Abstract
Roads form part of the essential physical infrastructure but face numerous external threats throughout their lifespan ranging from physical, meteorological and even operational threats. With climate change, roads are becoming increasingly vulnerable to adverse events, with an urgent need for building resilience in this type of critical infrastructure. This study focused on the adaptation of the Critical Infrastructure Elements Resilience Assessment (CIERA) method for measuring the resilience of road infrastructure with respect to climate-related events. A qualitative approach was adopted to identify the parameters to be measured under the three main components of the CIERA framework, namely robustness, recoverability and adaptability. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of 15 experts in the transportation field working in both the public and private sector. This yielded the various indicators of road infrastructure resilience for inclusion in the CIERA framework.
Contribution: The study identified 32 indicators to be assessed for road infrastructure resilience. The most cited ones for the robustness component include the implementation of protective security measures, adoption of new design standards and availability of alternative routes, whereas for the recoverability component, fund allocation, pre-approved response plans and agreements with third parties for help during disasters have been most highlighted by interviewees. Lastly, appropriate risk management practices, investment in technological innovation and provision of training are considered important aspects for the adaptability component. The framework can be applied in the road transportation sector to assess the level of resilience and guide decisions at strategic levels for investment.
Keywords: resilience, CIERA, road infrastructure, robustness, recoverability, adaptability.
Introduction
Critical infrastructure (CI) is a set of systems essential for providing services and goods that are crucial to the functioning of the national economy and the livelihood of people (Quitana, Molinos-Senante & Chamorro 2020). They include power grids, transportation systems, telecommunication systems and water supply networks, and their proper functioning depends on each other because of their interconnectedness (Liu, Fang & Zio 2021). Road transport infrastructure consisting of roads, highways, bridges and other associated installations (Splichalova & Flynnova 2021) serve the society in various aspects of daily activities. However, the transport infrastructure is vulnerable to disruption because of internal and external threats, which can severely affect their operation (Kermanshah & Derrible 2016). It is therefore essential to understand how to improve land transport systems’ resilience to ensure that these disruptions are prevented or short-lived and the infrastructure maintains a high level of reliability.
Resilience of road transport infrastructure refers to the capacity of a system or element to absorb, adapt to and quickly recover from potentially disruptive events and is an essential characteristic for protecting CI (Splichalova et al. 2020). During the past decade, several climatic events such as floods, earthquakes and storms have significantly impacted road infrastructure with an adverse effect on human livelihood and the economy (Fang & Zio 2019; Zhang & Alipour 2022). Against this backdrop of climate emergency, the creation of disaster-resilient CI and societies is becoming essential. To achieve this aim, developing assessment methods to determine the capacities and performance of these systems is a key aspect. These frameworks are often based on indicators, which allow measuring various characteristics of the CI elements and assessing their performance. This helps to evaluate the capacity of these elements when under disruption and provide information to stakeholders for decision-making (Yang et al. 2022). Several methods have been developed over the past decade for the measurement of resilience in transportation infrastructure, but these focused mostly on system-based analysis using mathematical modelling and simulation (Nickdoost et al. 2024; Tan et al. 2022; Tang et al. 2020; Zang et al. 2024). Studies adopting a conceptual approach and survey-based methodology have been found to be less prevalent (Wan et al. 2017), while research on the classification of indicators to allow better application in case studies is also lacking (Yang et al. 2022).
The challenge with incorporating resilience lies with agencies being able to assess the vulnerabilities of their infrastructure and take measures to ensure that both existing and future elements of the system are resistant to disruptions. In line with this, it was proposed that studying resilience at element level instead of network level would help to identify weak points and take mitigation measures to protect these elements against failure and thus increase resilience levels (Rehak et al. 2019). Based on this, the Critical Infrastructure Elements Resilience Assessment (CIERA) framework was developed and will be further described in the next section. Specific indicators were then developed subsequently for CI elements in the electricity sector (Rehak et al. 2019), the emergency services sector (Splichalova et al. 2020) and the energy sector (Rehak et al. 2023). The same approach can be applied in the road transportation sector to develop a set of indicators that can reliably assess the level of resilience at both technical and organisational levels, understand the vulnerabilities of specific elements and guide decisions at strategic levels.
Therefore, this study aimed to address the voids in the existing literature by developing a set of indicators for the road infrastructure sector based on the CIERA methodology using a conceptual approach through review of existing studies and interviews of transportation sector professionals.
Critical infrastructure elements resilience assessment framework
The term ‘resilience’ was first used in the ecology domain to describe how much stress the system can withstand while keeping its integrity (Holling 1973). Over the past decades, the resilience concept has been applied in various fields with differing definitions. However, there appears to be a consensus on the recurring dimensions of a resilient system. Most definitions (Bruneau et al. 2003; Fang & Zio 2019; Liu et al. 2021; Serre & Heinzlef 2018) invoke the ability of a system to:
[R]eturn to normal quickly, avoiding damage or permanent change as a result of disturbance, with the level of resilience measured by the time it takes for a system to move back to some specified degree of its previous state.
Resilience assessment frameworks have thus been developed for infrastructure systems, whose resilience refers to their ability to absorb, resist, adapt to and recover from the effects caused by a disruptive event (Osei-Kyei et al. 2021). Bruneau et al. (2003) developed a conceptual framework for the measurement of resilience with four main properties: (1) robustness: strength or the ability of elements or systems to withstand a stress level without reduction or loss of function; (2) redundancy: the degree to which elements or systems can be replaced by alternative pathways; (3) resourcefulness: the ability, during disruptive events, to identify problems, establish priorities and mobilise resources; and (4) rapidity: the capability to achieve set targets timely to mitigate losses and reduce future disturbances. On the other hand, Chester and Allenby (2019) argued that, for improved resilience, transportation systems should not only have the adaptive capacity to respond to threats and changes by being modular and connected but should also be supported by a competent and organic organisational culture that promotes flexibility and agility through cooperation, people empowerment, innovation and decentralised decision-making processes. These are in line with resilience traits in socio-ecological systems that include flexibility, modularity, diversity, openness to learning, innovation and transformation (Shakou et al. 2019).
The CIERA framework was developed by Rehak et al. (2019) based on the principle that a system’s performance is highly dependent on its weakest points and identifying these would help to better allocate available resources to improve resilience. It comprises two variables pertaining to the technical dimension of resilience, namely robustness and recoverability, and one variable related to organisational resilience in terms of adaptability. These dimensions have been further broken down into 12 variables and are applicable to various types of CI system as shown in Table 1.
| TABLE 1: Critical infrastructure elements resilience assessment framework components and associated variables. |
However, the key indicators for the 12 variables for inclusion in the CIERA framework have not yet been investigated for the measurement of road infrastructure resilience to climate-related events and have been the focus of this study.
Research methods and design
Study setting
Mauritius is a Small Island Developing State located in the Indian Ocean, off the eastern coast of Africa, as shown in Figure 1.
 |
FIGURE 1: Map showing location of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. |
|
Although a light transit system has recently been implemented in the island to link the main towns and modernise the transport landscape, several major road projects are being implemented to provide improved accessibility and mobility while catering for the increasing fleet of vehicles. The land transportation sector is essential for the economic activities in Mauritius, and this is similarly the case for African countries where there is significant investment in transport infrastructure to cater for increasing urbanisation and economic pressures (Mtweve et al. 2025). However, recent adverse climatic events such as cyclones and flash floods have shown that the road infrastructure is highly vulnerable to flooding (Luiu et al. 2025), and there is a pressing need to build climate resilience in road planning and development (Mashamaite 2025). According to the World Risk Report of 2024, like most countries in the African continent, Mauritius still lags behind in terms of adaptive capacities to climate change events. With an estimated one in four people likely to be directly exposed to a 100-year flood event in the future with global warming (Rentschler, Salhab & Jafino 2022), there is therefore an urgent requirement to improve resilience of the land transport system in African countries to reduce the economic impacts and ensure that communities are not cut off from essential services during flood events.
Study design
A qualitative research design was adopted for this study, as it allows for exploring and understanding complex situations and inductively captures meanings from individuals’ personal experiences on specific issues (Creswell & Creswell 2018, Saldana 2011). This approach was more appropriate than the quantitative one at this stage because of the absence of pre-determined indicators. Thus, the exploratory design allows researchers to answer the research question set by obtaining direct quotations from persons based on their lived experiences and knowledge, using open-ended questions that lead to emerging options (Patton 2005). This interpretive inquiry, which focuses on obtaining new indicators for assessing resilience of road infrastructure, is therefore well suited as it places emphasis on the viewpoints of road sector experts. Two stages were adopted for the study: (1) an extensive literature review; and (2) semi-structured interviews with key transportation experts working in the road infrastructure sector.
The initial comprehensive literature review was essential to gain an insight on the topic and allowed the preliminary identification of indicators for the assessment of resilience for inclusion in the CIERA framework. Some studies considered infrastructure systems in the water sector (Dalmond 2015), energy sector (Rehak et al. 2023) and emergency rescue (Splichalova et al. 2020), while others focused on transport systems (Besinovic 2020; Dvořák & Hoterová 2022). In the second stage, semi-structured interviews with transportation sector experts helped to capture important information through discussion and interaction, while also obtaining contacts of other potential participants. The study used a grounded theory approach to identify indicators with the procedures for thematic analysis developed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The analysis consisted of the following main steps: (1) collecting data through semi-structured interviews; (2) transcription, familiarisation with the data and selection of quotations; (3) identification of keywords; (4) coding; (5) theme generation to identify indicators; and (6) producing a figure that depicts the conceptual model emerging from the data analysis.
This approach allowed to identify indicators pertaining to the road infrastructure, with several similar to previous studies but some more specific to the road sector.
Sampling strategy
Sampling for grounded theory is more focused on obtaining participants with relevant experience related to the topic of study, with data collection aimed at reaching data saturation. A non-probability purposive sampling coupled with snowballing technique was therefore used to select 15 participants working in the road transportation sector in Mauritius as engineers, project managers and policymakers. The participants have been actively involved in the planning, design, construction and maintenance of road infrastructure in Mauritius and are therefore well aware of the issues faced during disruptive events. The experts in the client organisations are also knowledgeable on the key technical and organisational issues faced during climatic events at both management and policy levels as they participate in activities during and after disturbances to restore service levels. The selection criterion for participants was having at least 5 years of work experience in the sector. The participants included six experts from three client organisations and nine from six local consultancy firms involved in road infrastructure projects. Data saturation was obtained on the 12th interview, with three more conducted to ensure and confirm that no new insight was being obtained. This is in line with previous studies, which found that for thematic analysis, data saturation is usually reached with a sample of 12 to 20 participants (Ahmed 2025; Guest, Bunce & Johnson 2006).
Data collection and analysis
Interviewing is a commonly used method for collecting data and can be classified as being ‘structured’, ‘semi-structured’ or ‘unstructured’ depending on the degree of flexibility in the questions and answers format (Denscombe 2021). This study adopted the semi-structured interview format, with interviews conducted in-person at the offices of the participants after having sought appointments. Data capture was performed through note taking because of the reluctance of participants to be audio-recorded. This step allowed all interviewees to be asked the same questions but within a flexible framework (Dearnley 2005) and aimed at identifying the resilience indicators for road infrastructure with respect to climate-related threats. Data collected were then transcribed, analysed using the thematic analysis approach and triangulated with the literature review findings to obtain a refined list of resilience indicators.
Ethical considerations
The study consisted of obtaining insights from participants based on their experience in the road transportation sector. Data were collected through one-time face-to-face interviews, and all participants were briefed about the research topic, its aim and the types of questions. They were also informed about the confidentiality of the data being collected, and no personal information or identification was retained, with each interviewee being assigned a unique number. Interviewees working in the public sector expressed their reluctance to sign consent forms; therefore, verbal consent was adopted for this study and obtained from each participant prior to the interview. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Results
The resilience indicators identified under the 3 components of the CIERA method are provided in Tables 2, 3 and 4. While some indicators are similar to those obtained in the literature review for other CI systems, especially when looking at those pertaining to organisational resilience, several others have emerged from the thematic analysis that are more specific to the road infrastructure sector and its technical aspects.
| TABLE 2: Development of indicators for the robustness component. |
| TABLE 3: Development of indicators for the recoverability component. |
| TABLE 4: Development of indicators for the adaptability component. |
Robustness component
Robustness referring to the ability of an element to absorb the impacts of a disruption comprises five components for which 12 indicators were obtained as shown in Table 2.
Recoverability component
For the recoverability aspect which refers to the capacity of an element to recover its function to the required level after a disruptive event, eight indicators emerged for the four variables as detailed in Table 3.
Adaptability component
Adaptability refers to the ability of an operator to prepare an element for the potential effects of disruptive events, and 12 indicators were obtained for the three variables of this component as detailed in Table 4.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to identify important indicators for inclusion in the CIERA method adapted to assess road infrastructure resilience. Several of the indicators obtained are consistent with previous studies on resilience to disaster events. Pathirage et al. (2014) identified innovative technological tools for early warning, communication systems for mass communication and structural measures as important factors together with financial policies and adequate risk management skills and knowledge. The need for training programmes as part of capacity building of organisations, provision of dedicated funds for emergency situations, the need to build infrastructure redundancy and carry out designs for reduced deterioration have also been highlighted (Weilant, Aaron & Benjamin et al. 2019), while the availability of several connections to an area is also deemed essential for improved resilience (Serre & Heinzlef 2018). On the organisational aspect, previous studies identified risk management capabilities and innovation adoption as essential for improved resilience (Rehak et al. 2019). A total of 32 indicators were obtained for the three components of robustness, recoverability and adaptability, with the corresponding variables and components shown in the framework in Figure 2.
 |
FIGURE 2: Critical infrastructure elements resilience assessment framework with components and resilience indicators for road infrastructure. |
|
Based on the indicators obtained, the following practical recommendations are suggested for organisations in the road sector:
In terms of robustness, the improvement of the physical resistance of the road infrastructure will inevitably require the adoption of stringent design standards that cater for climate change and more conservative design criteria for stormwater systems and road pavements. The implementation of protective measures, especially in areas prone to landslide in terms of soil stabilisation, nailing and construction of retaining walls, is also essential for increased resistance to flood events. For greater crisis preparedness, the sharing of available data and maps among stakeholders on a common platform has been proposed to improve the level of awareness of critical sites, while having dedicated post-disaster intervention teams will also allow recovery measures to be taken quicker. Construction of alternative routes in high-risk locations and ensuring that institutions continue to operate at satisfactory service levels have also emerged as important measures for redundancy in the system. For detection capability, setting up of a proper asset monitoring system will help to prevent excessive deterioration of infrastructure by allowing early identification of problems while training personnel on the analysis and mapping of critical locations will ensure that proper measures are taken in priority areas. In terms of responsiveness, reducing the time for recovery to normal operations through quick repairs and having real-time information systems to guide road users, especially during evacuation through variable message signs on roads or message alerts on mobile phones, are potential measures that could be implemented.
For the recoverability component, it is essential to provide financial resources needed for works to be carried out in emergency situations and to implement resilience in road projects, as this usually entails higher costs. Development of pre-approved response plans and entering into agreement with third parties such as local contractors and foreign experts in disaster recovery will also help to ensure that recovery processes after a disaster are well established. For works to be carried out after a disaster to restore the infrastructure, there is inevitably the need for institutions to have adequate material and well-trained human resources to undertake repairs quickly.
Lastly, for the adaptability component, participants were of the view that overcoming resistance to change and embracing innovation is essential to move towards greater resilience in the road infrastructure. Thus, research on new materials and development of specifications for these, engaging in innovative procurement processes with incentives for resilience and investing in new technologies are a few of the essential measures that should be taken by institutions. In terms of risk management, building risk management capacity and risk assessment methodologies are essential at organisation level, while on the technical side, the ability to carry out modelling of various disruption scenarios and implement security standards is essential for improved resilience. Finally, most interviewees concluded that knowledge on resilience is still lacking at all levels, with organisations fostering a proactive work and learning culture necessary to overcome this issue. Moreover, adequate training should be provided and supplemented by evaluation exercises to assess its effectiveness.
Conclusion
Road transport infrastructure is an essential component of CI systems as it is the backbone for movement of people, economic activities and emergency services. Incorporating resilience in road networks is therefore essential to ensure that they continue to perform at satisfactory levels during and after disruption events. Although several studies have been carried out to study resilience of roads, these have been largely focused on mathematical modelling and simulation at network level, with a void on performance indicators to measure resilience at element level. This study was conducted to identify the indicators for measuring road infrastructure elements resilience using the CIERA framework, which has already been applied in other CI domains such as energy and power systems. The results of this qualitative study revealed 32 major indicators under the three main components of robustness, recoverability and adaptability for the technical and organisational dimensions. Transportation professionals can use these indicators to assess the level of resilience of elements in the road network and thus determine which are the most vulnerable. This method will help to better allocate limited funds and resources for improving resilience in the road network and hence improve capacity to withstand the adverse effects of disruptive events.
However, the study had some limitations as a quantitative approach was not undertaken to determine ranking and weightages of the indicators. Future research should therefore aim to carry out a survey with professionals working in the transport infrastructure sector to determine the weightages associated with each indicator. Moreover, future studies can consider extending the proposed CIERA method for road infrastructure with other components such as resistance, resourcefulness and rapidity or other dimensions such as social, economic and environmental.
Acknowledgements
The abstract of this article has been published in the SASDiR 6th Biennial International Conference 2024 booklet. See online: https://www.uom.ac.mu/images/FILES/events/2024/SASDiR/BookofAbstract.pdf. This research was presented at the 6th Biennial SASDiR Conference, held from 21 to 23 August 2024 at the Ravenala Attitude Hotel, Mauritius, with the theme ‘Strengthening Disaster Resilience in Africa: Transdisciplinary Approaches and Sustainable Solutions’. The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Mr H. Busawon in the data collection for this study.
Competing interests
The author declares that he does not have any financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Author’s contributions
Z.D. declares that he is the sole author of this research article.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The author confirms that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Ahmed, S.K., 2025, ‘Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: Debates, definitions, and strategies’, Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health 5, 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100171
Besinovic, N., 2020, ‘Resilience in railway transport systems: A literature review and research agenda’, Transport Reviews 40, 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1728419
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bruneau, M., Chang, S.E., Eguchi, R.T., Lee, G.C., O’Rourke, T.D., Reinhorn, A.M. et al., 2003, ‘A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities’, Earthquake Spectra 19, 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft / IFHV, 2024, Word risk report 2024, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, Berlin.
Chester, M.V. & Allenby, B., 2019, ‘Toward adaptive infrastructure: Flexibility and agility in a non-stationarity age’, Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 4, 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2017.1416846
Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D., 2018, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage, Los Angeles.
Dalmond, U., 2015, ‘The concept of resilience within the water infrastructure system: Application to mauritius’, Thesis (Degree), University of Mauritius.
Dearnley, C., 2005, ‘A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews’, Nurse Researcher 13, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2005.07.13.1.19.c5997
Denscombe, M., 2021, The good research guide: Research methods for small-scale social research projects, McGraw-Hill Education, London.
Dvořák, Z. & Hoterová, K., 2022, ‘Resilience as a feature of intelligent railway infrastructure’, in O. Prentkovskis, I. Yatskiv (Jackiva), P. Skačkauskas, R. Junevičius & P. Maruschak (eds.), TRANSBALTICA XII: Transportation science and technology, pp. 741–750, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Fang, Y.-P. & Zio, E., 2019, ‘An adaptive robust framework for the optimization of the resilience of interdependent infrastructures under natural hazards’, European Journal of Operational Research 276(3), 1119–1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.052
Google Maps, 2025, viewed 24 June 2025, from https://maps.app.goo.gl/rykgXxCQ9SSM3JUi9.
Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L., 2006, ‘How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability’, Field Methods 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Holling, C.S., 1973, ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Kermanshah, A. & Derrible, S., 2016, ‘A geographical and multi-criteria vulnerability assessment of transportation networks against extreme earthquakes’, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 153, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.04.007
Liu, X., Fang, Y.-P. & Zio, E., 2021, ‘A hierarchical resilience enhancement framework for interdependent critical infrastructures’, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 215, 107868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107868
Luiu, C., Wandera, A., Bukachi, V., Kipkemboi, P., Ouko, A., Mulligan, J. et al., 2025, ‘Assessing the impacts of building road infrastructure on adjacent communities: A case study in Nairobi, Kenya’, Journal of Transport & Health 41, 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2025.101997
Mashamaite, M.M., 2025, ‘Climate change response measures in South African road transport sector: Lessons from BRICS countries’, Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 6, 1466707. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2024.1466707
Mtweve, P., Moseti, V., Mahmoud, N., Kramm, T., Bogner, C., Ibisch, P. et al., 2025, ‘Exploring socioeconomic and environmental impacts of road infrastructure development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic literature review’, Environmental Development 54, 101177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2025.101177
Nickdoost, N., Shooshtari, M.J., Choi, J., Smith, D. & AbdelRazig, Y., 2024, ‘A composite index framework for quantitative resilience assessment of road infrastructure systems’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 131, 104180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104180
Osei-Kyei, R., Tam, V., Ma, M. & Mashiri, F., 2021, ‘Critical review of the threats affecting the building of critical infrastructure resilience’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 60, 102316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102316
Pathirage, C., Seneviratne, K., Amaratunga, D. & Haigh R., 2015, Knowledge factors and associated challenges for successful disaster knowledge sharing, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva.
Patton, M.Q., 2005, ‘Qualitative research’, in B.S. Everitt & D.C. Howell (eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, vol. 3, pp. 1633–1636, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester.
Quitana, G., Molinos-Senante, M. & Chamorro, A., 2020. ‘Resilience of critical infrastructure to natural hazards: A review focused on drinking water systems’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48, 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101575
Rehak, D., Flynnova, L., Hromada, M. & Fuggini, C., 2023, ‘The importance of resistance in the context of critical infrastructure resilience: An extension of the CIERA method’, Systems 11, 506. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11100506
Rehak, D., Senovsky, P., Hromada, M. & Lovecek, T., 2019, ‘Complex approach to assessing resilience of critical infrastructure elements’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 25, 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2019.03.003
Rentschler, J., Salhab, M. & Jafino, B.A., 2022, ‘Flood exposure and poverty in 188 countries’, Nature Communications 13, 3527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30727-4
Saldana, J., 2011, Fundamentals of qualitative research, Oxford University Press, New York.
Serre, D. & Heinzlef, C., 2018, ‘Assessing and mapping urban resilience to floods with respect to cascading effects through critical infrastructure networks’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 30(pt. B), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.02.018
Shakou, L.M., Wybo, J.-L., Reniers, G. & Boustras, G., 2019, ‘Developing an innovative framework for enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure to climate change’, Safety Science 118, 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.019
Splichalova, A. & Flynnova, L., 2021, ‘Indicator approach to the failure of critical road transportation infrastructure elements’, in J. Bujnak & M. Guagliano (eds.), Transportation research procedia, 14th International scientific conference on sustainable, modern and safe transport, Zilina, May 26–28 2021, vol. 55, pp. 1767–1774.
Splichalova, A., Rehak, D., Valasek, J. & Paulus, F., 2020, ‘Measuring resilience in emergency service critical infrastructure elements in the context of the population protection’, Chemical Engineering Transactions 82, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2082011
Tan, H.E., Oon, J.H.W., Othman, N.B., Legara, E.F., Monterola, C. & Ramli, M.A., 2022, ‘Quantifying the resilience of rapid transit systems: A composite index using a demand-weighted complex network model’, PLoS One 17, e0267222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267222
Tang, J., Heinimann, H., Han, K., Luo, H. & Zhong, B., 2020, ‘Evaluating resilience in urban transportation systems for sustainability: A systems-based Bayesian network model’, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 121, 102840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102840
Wan, C., Yang, Z., Zhang, D., Yan, X. & Fan, S., 2017, ‘Resilience in transportation systems: A systematic review and future directions’, Transport Reviews 38, 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1383532
Weilant, S., Aaron, S. & Benjamin, M.M., 2019, Incorporating resilience into transportation planning and assessment, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, viewed 18 November 2024, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3038.html.
Yang, Z., Barroca, B., Bony-Dandrieux, A. & Dolidon, H., 2022, ‘Resilience indicator of urban transport infrastructure: A review on current approaches’, Infrastructures 7, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures7030033
Zang, D., Ding, Y., Zhao, J., Tang, K. & Zhu, H., 2024, ‘Predictive resilience assessment of road networks based on dynamic multi-granularity graph neural network’, Neurocomputing 601, 128207.
Zhang, N. & Alipour, A., 2022, ‘Flood risk assessment and application of risk curves for design of mitigation strategies’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 36, 100490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2021.100490
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
