Natural hazards such as floods, bushfires, cyclones or hurricanes, can cause significant damage that disrupts our infrastructure systems. Climate change is making such extreme events more frequent and more severe. In addition, infrastructure systems have become more interconnected and interdependent. By interconnected, we mean that infrastructure systems use each other's output and operate together to provide joint services. The interdependence of two systems or components, on the other hand, refers to the effect of a decline of the performance of one system or component on another. Hence, a disruption to one infrastructure system may propagate into others and eventually affect various services that are critical for the well-being of communities. In recent years, cascading failures of infrastructure systems at a national scale have attracted significant attention. However, our understanding of these failures at a local scale remains limited. During major disasters, communities frequently face the challenge of disruptions that are locally triggered and propagated. Therefore, applying a systems-based analytical approach is likely to be beneficial for local authorities when making decisions on infrastructure planning and operations. To this end, the ability to model inter-connectedness of local infrastructure systems needs to be strengthened. The goal of this paper is to discuss the value of applying a systems approach to the analysis of infrastructure systems and their interdependencies and present and appraise various methodologies that can be used in implementing such as an approach. The paper is divided into four parts. First, fundamental elements of interdependency analysis are presented. The differences between interdependency modelling at national and local scales are discussed and illustrated. One important difference is that coarse spatial resolution of models at a national scale prevents them from yielding information that is useful for locally-triggered and locally-propagated disruptions. For example, in a national-scale model, the entire water or power distribution system for a local government area may be represented by a single node reflecting its role in, and effect on, the national network, without incorporating an understanding of its internal operation. Second, we describe the likely decision-making contexts within which infrastructure planning and management are conducted. Different local stakeholders with diverse concerns related to investment, planning, designing, and operations and management of infrastructures are usually involved in, and/or affected by, infrastructure decision-making. These stakeholders include local governments, infrastructure operators and utility companies, local businesses, households, individuals and local communities. Third, we review different methodologies available for modelling infrastructure interdependencies at a local scale. We discuss their suitability in light of the specific analysis goals and identify their respective strengths and weaknesses. We propose a preliminary framework for selecting appropriate methods for modelling infrastructure performance depending on the underlying decision-making context. Finally, we discuss important challenges present when tackling interdependency issues at a local scale. These challenges include lack of a comprehensive methodological framework linking different models, lack of a consistent benchmark and relevant datasets for judging the suitability of a method, and lack of a better understanding of the broader socio-economic impacts of infrastructure disruptions on local communities.
[1]
Stephanie E. Chang,et al.
Toward Disaster‐Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert Judgments
,
2014,
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.
[2]
Bartel Van de Walle,et al.
Measuring disaster resilience: The impact of hurricane sandy on critical infrastructure systems
,
2014,
ISCRAM.
[3]
Debarati Guha-Sapir,et al.
Annual Statistical Review: Numbers and Trends 2012
,
2011
.
[4]
Barry J. Goodno,et al.
Seismic response of critical interdependent networks
,
2007
.
[5]
Madhav V. Marathe,et al.
Cascading failures in multiple infrastructures: From transportation to communication network
,
2010,
2010 5th International Conference on Critical Infrastructure (CRIS).
[6]
Debarati Guha-Sapir,et al.
Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2009The numbers and trends
,
2010
.
[7]
Rae Zimmerman,et al.
"Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities.” Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2012.
,
2014
.
[8]
Hafiz Abdur Rahman,et al.
Infrastructure interdependencies simulation through matrix partitioning technique
,
2011,
Int. J. Crit. Infrastructures.
[9]
James P. Peerenboom,et al.
Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies
,
2001
.
[10]
J.D. Sterman,et al.
System Dynamics Modeling: Tools for Learning in a Complex World
,
2001,
IEEE Engineering Management Review.
[11]
Laura J. Steinberg,et al.
Baton Rouge Post-Katrina: The Role of Critical Infrastructure Modeling in Promoting Resilience
,
2011
.
[12]
John V. Farr,et al.
Infrastructure Risk Analysis of Municipal Water Distribution System
,
2000
.
[13]
Samiul Hasan,et al.
Modeling infrastructure system interdependencies and socioeconomic impacts of failure in extreme events: emerging R&D challenges
,
2015,
Natural Hazards.
[14]
Richard Holden,et al.
A network flow model for interdependent infrastructures at the local scale
,
2013
.
[15]
Abbas El-Zein,et al.
Vulnerability of infrastructure to Sea Level Rise: A combined outranking and system-dynamics approach
,
2014
.
[16]
Ingrid Bouwer Utne,et al.
Risk analysis of critical infrastructures emphasizing electricity supply and interdependencies
,
2012,
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..
[17]
Liu Hong,et al.
Vulnerability analysis of interdependent infrastructure systems: A methodological framework
,
2012
.