Search for: All records

Abstract The concept of “resilience analytics” has recently been proposed as a means to leverage the promise of big data to improve the resilience of interdependent critical infrastructure systems and the communities supported by them. Given recent advances in machine learning and other data‐driven analytic techniques, as well as the prevalence of high‐profile natural and man‐made disasters, the temptation to pursue resilience analytics without question is almost overwhelming. Indeed, we find big data analytics capable to support resilience to rare, situational surprises captured in analytic models. Nonetheless, this article examines the efficacy of resilience analytics by answering a single motivating question: Can big data analytics help cyber–physical–social (CPS) systems adapt to surprise? This article explains the limitations of resilience analytics when critical infrastructure systems are challenged by fundamental surprises never conceived during model development. In these cases, adoption of resilience analytics may prove either useless for decision support or harmful by increasing dangers during unprecedented events. We demonstrate that these dangers are not limited to a single CPS context by highlighting the limits of analytic models during hurricanes, dam failures, blackouts, and stock market crashes. We conclude that resilience analytics alone are not able to adapt to the very events that motivate their use and may, ironically, make CPS systems more vulnerable. We present avenues for future research to address this deficiency, with emphasis on improvisation to adapt CPS systems to fundamental surprise. 

Abstract Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising the height of levees). However, climate and nonclimate challenges facing infrastructure are not purely technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno‐centric adaptation strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities. Techno‐centric strategies thatlock‐intoday's infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design, management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply technological and should be understood as complex and interconnected social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs); (2) infrastructure challenges, like lock‐in, stem from SETS interactions that are often overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with aSETS lenscan help identify and prevent maladaptive issues like lock‐in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation strategies that may not traditionally be considered. Ultimately, we find that treating infrastructure as SETS shows promise for increasing the adaptive capacity of infrastructure systems by highlighting how lock‐in and vulnerabilities evolve and how multidisciplinary strategies can be deployed to address these challenges by broadening the options for adaptation.