physical and service recovery of the damaged infrastructure; and (4) time-varying measures of infrastructure resilience. The models will need to be integrated into an overarching decision framework (Figure 14) to optimize performance, and resilience objectives.

Figure 14. System-of-systems and whole-life resilience management framework.

A transformation of infrastructure management from an asset inventory-centric focus to a higher systematic-level water infrastructure resilience management will need to take place (NSF ERC Planning Grant, 2020; NSF ERVA, 2022; UN, 2022). Interdependency will become the nexus of infrastructure asset management (IM) and resilience management (RM) due to the growing interconnectedness of system of water systems. A multi-disciplinary synergistic approach that addresses and coordinates both IM and RM analytical requirements will need to be developed for informed decision-making (Figure 15). Some utilities will need additional support and guidance on how to integrate and manage information in a holistic approach. Some utilities will hire full-time emergency preparedness, security, and asset management staff to help manage this effort, but there will likely still be a struggle to sort through the various methodologies and decide which courses of action to take. Several states are beginning to tie emergency preparedness into asset management. Formal programs or guidance will be needed to explain how this is done or tools will need to be developed to tie together the whole picture.

Figure 15. Integrated asset and resilience management for decision-support.

Digitalization of the water sector, specifically the growing applications of digital twins and Artificial Intelligence (AI), can be the winning strategy to achieve service reliability, resilience, and sustainability. However, the challenges to digital resilience mentioned in this study concern digital technologies, workforce, and cyberinfrastructure cannot be ignored. Utilities can follow a risk-based framework by providing a common language between various stakeholders for understanding, managing, and communicating risks in maintaining digital resilience (Figure 16). It can also help to identify and prioritize actions to reduce cybersecurity risk, and to provide a tool for aligning policy, business, and technological approaches to managing that risk.

Figure 16. A risk-based system-of-systems and whole-life framework for digital resilience.

Digital transformation of water sector for resilience

Emerging digital technologies and AI have the potential to enhance the resilience of water infrastructure systems, by providing a rapid and accurate assessment of asset conditions and supporting robust decision-making and adaptation. An important concept underpinning the vision of a resilient water sector is the use of Big Data and Cyber-Enabled technologies where all people, things, and processes are connected through a common platform designed at various levels to integrate stakeholders, knowledge, and system processes. Digital technologies and AI can deliver more efficient, rapid, and reliable evaluations and enable better decision-making, based on actionable performance indicators before, during, and after the occurrence of extreme events. Digital technologies offer unlimited potential to transform the world’s water systems, helping communities become more resilient, innovative, and efficient, and in turn, helping them build a stronger and more economically viable foundation for the future (NSF Innovation Ecosystem Report, 2020). Exploiting the value of data, automation, and artificial intelligence allows utilities to extend water resources, reduce coastal communities’ risk, expand assets’ life, provide the basis for water security, and more (Future of Water Summit Report, 2022).

We must design, assess, and improve water systems considering all aspects at a river basin scale, to reduce risk, increase resilience and provide for a healthy prosperous community. Advances in the Internet of Things, communication systems, data analytics, automation, high-performance computing, and human–computer interfaces should be leveraged to develop a digital, AI-enabled cyberinfrastructure platform. The Digital-Water ecosystem as shown in Figure 17 has the potential to meet the ultimate water sector goal. Water sector utilities need to develop short- and long-term research activities focused on identifying, prioritizing, and addressing research needs related to developing scalable, flexible, and security services for a wide range of system management requirements from detecting consumer behavior to guiding real-time response to emerging threats in different types of water systems. The availability of a large amount of integrated water data and computational resources, together with the development of advanced AI-enabled techniques tailored to specific applications can foster more robust, trustworthy models and algorithms to process and analyze water systems at the river-basin scale. At a granular level, machine learning algorithms should be used to reconstruct missing data and/or identify and fill data quality gaps (Karpatne et al., Reference Karpatne, Atluri, Faghmous, Steinbach, Banerjee, Ganguly, Shekhar, Samatova and Kumar2017). At a higher level, data-driven surrogate modeling can create end-to-end digital twins.

Figure 17. A cyberinfrastructure framework for water sector sustainability and resilience.

Many challenges and struggles can be associated with deploying AI in a system. A survey (IDC, 2022) found that more than 50% of technology buyers struggle with various factors like lack of skilled personnel, lack of AI/ML operations tools and techniques, lack of adequate volume and quality of data, and trust and governance issues associated with AI. Effective AI requires data diversity. Similarly, the full transformative impact of AI can be realized by using a wide range of data types. Adding layers of data can improve accuracy of models and the eventual impact of applications. Most of the utilities are using a wide range of data types, unstructured data use is still largely untapped. In addition, data continues to be siloed, making it difficult to access and govern appropriately. Unfortunately, due to these challenges, water utilities are spending more time on tasks that are not actual data science. The water sector stakeholders should work closely to understand needs, ‘pain points’, preferences, and readiness to operationalize technologies, as well as barriers. Cybersecurity, privacy, fairness, and trustworthiness are examples of known concerns among water stakeholders that should be addressed using approaches such as federated learning, differential privacy, and cost-sensitive learning. Data analytics and system-of-systems knowledge will lead to an understanding of the interdependencies between built and natural systems and communities.

Conclusions and recommendations

Water sector systems are exposed to numerous threats, the potential impacts of which range from inconsequential (infrastructure systems can absorb them without change in performance) to society-threatening (restoration taking years). The concept of a social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life resilience approach provides a valuable perspective for developing countermeasures to address many of these threats. It allows water sector utilities to deal with moderate disruptions in a more economical manner and is essential in overcoming extreme and less-known threats. The growth in uncertainties and societal costs of disruptions is placing social–ecological–technical resilience among the major considerations for the operation of the water sector infrastructure systems. The water sector resilience must go hand-in-hand with strategies and practices to ensure reliable operation under normal and stressed conditions.

The message is clear: we can no longer ignore the deterioration of the Nation’s water sector infrastructure in the face of emerging and uncertain risks. Considering possible future work several themes appear highly promising for operationalizing resilience in the water sector:

  1. (1) Resilience strategy that represents the ‘Social–Ecological–Technical System-of-Systems and Whole-Life’ approach would be very useful for studying and operationalizing the resilience of water sector infrastructure systems;

  2. (2) Resilience of water sector infrastructure systems should be considered holistically, inclusive of ‘Physical and Digital Resilience’ as well as integrated ‘Asset Management and Resilience Management’ for sustainability of water sector infrastructure;

  3. (3) The Water Sector is facing a dynamic and complex risk environment in which the full impacts of disruptions and the potential cascading impacts are not fully understood. There is a need for fundamental research and development in this area.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2023.3.

Data availability statement

Data sharing are not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author contribution

All authors contributed to the research conception, literature review, practice review, and development of this manuscript. All authors reviewed and commented on prior manuscript versions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Financial support

Initially, the work was supported by the NIST under the Community Resilience Program. In part, the work was also supported by NSF ERC Planning Grant No. 1936893 to Virginia Tech. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NIST and NSF. We would also like to thank Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management (SWIM) Center at Virginia Tech for in-kind support.

Competing interest

There are no financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose by the authors.

References

Abel, N, Cumming, DHM and Anderies, JM (2006) Collapse and reorganization in social ecological systems: Questions, some ideas, and policy implications. Ecology and Society 11, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahams, L, Van Pay, L, Sattar, S, Johnson, K, McKittrick, A, Bartels, L, Butcher, LM, Rubinyi, L, Mahoney, M, Heintz, J and Kersting, R (2021) NIST-FEMA Post-Earthquake Functional Recovery Workshop Report.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, M and Weiss, J (2008) Malicious Control System Cyber Security Attack Case Study–Maroochy Water Services, Australia. McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation.Google Scholar
Adedeji, KB and Hamam, Y (2020) Cyber-physical systems for water supply network management: Basics, challenges, and roadmap. Sustainability 12(22), 9555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24(3), 347364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alanis, LFG (2013) Development of a Resilience Assessment Methodology for Networked Infrastructure Systems using Stochastic Simulation, with Application to Water Distribution Systems. Doctoral Thesis.Google Scholar
Alanis, LFG and Sinha, SK (2012a) A Novel Methodology for Resilience Assessment of Water Utilities. ASCE Pipeline Conference 2012, August 19–22, Miami Beach, FL.Google Scholar
Alanis, LFG and Sinha, SK (2012b) Effective Resilience Assessment Methodology for Water Utilities. WEFTEC Conference 2012, September 29–October 3, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Alanis, LFG and Sinha, SK (2013) Resilience of civil infrastructure systems: Literature review for improved asset management. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, InderScience Publication 9(4), 330350.Google Scholar
Alanis, LFG and Sinha, SK (2014) Water Infrastructure Asset Management Primer. London: IWA Publishing.Google Scholar
Aldridge, S and Newberg, R (2022) Increasing Digital Resiliency Through Extended Reality. Utility Management Conference 2022, February. Water Environment Federation.Google Scholar
Allenby, B and Fink, J (2005) Toward inherently secure and resilient societies. Science 309(5737), 10341036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American National Standards Institute/American Water Works Association (ANSI/AWWA) (2010) Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater Systems, using the ASME-ITI RAMCAPTM Plus® Methodology, Nonmandatory Appendix H – Water Sector, Utility Resilience Analysis Approach. ANSI/AWWA J100-10 (R13), July 1, 2010.Google Scholar
American Water Works Association (AWWA) (2011) Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge. Available at http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/legreg/documents/BuriedNoLonger.pdf (Accessed: April 11, 2023).Google Scholar
AWIA (2018) S.3021 - 115th Congress (2017–2018). America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018. Available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3021 (accessed 23 January 2023).Google Scholar
Anon (2006) Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas https://www.congress.gov/bill/115thcongress/senate-bill/3021/text (Accessed: April 11, 2023).Google Scholar
Argyroudis, SA, Mitoulis, SA, Chatzi, E, Baker, JW, Brilakis, I, Gkoumas, K, Vousdoukas, M, Hynes, W, Carluccio, S, Keou, O, Frangopol, DM and Linkov, I (2022) Digital technologies can enhance climate resilience of critical infrastructure. Climate Risk Management 35, 100387. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096321001169 (Accessed: April 11, 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayyub, BM (2014) Systems resilience for multihazard environments: Definition, metrics, and valuation for decision making. Risk Analysis 34(2), 340355. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azevedo de Almeida, B and Mostafavi, A (2016) Resilience of infrastructure systems to sea-level rise in coastal areas: Impacts, adaptation measures, and implementation challenges. Sustainability 8(11), 1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balaei, B, Wilkinson, S, Potangaroa, R and McFarlane, P (2020) Investigating the technical dimension of water supply resilience to disasters. Sustainable Cities and Society 56, 102077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balci, P and Cohn, A (2014) NYC wastewater resiliency plan: Climate risk assessment and adaptation. In ICSI 2014: Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World. Reston, VA: ASCE, pp. 246256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, CB and Constas, M (2015) Toward a Theory of Resilience for International Development Applications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Befus, KM, Barnard, PL, Hoover, DJ, Finzi Hart, JA and Voss, CI (2020) Increasing threat of coastal groundwater hazards from sea-level rise in California. Nature Climate Change 10(10), 946952. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0874-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F (2007) Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 41, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, R, Gordon, L, Raudsepp-Hearne, C, Schlüter, M and Walker, B (2015) Principle 3 manage slow variables and feedbacks. In Biggs, R, Schlüter, M and Schoon M (eds.), Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105141. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnar, P, Dalvi, A, Bhirud, S and Kazi, F (2021) Cyber forensic case study of waste water treatment plant. In 2021 IEEE Bombay Section Signature Conference (IBSSC). Gwalior: IEEE, pp. 15.Google Scholar
Björck, F, Henkel, M, Stirna, J and Zdravkovic, J (2015) Cyber resilience–Fundamentals for a definition. In New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies, Vol. 1. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 311316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boakye, J, Murphy, C and Gardoni, P (2019) Resilience and sustainability goals for communities and quantification metrics. In Gardoni, P (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bodeau, D and Graubart, R (2011) Cyber Resiliency Engineering Framework. MTR110237, MITRE 1350 Corporation.Google Scholar
Bodeau, D, Graubart, R, Heinbockel, W and Laderman, E (2015) Cyber Resiliency Engineering Aid–The Updated Cyber Resiliency Engineering 1459 Framework and Guidance on Applying Cyber Resiliency Techniques. MITRE Corporation, Technical 1460 Report MTR140499Rl, 2015.Google Scholar
Boogaard, F, Rooze, D and Stuurman, R (2023) The long-term hydraulic efficiency of green infrastructure under sea level: Performance of raingardens, swales and permeable pavement in New Orleans. Land 12(1), 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, H (2014) Bangladesh’s dynamic coastal regions and sea-level rise. Climate Risk Management 1, 5162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruneau, M, Chang, SE, Eguchi, RT, Lee, GC, O’Rourke, TD, Reinhorn, AM, Shinozuka, M, Tierney, K, Wallace, WA and Von Winterfeldt, D (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 19(4), 733752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruneau, M and Reinhorn, A (2004) Seismic Resilience of Communities-Conceptualization and Operationalization. Proceedings of International Workshop on Performance Based Seismic-design, Bled-Slovenia, June.Google Scholar
Buldyrev, SV, Parshani, R, Paul, G, Stanley, HE and Havlin, S (2010) Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature 464, 10251028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, D, Farmani, R, Fu, G,Ward, S, Diao, K and Astaraie-Imani, M (2014) A new approach to urban water management: Safe and SuRe. In 16th Conference on Water Distribution System Analysis,WDSA 2014. Bari, Italy: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S,Walker, B,Anderies, JM and Abel, N (2001) From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What?. Ecosystems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chester, M, Grimm, N, Redman, C, Miller, T, McPherson, T, Munoz-Erickson, T and Chandler, D (2015) Developing a Concept of Social-Ecological-Technological Systems to Characterize Resilience of Urban Areas and Infrastructure to Extreme Events. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2015, abstract id. H23M-02.Google Scholar
Chia, ES (2016) Singapore’s smart nation program—Enablers and challenges. In 2016 11th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE). Kongsberg: IEEE, pp. 15.Google Scholar
Cimellaro, GP, Reinhorn, AM and Bruneau, M (2006) Quantification of seismic resilience. In Proceedings of the 8th US National conference on Earthquake Engineering (Vol. 8, No. 1094). Buffalo: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, pp. 110.Google Scholar
Cimellaro, GP, Reinhorn, AM and Bruneau, M (2007) MCEER’s vision on the seismic resilience of health care facilities. ANIDIS 2007, 8.Google Scholar
Coaffee, J (2008) Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities. Energy Policy 36(12), 46334638. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W4TPND6D-4/2/3e0d13421531b2b72fc0321677db658e (accessed 30 December 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M, Carlson, J and Petit, F (2011) Community resilience: Measuring a community’s ability to withstand. In 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Human Health: Reducing Risk, Improving Outcomes, Disaster Management 2011, May 11, 2011–May 13, 2011. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment. Orlando, FL: WIT Press, pp. 111123. https://doi.org/10.2495/DMAN110111.Google Scholar
Cotterill, S, Bunney, S, Lawson, E, Chisholm, A, Farmani, R and Melville-Shreeve, P (2020) COVID-19 and the water sector: Understanding impact, preparedness and resilience in the UK through a sector-wide survey. Water and Environment Journal 34(4), 715728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, JL, Jacobson, C, Lyth, A, Dedekorkut-Howes, A, Baldwin, CL, Ellison, JC, Holbrook, NJ, Howes, MJ, Serrao-Neumann, S, Singh-Peterson, L and Smith, T (2016) Interrogating resilience: Toward a typology to improve its operationalization. Ecology and Society 21(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08450-210227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, CA and Giovinazzi, S (2015) Toward seismic resilient horizontal infrastructure networks. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Christchurch, NZ: International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.Google Scholar
Dudenhoeffer, DD, Permann, MR and Manic, M (2006) CIMS: A framework for infrastructure interdependency modeling and analysis. In Perrone, LF, Wieland, FP, Liu, J, Lawson, BG, Nicol, DM and Fujimoto, RM (eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference. Monterey, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
Ebrahimi, AH, Mortaheb, MM, Hassani, N and Taghizadeh-yazdi, M (2022) A resilience based practical platform and novel index for rapid evaluation of urban water distribution network using hybrid simulation. Sustainable Cities and Society 82, 103884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103884>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elahi, MWE, Wang, XH, Salcedo-Castro, J and Ritchie, EA (2023) Influence of wave–current interaction on a cyclone-induced storm surge event in the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Delta: Part 1—Effects on water level. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 11(2), 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, MH (2019) On sustainability and resilience of engineered systems. In Gardoni, P (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
FAO and WWC (2018) Water Accounting for Water Governance and Sustainable Development, White Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy and World Water Council, Marseille, France.Google Scholar
Farhad, S and Baird, J (2022) Freshwater governance and resilience. Encyclopedia of Inland Waters (Second Edition). 4, 503510. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8191668.00109-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furuya, T, Hirata, N and Tamura, K (2019) Tokyo metropolitan resilience project, DEKATSU activity. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts 2019, PA21C-1143.Google Scholar
Future of Water Summit Summary Paper (2022) Available at https://www.smartonewater.org/future-of-water-summit (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
Gardoni, P and Murphy, C (2008) Recovery from natural and man-made disasters as capabilities restoration and enhancement. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 3(4), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardoni, P and Murphy, C (2020) Society-based design: Promoting societal well-being by designing sustainable and resilient infrastructure. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 5(1–2), 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germano, JH (2018) Cybersecurity Risk and Responsibility in the Water Sector. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association.Google Scholar
Gilbert, SW, Butry, DT, Helgeson, JF and Chapman, RE (2015) Community resilience economic decision guide for buildings and infrastructure systems. NIST Special Publication 1197, 169.Google Scholar
Giovinazzi, S, Wilson, TM, Davis, C, Bristow, D, Gallagher, M, Schofield, A, Villemure, M, Eidinger, J and Tang, A (2011) Lifelines Performance and Management Following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of Resilience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisladottir, V, Ganin, AA, Keisler, JM, Kepner, J and Linkov, I (2017) Resilience of cyber systems with over-and underregulation. Risk Analysis 37(9), 16441651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glazer, YR, Tremaine, DM, Banner, JL, Cook, M, Mace, RE, Nielsen-Gammon, J, Grubert, E, Kramer, K, Stoner, AMK, Wyatt, BM, Mayer, A, Beach, T, Correll, R and Webber, ME (2021) Winter Storm Uri: A test of Texas’ water infrastructure and water resource resilience to extreme winter weather events. Journal of Extreme Events 8, 2150022. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2345737621500226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldbloom-Helzner, D, Opie, J, Pickard, B, Mikko, M (2015) Flood Resilience: A Basic Guide Water and Wastewater WEFTEC 2015 Proceedings, Sept. 26e30, pp. 2029e2032.Google Scholar
Goldfinger, C, Wong, I, Kulkarni, R and Beeson, JW (2016) Reply to “Comment on ‘statistical analyses of great earthquake recurrence along the Cascadia subduction Zone’by ram Kulkarni, Ivan Wong, Judith Zachariasen, Chris Goldfinger, and Martin Lawrence” by Allan Goddard LindhReply. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 106(6), 29352944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, JK, Mian, HR, Hu, G, Hewage, K and Sadiq, R (2021) Integrated planning framework for urban stormwater management: One water approach. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 8, 4869. http://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2020.1871542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halfawy, MR, Vanier, DJ and Froese, TM (2006) Standard data models for interoperability of municipal infrastructure asset management systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 33, 14591469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, S (2015) Sydney Harbour Coastal Zone Management Plan Scoping Study. Report for Sydney Coastal Councils Group (accessed 19 June 2023).Google Scholar
Heeks, R and Ospina, AV (2018) Conceptualizing the link between information systems and resilience: A developing country field study. Information Systems Journal 29(1), 7096. /https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4(1), 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, CS (1996) Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience, in Engineering Within Ecological Constraints.Google Scholar
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 21 (News Release) (2007) Washington, DC: The White House, October 18. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071018-10.html (accessed 25 October 2022).Google Scholar
Horta, R (2007) The city of Boca Raton: A case study in water utility cybersecurity. Journal-American Water Works Association 99(3), 4850. Available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3021/text (accessed 20 March 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, MA, Berry, MS and Stacey, MT (2018) Sea level rise impacts on wastewater treatment systems along the U.S. coasts. Earth’s Future 6, 622633. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, S and McLean, CR (2009) Recommended practices for homeland security modeling and simulation. In Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). Austin, TX: IEEE, pp. 28792890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jevrejeva, S, Williams, J, Vousdoukas, M and Jackson, L (2023) Future sea level rise dominates changes in worst case extreme sea levels along the global coastline by 2100. Environmental Research Letters 18, 024037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juan-Garcia, P, Butler, D, Comas, J, Darch, G, Sweetapple, C, Thornton, A and Corominas, L (2017) Resilience theory incorporated into urban wastewater systems management. State of the Art. Water research 115, 149161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, KE, Bowman, AOM, Hannibal, B, Woodruff, S and Portney, K (2023) Ecological, engineering and community resilience policy adoption in large US cities. Urban Affairs Review 0(0), 10780874221150793. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874221150793Google Scholar
Karpatne, A, Atluri, G, Faghmous, JH, Steinbach, M, Banerjee, A, Ganguly, A, Shekhar, S, Samatova, N and Kumar, V (2017) Theory-guided data science: A new paradigm for scientific discovery from data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 29(10), 23182331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, M and Sakdapolrak, P (2013) What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde 67, 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klise, KA, Bynum, M, Moriarty, D and Murray, R (2017a) A software framework for assessing the resilience of drinking water systems to disasters with an example earthquake case study. Environmental Modelling and Software 95, 420431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klise, KA, Hart, DB, Moriarty, D, Bynum, M, Murray, R, Burkhardt, J and Haxton, T (2017b) Water Network Tool for Resilience (WNTR) User Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report, EPA/600/R-17/264, 47p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klise, KA, Murray, R and Haxton, T (2018) An Overview of the Water Network Tool for Resilience (WNTR). Proceedings of the 1st International WDSA/CCWI Joint Conference, Kingston, ON, Canada, July 23–25, 075, 8p.Google Scholar
Knodt, M, Fraune, C and Engel, A (2022) Local governance of critical infrastructure resilience: Types of coordination in German cities. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 30(3), 307316. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, V (2023) Operationalizing Digital Resilience – A Systematic Literature Review on Opportunities and Challenges.Google Scholar
Krievins, K, Plummer, R and Baird, J (2018) Building resilience in ecological restoration processes: A social-ecological perspective. Ecological Restoration 36(3), 195207. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.36.3.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuisma, S, Nickum, JE, Bjornlund, H and Stephan, RM (2020) Before you go: The editors’ checklist of what we now know about smart water management. Water International 45(6), 702703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, E, Farmani, R, Woodley, E and Butler, D (2020) A resilient and sustainable water sector: Barriers to the operationalisation of resilience. Sustainability 12, 1797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, DC, Major-Ex, G, Fitton, J and Lehmann, M (2021) Tale of two Barrier Islands: Climate change management challenges and opportunities in Miami Beach FL and Shishmaref AK. In Handbook of Climate Change Management: Research, Leadership Transformation. Cham: Springer, pp. 117.Google Scholar
Makris, CV, Tolika, K, Baltikas, VN, Velikou, K and Krestenitis, YN (2023) The impact of climate change on the storm surges of the Mediterranean Sea: Coastal Sea level responses to deep depression atmospheric systems. Ocean Modelling 181, 102149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancini, A, Salvati, L, Sateriano, A, Mancino, G and Ferrara, A (2012) Conceptualizing and measuring the economy dimension in the evaluation of socio-ecological resilience: A brief commentary. The International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance and Economic Sciences 2, 190196.Google Scholar
Mathew, A and CA, LD (2023) Assessing the Impact of Storm Surges in Coastal Regions by Integrating Hydrodynamic and Wave Model With GIS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, JC (2016) Disaster resilience of critical water infrastructure systems. Journal of Structural Engineering 142(8), C6015001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meerow, S, Pajouhesh, P and Miller, TR (2019) Social equity in urban resilience planning. Local Environment 24(9), 793808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michigan Department of Attorney General (MDAG) (n.d.) Flint, Michigan Water Crisis. Available at https://www.michigan.gov/ag/initiatives/flint-water-crisis (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
Mileti, DS (1999) Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Mohebbi, S, Zhang, Q, Christian Wells, E, Zhao, T, Nguyen, H, Li, M, Abdel-Mottaleb, N, Uddin, S, Lu, Q, Wakhungu, MJ, Wu, Z, Zhang, Y, Tuladhar, A and Ou, X (2020) Cyber-physical-social interdependencies and organizational resilience: A review of water, transportation, and cyber infrastructure systems and processes. Sustainable Cities and Society 62, 102327. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670720305485 (Accessed: April 11, 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris-Iveson, L and Day, SJ (2021) Resilience of Water Supply in Practice: Experiences from the Frontline. London: IWA Publishing, p. 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukheibir, P, Howe, C and Gallet, D (2014) What’s getting in the way of a “one water” approach to water services planning and management? Water: Journal of the Australian Water Association 41(3), 6773. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.612935719954220.Google Scholar
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MHMC) (2019) Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report. Principal Investigator Porter K; Co-Principal Investigators Dash N, Huyck C, Santos J, Scawthorn C; Investigators: Eguchi M, Eguchi R, Ghosh S, Isteita M, Mickey K, Rashed T, Reeder A; Schneider P; and Yuan J, Directors, MMC. Investigator Intern: Cohen-Porter A. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences. Available at www.nibs.org (Accessed: April 11, 2023).Google Scholar
National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) (2014) Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience National Research and Development Plan.Google Scholar
NIAC (2016) National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) Water Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations (2016) National Infrastructure Advisory Council, 206 p.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) (2012) Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13457.Google Scholar
Norris, FH, Stevens, SP, Pfefferbaum, B, Wyche, KF and Pfefferbaum, RL (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1–2), 127150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NSF Engineering Research Visioning Alliance (ERVA) | Visioning Event Report (2022). Available at https://www.ervacommunity.org/visioning-report/visioning-event-report/ (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
NSF-ERC Innovation Ecosystem Workshop Report (2020) Available at https://www.smartonewater.org/sow-projects/workshops/innovation-ecosystem (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
NSF-ERC Planning Grant – Engineering Research Center for Smart One Water (2019) Grant# 1936893. Available at https://grantome.com/grant/NSF/EEC-1936893 (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
NSF-ERC Planning Grant - Policy and Governance Workshop (2021) Available at https://www.smartonewater.org/sow-projects/workshops/policy-governance (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
NSF-ERC Planning Grant - Smart One Water (2020) Available at. https://www.smartonewater.org/ (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
Oberascher, M, Dastgir, A, Li, J, Hesarkazzazi, S, Hajibabaei, M, Rauch, W and Sitzenfrei, R (2021) Revealing the challenges of smart rainwater harvesting for integrated and digital resilience of urban water infrastructure. Water 13(14), 1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2020) The territorial impact of COVID-19: Managing the crisis across levels of government. Available at https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/the-territorial-impact-of-covid-19-managing-the-crisis-across-levels-of-government-d3e314e1/ (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
Ortiz, J, Wong, J, McVicker, L, Santos, J and Hatton, R (2012) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Program: Bay Division Pipeline 5 East Bay reaches construction contract challenges in a difficult economy. In Pipelines 2012: Innovations in Design, Construction, Operations, and Maintenance, Doing More with Less. Miami Beach, FL: ASCE pp. 723736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palilionis, K (2023) Assessment of Water Resilience Principles in Water Policies and Plans: Niagara Region.Google Scholar
Pamidimukkala, A, Kermanshachi, S, Adepu, N and Safapour, E (2021) Resilience in water infrastructures: A review of challenges and adoption strategies. Sustainability 13(23), 12986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasteur, K (2011) From vulnerability to resilience. A framework for analysis and action to build community resilience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patriarca, R, Simone, F and Di Gravio, G (2022) Modelling cyber resilience in a water treatment and distribution system. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 226, 108653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulik, R, Wild, A, Stephens, S, Welsh, R and Wadhwa, S (2023) National assessment of extreme sea-level driven inundation under rising sea levels. Frontiers in Environmental Science 10, 2633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, AR and Vanegas, JA (2002) Defining sustainability for built environment systems: An operational framework. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 2(1), 94113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedicini, S, Stolte, M, Sinha, SK and Smith, K (2014) Utility asset management programming: Performance, sustainability, and resilience – Moving from academia to practice. In Pipelines 2014: From Underground to the Forefront of Innovation and Sustainability, Portland, OR: ASCE pp. 20692084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimm, SL (1984) The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307, 321326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokhrel, SR, Shrestha, GC, Hewage, K and Sadiq, R (2022) Sustainable, resilient, and reliable urban water systems: Making the case for a “one water” approach. Environmental Reviews. 30(1), 1029. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preiser, R, Biggs, R, De Vos, A and Folke, C (2018) Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecology and Society 23(4), 46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prud’homme, AM (2008) Business Continuity in the Supply Chain: Planning for Disruptive Events. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management.Google Scholar
Qiao, J, Jeong, D, Lawley, M, Richard, JPP, Abraham, DM and Yih, Y (2007) Allocating security resources to a water supply network. IIE Transactions 39(1), 95109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quarantelli, EL (1999) What is a disaster: Perspectives on the question. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 8(5), 370452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, DJ, Kopp, RE and Oppenheimer, M (2023) Coastal defense megaprojects in an era of sea-level rise: Politically feasible strategies or Army corps fantasies? Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 149(2), 04022077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, PM, Hadjimichael, A, Moss, RH, Brelsford, C, Burleyson, CD, Cohen, S, Dyreson, A, Gold, DF, Gupta, RS, Keller, K, Konar, M, Monier, E, Morris, J, Srikrishnan, V, Voisin, N and Yoon, J (2022) Multisector dynamics: Advancing the science of complex adaptive human-earth systems. Earth’s Future 10(3), e2021EF002621. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regmi, P (2022) Digital twin: A path to efficient and intuitive water system operations. In WEFTEC 2022. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Federation.Google Scholar
Rinaldi, SM, Peerenboom, JP and Kelly, TK (2001) Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine 21, 1125.Google Scholar
Roostaie, S, Nawari, N and Kibert, CJ (2019) Sustainability and resilience: A review of definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment framework. Building and Environment 154, 132144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A (2004) Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management 13(4), 307314. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=871056andshow=abstract (accessed 24 December 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A (2016) Benefit-Cost Analysis of Economic Resilience Actions: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
S.3021 - 115th Congress (2017–2018): America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (n.d.) Available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3021 (accessed 23 January 2023).Google Scholar
Saikia, P, Beane, G, Garriga, RG, Avello, P, Ellis, L, Fisher, S, Leten, J, Ruiz-Apilánez, I, Shouler, M, Ward, R and and Jiménez, A (2022) City water resilience framework: A governance based planning tool to enhance urban water resilience. Sustainable Cities and Society 77, 103497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saja, AA, Goonetilleke, A, Teo, M and Ziyath, AM (2019) A critical review of social resilience assessment frameworks in disaster management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 35, 101096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saling, M and Stuhr, M (2017) Performance of interdependent lifelines in the Pacific Northwest resulting from an earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone: A portland example. In Congress on Technical Advancement 2017. Reston, VA: ASCE, pp. 6268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangsefidi, Y, Bagheri, K, Davani, H and Merrifield, M (2023) Data analysis and integrated modeling of compound flooding impacts on coastal drainage infrastructure under a changing climate. Journal of Hydrology 616, 128823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, A, Wingreen, S, Ascroft, J and Sharma, R (2021) Bouncing Back after a Crisis: Lessons from Senior Management Team to Drive IS Resilience. HICSS, January 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitz, C, Kenney, WF, Patterson-Boyarski, B, Curtis, JH, Vélez, MI, Glodzik, K, Escobar, J and Brenner, M (2023) Sea-level changes and paleoenvironmental responses in a coastal Florida salt marsh over the last three centuries. Journal of Paleolimnology 69, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifi, A (2016) A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological Indicators 69, 629647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, N, Nocera, F and Gardoni, P (2020) Classification and mathematical modeling of infrastructure interdependencies. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 6, 425. http://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2020.1753401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, S, Lee, S, Judi, D, Parvania, M, Goharian, E, McPherson, T and Burian, S (2018) A systematic review of quantitative resilience measures for water infrastructure systems. Water 10(2), 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinozuka, M, Chang, SE, Cheng, TC, Feng, M, O’Rourke, TD, Saadeghvaziri, MA, Dong, X, Jin, X, Wang, Y and Shi, P (2004) Resilience of Integrated Power and Water Systems. Buffalo: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, pp. 6586.Google Scholar
Shinozuka, M and Dong, X (2002) Seismic performance criteria for lifeline systems. In Proceedings of the Eighth U.S. – Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Soil Liquefaction. Tokyo, Japan: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, pp. 303314.Google Scholar
Sinha, SK and Alanis, LFG (2014) Water Infrastructure Asset Management for Sustainability and Resiliency. Published jointly by U.S. EPA and Water Environmental Research Foundation (WERF), Arlington, Virginia and co-published by International Water Association (IWA) Publishing, London, UK, 104 pages. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2013932247. (Accessed: April 11, 2023)Google Scholar
Sinha, SK and Graf, W Jr (2014) Water Infrastructure Asset Management Primer: Performance, Sustainability, and Resilience, Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). Available at https://www.iwapublishing.com/books/9781780406145/water-infrastructure-asset-management-primer.Google Scholar
Sukop, MC, Rogers, M, Guannel, G, Infanti, JM and Hagemann, K (2018) High temporal resolution modeling of the impact of rain, tides, and sea level rise on water table flooding in the Arch Creek basin, Miami-Dade County Florida USA. Science of the Total Environment 616, 16681688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabansky, L (2017) Cyber security challenges: The Israeli water sector example. In Cyber-Physical Security: Protecting Critical Infrastructure at the State and Local Level. Cham: Springer, pp. 205219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabucchi, T, Davidson, R and Brink, S (2010) Simulation of post-earthquake water supply system restoration. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 27(4), 263279. http://doi.org/10.1080/10286600902862615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The National Academies of Engineering (NAE) (2017) Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Electricity System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
The White House Office of the Press Secretary (2013) Presidential Policy Directive (PPD), Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience. PPD-21, Released February 12, 2013. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil (Accessed: April 11, 2023).Google Scholar
Tompkins, F and Deconcini, C (2014) Sea-Level Rise and its Impact on Miami-Dade County.Google Scholar
Tonn, G, Kesan, JP, Zhang, L and Czajkowski, J (2019) Cyber risk and insurance for transportation infrastructure. Transport Policy 79, 103114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trejo, D and Gardoni, P (2023) Special issue on adaptive pathways for resilient infrastructure: An introduction. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 8, 12. http://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2022.2139564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tugade, MM, Fredrickson, BL and Barrett, LF (2004) Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. Journal of Personality 72, 11611190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuptuk, N, Hazell, P, Watson, J and Hailes, S (2021) A systematic review of the state of cyber-security in water systems. Water 13(1), 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) (n.d.) Critical Infrastructure Assessments. Available at https://www.cisa.gov/critical-infrastructure-vulnerability-assessments (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (2018) Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. II. In Reidmiller, DR, Avery, CW, Easterling, DR, Kunkel, KE, KLM, Lewis, Maycock, TK, and Stewart, BC (eds.) U.S. Global Change Research Program. Washington, DC: USGCRP, 1515 pp. http://doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018.Google Scholar
United Kingdom (U.K.) Government (2012) Policy Paper Thames Estuary 2100: 10-Year Review Monitoring Key Findings.Google Scholar
United Nations (UN) (2022) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. Available at https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/ (accessed March 20, 2022).Google Scholar
Vick, K (2023) A Land They No Longer Recognize. Available at https://time.com/a-land-they-no-longer-recognize/ (accessed 20 March 2023).Google Scholar
Vugrin, ED, Warren, DE, Ehlen, MA and Camphouse, RC (2010) A framework for assessing the resilience of infrastructure and economic systems. In Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems: Simulation, Modeling, and Intelligent Engineering. Berlin: Springer, pp. 77116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, B, Holling, CS, Carpenter, SR and Kinzig, A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walpole, EH, Loerzel, J and Dillard, M (2021) NIST Community Resilience, A Review of Community Resilience Frameworks and Assessment Tools. Available at https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=932542 (accessed 20 March 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, KE and Sutcliffe, KM (2007) Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
West, CT and Lenze, DG (1994) Modeling the regional impact of natural disaster and recovery: A general framework and an application to hurricane Andrew. International Regional Science Review 17(2), 121150. Available at http://irx.sagepub.com/content/17/2/121.abstract (accessed 17 January 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitler, J and Stormont, C (2011) Lessons learned from WARN tabletop exercises. Journal-American Water Works Association 103(12), 2427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, R (2001) Social implications of infrastructure network interactions. Journal of Urban Technology 8, 97119s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Typical drinking water and wastewater operations. Source: NIAC.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Infrastructure interdependencies on water sector. Source: NIAC.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Functionality curve for water sector infrastructure systems. Source: NIST.

Figure 3

Figure 4. National hazard map for the United States. Source: USDHS.

Figure 4

Figure 5. A digital resilience framework.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Different dimensions of infrastructure systems interdependencies.

Figure 6

Figure 7. A classification of infrastructure systems interdependencies. Source: Carpenter et al. (2001).

Figure 7

Figure 8. Graphical representation of the nexus of sustainability and resilience.

Figure 8

Figure 9. An integrated framework for water sector management and governance.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Critical resilience decisions illustrating types of risk mitigation strategies.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Types of infrastructure resilience.

Figure 11

Figure 12. National sea-level rise map for the United States. Source: Sealevelrise.org.

Figure 12

Figure 13. National earthquake map for the United States. Source: USGS.

Figure 13

Figure 14. System-of-systems and whole-life resilience management framework.

Figure 14

Figure 15. Integrated asset and resilience management for decision-support.

Figure 15

Figure 16. A risk-based system-of-systems and whole-life framework for digital resilience.

Figure 16

Figure 17. A cyberinfrastructure framework for water sector sustainability and resilience.

Author comment: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R0/PR1

Comments

This is a invited manuscript

Review: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Report for Review of: Manuscript ID WAT-22-0015

The main findings and contributions of the paper.

• The article discusses the importance of water sector resilience and suggests a more proactive and forward-looking approach that leverages technology, data, and innovative solutions to enhance water sector resilience. It highlights the need to find a balance between sustainability and resilience and various definitions from both academia and industry of these concepts, as they may require conflicting actions. The article recommends the development of methodologies and metrics to measure future water sector infrastructure systems' resiliency and vulnerabilities, the digitalisation of the water sector, and the integration of asset management and resilience management for risk management. The article concludes by emphasising the need for fundamental research and development in the water sector to deal with the dynamic and complex risk environment.

• The content is well-written and organised. There are no major language or grammar errors, just a few minor typos throughout the text. The technical accuracy as well as references is good, and the writers explain technical terms well. The clarity is good, and the writers makes the content accessible to readers. The organisation is good, with clear headings and sections. The writers provides a clear conclusion and recommendations that summarise the main points of the content. Overall, the content is of high quality and meets the requirements for language, grammar, syntax, consistency, technical accuracy, clarity, and organisation.

The strengths and weaknesses of the paper.

• Strengths:

○ The paper discusses the importance of taking a proactive and forward-looking approach to water sector resilience that leverages technology, data, and innovative solutions.

○ It emphasises the use of real-time monitoring systems, predictive analytics, and artificial intelligence to optimise water management and reduce the impact of disruptions.

○ The paper also discusses the need for sustainability and infrastructure resilience and the challenges of finding solutions that are both sustainable and resilient.

○ The importance of data and models for a virtual representation of reality is highlighted, and the paper suggests that they can provide powerful tools to inform and educate through benchmarking, performance metrics, and explaining decision-making.

○ The paper emphasises the need for a transformation of infrastructure management from an asset inventory-centric focus to a higher systematic-level water infrastructure resilience management.

○ The paper also discusses the digitalisation of the water sector and the growing applications of digital twins and Artificial Intelligence (AI) and suggests that it can be the winning strategy to achieve service reliability, resilience, and sustainability.

○ The paper concludes by highlighting the importance of resilience in the water sector and suggests several themes that would be useful for operationalising resilience in the water sector as well as the framework it puts forward.

• Weaknesses:

○ The paper could have provided more concrete examples of how technology, data, and innovative solutions can be leveraged to enhance water sector resilience in a holistic way given the utilities sector post methodologies put forward by the authors. However, utilities may need additional support and guidance on how to integrate and manage information in a holistic approach across the whole sector.

○ The paper could have discussed more the potential costs and challenges associated with implementing the recommended strategies for enhancing water sector resilience which tends to be a key determinant in whether such approaches are deployed in industry. Life cycle costs were mentioned and capital planning in light of renewal engineering, but this needs more explanation for the reader.

○ One weakness in the text, albeit sublte, is the conflict between sustainability and resilience, as they may call for conflicting actions. While sustainability calls for sensible and parsimonious use of limited resources with minimal impact on the environment, infrastructure resilience often calls for significant use of scarce resources with significant environmental impact, which may hurt sustainability. Thus, finding the right balance with tradeoffs is essential and needs to be improved in the text as there is nuance throughout the text of how the “A Social-Ecological-Technical System-of-Systems and Whole-Life Approach” is driven by sustainability or resilience and sometimes the words can be misconstrued as synonymous, when they are not and it can be confusing for the reader to interpret some of the figures for this reason.

Recommendation on whether the paper is publishable or not, and rationale for the recommendation:

• Based on the information provided, I would recommend this paper for publication subject to corrections from the weaknesses identified.

Review: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

I have worked with the lead author as a client under which he was conducting research and as a Board Member of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management (SWIM) Center of which Dr. Sinha is the head.

Comments

Please make shorter paragraphs and avoid repeating words in sentences when possible. Other than editing to make reading easier this is a very informative paper.

There is a lot of good information here and having shorter paragraph, and sentences will help the reader get the full picture on this important topic. I like the social-ecological-technical system-of-systems and whole-life resilience approach the author is describing.

Recommendation: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R1/PR7

Comments

The additions addressing the sustainability and resilience nexus and costs and challenges are good, the response to provision of concrete examples is rather lacking in clear strong examples, but overall I am happy to recommend the paper for publication. Thank you for your hard work and this paper.

Decision: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R2/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R2/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Water sector infrastructure systems resilience: A social–ecological–technical system-of-systems and whole-life approach — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.