Search for: All records

Unlike aboveground utility systems, for which very detailed and accurate information exists, there is generally a dearth of good-quality data about underground utility infrastructures that provide vital services. To identify key strategies to improve the resilience of these underground systems, this paper presents mechanisms for successful engagement and collaboration among stakeholders and shared cross-sector system vulnerability concerns (including data availability) based on the innova- tive use of focus groups. Outputs from two virtual focus groups were used to obtain information from New York City area utilities and other stakeholders affected by underground infrastructure. There was strong agreement among participants that (1) a trusted agency in New York City government should manage a detailed map of underground infrastructure that would allow stakeholders to securely access appropriate information about underground systems on a need-to-know basis; (2) environmental risk factors, such as infrastructure age and condition, as well as location should be included; and (3) improved mechanisms for collaboration and sharing information are needed, especially during non-emergency situations. Stakeholders also highlighted the need for a regularly updated central database of relevant contacts at key organizations, since institutions often have a high employee turnover rate, which creates knowledge loss. The focus group script developed as part of this research was designed to be transferable to other cities to assess data needs and potential obstacles to stakeholder collabora- tion in the areas of underground infrastructure mapping and modeling. 

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.