Vulnerability assessment and interdependency analysis of critical infrastructures for climate adaptation and flood mitigation

Espada, R J; Apan, A and McDougall, K (2015) Vulnerability assessment and interdependency analysis of critical infrastructures for climate adaptation and flood mitigation. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(3), pp. 313-346. ISSN 1759-5916

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a novel approach that examines the vulnerability and interdependency of critical infrastructures using the network theory in geographic information system (GIS) setting in combination with literature and government reports. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to generate the network models of critical infrastructure systems (CISs), particularly electricity, roads and sewerage networks; to characterize the CISs' interdependencies; and to outline the climate adaptation (CA) and flood mitigation measures of CIS. Design/methodology/approach – An integrated approach was undertaken in assessing the vulnerability and interdependency of critical infrastructures. A single system model and system-of-systems model were operationalized to examine the vulnerability and interdependency of the identified critical infrastructures in GIS environment. Existing CA and flood mitigation measures from government reports were integrated in the above-mentioned findings to better understand and gain focus in the implementation of natural disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies, particularly during the 2010/2011 floods in Queensland, Australia. Findings – Using the results from the above-mentioned approach, the spatially explicit framework was developed with four key operational dimensions: conceiving the climate risk environment; understanding the critical infrastructures' common cause and cascade failures; modeling individual infrastructure system and system-of-systems level within GIS setting; and integrating the above-mentioned results with the government reports to increase CA and resilience measures of flood-affected critical infrastructures. Research limitations/implications – While natural DRR measures include preparation, response and recovery, this study focused on flood mitigation. Temporal analysis and application to other natural disasters were also not considered in the analysis. Practical implications – By providing this information, government-owned corporations, CISs managers and other concerned stakeholders will allow to identify infrastructure assets that are highly critical, identify vulnerable infrastructures within areas of very high flood risk, examine the interdependency of critical infrastructures and the effects of cascaded failures, identify ways of reducing flood risk and extreme climate events and prioritize DRR measures and CA strategies. Originality/value – The individualist or “pigeon-hole” approach has been the common method of analyzing infrastructures' exposure to flood hazards and tends to separately examine the risk for different types of infrastructure (e.g. electricity, water, sewerage, roads and rails and stormwater). This study introduced an integrated approach of analyzing infrastructure risk to damage and cascade failure due to flooding. Aside from introducing the integrated approach, this study operationalized GIS-based vulnerability assessment and interdependency of critical infrastructures which had been unsubstantially considered in the past analytical frameworks. The authors considered this study of high significance, considering that floodplain planning schemes often lack the consideration of critical infrastructure interdependency.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: built environment; disaster mitigation; flooding; infrastructure; resilience; vulnerability
Index terms: built environment, disaster mitigation, modelling, implementation, critical infrastructure, dimension, geographic information system, recovery, Australia, stormwater, vulnerability, methodology, climate adaptation, flood mitigation, climate risk, system-of-systems, analytical framework, exposure, risk reduction, manager, natural disaster, integrated approach, Queensland, flooding, strategy
Subjects: geographical techniques and analysis, environmental hazards, systems engineering, environmental engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, research methods, public and environmental health, management, financial risk, Geography, operations management, analytical methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, climate science, practitioner
Topics: Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Procurement, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here