reference date: feasibility study outcomes preparation overview · reference: urms 143938 date:...

Reference: URMS 143938 Date: 08.03.2017

Micro behaviour to Macro resilience Final Report

Purpose of report

This report details the deliverables and costs delivered in respect of this grant, for Infrastructure Typologies feasibility study (round 2), awarded by Sheffield for the ENCORE project. The scope of the work includes preparation, holding of an event and follow-up after the event on the topic of infrastructure typologies.

Feasibility study outcomes

Following excellent engagement with attendees, there is desire to develop the literature review into a journal article, and to identify the key typologies for infrastructure interdependencies. Attendees contributed expert opinion in response to two stimulating talks (Richard Ploszek) and Warren Greig) which will form a substantial part of the article. The transcripts have been produced but the funding did not stretch to developing a full journal article.

Preparation overview

A literature review was conducted focusing on the question “How have infrastructure interdependencies been defined and modelled in the literature”?

A series of refined Web of Science searches were conducted based on this question, and focusing on the infrastructure sectors of waste, water, energy, transport and telecommunications. 1,451 articles were obtained in the initial set of searches. Duplicate articles were removed leaving 1411 articles. These were then screened in two stages. First, they were screened for inclusion based on their titles and abstracts, using specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion. 350 of these made it through to a second round of screening, which involved a stricter application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the full texts of the articles. This resulted in 62 items being included in the review.

These articles were read in full and codes or categories applied to them, based on the research question above and on themes found to be of importance in the literature itself. The research question led to the use of themes related to types of interdependencies, and different methodological approaches to modelling and simulation. The literature itself helped in the refinement of these themes, which were then used to classify and describe the different articles and by extension the state of the theoretical (consisting mainly of defining and broadening our understanding of interdependencies and their typologies) and methodological research (consisting of the multitude of approaches used for simulating, modelling and understanding interdependencies in a variety of cases across infrastructure sectors) for conceptualising and modelling infrastructure interdependencies. Other themes arose as salient topics of interest in the research, such as resilience, human and social factors in interdependencies, and many others, and these were used to further classify and describe articles according to their coverage of these themes.

The reviews and short-lists of the analyses and articles are attached in Appendix 2.

Event overview

There were 25 registrations for the event. Five participants sent apologies: Ruth Hughes (NERC), Mehroz Shaikh (Goldsmiths), Sagar Sumaria (SO Ethical Media), Dee Tarday and Gulsana Mussagaliyeva. See Appendix 1 for the 20 attendees.

Liz Varga chaired the event. The meeting agenda appears in Figure 1. The keynote speaker, Richard Ploszek, from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, presented thought provoking ideas: Presentations appear in Appendix 3. The transcripts from the event are available upon request.

AGENDA11.00: Welcome Liz Varga 11.05: Key note – Richard Ploszek – Infrastructure Interdependencies 11.40: Interdependencies – a literature review – Warren Greig 12.10: Panel Discussion – Richard Ploszek, Liz Varga, Jennifer Whyte, Neil Carhart, Simon Jude, Warren Greig. Five minute thought pieces from each followed by Q&A. 13.00: Lunch and networking

14.00: Break out sessions 15.15: Plenary feedback 15.45: Discussion and next steps 16.00: Close

Figure 1: event agenda

Cost statement

Breakdown of Financial Expenditure Item Amount Spent T&S General £162.75 T&S for Early Career researcher to attend Event

£28.00

T&S: Workshop at Imperial College - Catering deposit

£590.00

Workshop at Imperial College, London 25.01.18. Venue Hire plus associated costs

£2079.74

DI Researcher (Warren Greig) 01.10.17 – 31.03.18 @ 0.25 FTE.

£3430.03

TOTAL: £6290.52 (100% FEC)

Invoice has been submitted by Cranfield University’s finance team.

Next steps

Include development of these outputs in the ESCRIT programme grant.

End of report

Appendix 1 – event attendees

ENCORE Infrastructure Interdependencies workshop

Thu 25 January 2018 10:30 – 16:00 GMT

Imperial College London 58 Prince’s Gate

London SW7 2PG

Registered Attendees

Bhamra, Herpreet Dept for BEIS Carhart, Neil University of Bristol Chatzimichailidou, Mikela Imperial College Doherty, Sharon City Business School Evans, John AIG Eyanga Nkombe, Tania myHela Foden, Mark Mark Foden Greig, Warren Cranfield University Hutchinson, Simon Digi2al Jude, Simon Cranfield University Lovell, Kat University of Sussex Mayfield, Martin University of Sheffield Mian, Juliet ARUP Naghshbandi, Neda Cranfield University Nazer, Zeina University of Chicago Ploszek, Richard Infrastructure & Projects Authority Street, Roger UKCIP Varga, Liz Cranfield University Whyte, Jennifer Imperial College Yabari, Oday 20

Appendix 2 – Reviews and short-lists of the analyses and articles

Essential Reading

Rinaldi Steven M, Peerenboom James P, and Kelly Terrence K. (2001). Identifying,

understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control

Systems Magazine, 21(6), pp.11-25.

Pederson P, Dudenhoeffer D, Hartley S, and Permann M. (2006). Critical Infrastructure

Interdependency Modeling: A survey of US and international research. Contract, (August),

Ouyang Min. (2014). Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical

infrastructure systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 121, pp.43-60.

Rinaldi Steven M. (2004). Modeling and simulating critical infrastructures and their

interdependencies. In: . : IEEE, pp.8-pp. Available at: files/121/Rinaldi - 2004 - Modeling and

simulating critical infrastructures a.pdf files/99/1265180.html.

Saidi Saeid, Kattan Lina, Jayasinghe Poornima, Hettiaratchi Patrick, and Taron Joshua. ( ).

Integrated infrastructure systems—A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, pp.1-11.

Long List

Karaca Ferhat, Camci Fatih, and Raven Paul Graham. (2013). City blood: A visionary

infrastructure solution for household energy provision through water distribution networks.

Energy, 61, pp.98-107.

The Cabinet Office, and Natural Hazards Team. (2014). Sector Resilience Plans 2014. : ,

pp.17-17. .

Field Christopher B, and Michalak Anna M. (2015). Water , Climate , Energy , Food :

Inseparable & Indispensable. Daedalus, 144(3), pp.7-17.

Ouyang Min, and Wang Zhenghua. (2015). Resilience assessment of interdependent

infrastructure systems: With a focus on joint restoration modeling and analysis. Reliability

Engineering & System Safety, 141, pp.74-82.

Belinskij Antti. (2015). Water-Energy-Food Nexus within the Framework of International

Water Law. Water, 7(10), pp.5396-5415.

Perrone Debra, and Hornberger George. (2016). Frontiers of the food–energy–water

trilemma: Sri Lanka as a microcosm of tradeoffs. Environmental Research Letters, 11(1),

pp.014005-014005.

Wang Jianwei, Jiang Chen, and Qian Jianfei. (2014). Robustness of interdependent

networks with different link patterns against cascading failures. Physica A: Statistical

Mechanics and its Applications, 393, pp.535-541.

Varga Liz, and Grubic Tonci. (2013). Transforming Critical Infrastructure. International

Innovation, Jul, pp.35-37.

Biba Sebastian. (2015). The goals and reality of the water–food–energy security nexus: the

case of China and its southern neighbours. Third World Quarterly, 6597(December), pp.1-

20.

Bale Catherine SE, Varga Liz, and Foxon Timothy J. (2015). Energy and complexity: New

ways forward. Applied Energy, 138, pp.150-159.

Church Norman. (2005). Systems and Interdependencies and their effect on peak oil. In:

Peak Oil Day 2005: Peak Speak. : , pp.. .

Petit Frédéric, and Lewis Lawrence Paul. (2015). Critical Infrastructure Logical

Dependencies and Interdependencies. , (August 2006), pp.1-2.


understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control

Systems Magazine, 21(6), pp.11-25.

Carhart Neil, and Rosenberg Ges. (2016). A framework for characterising infrastructure

interdependencies. International Journal of Complexity in Applied Science and Technology,

1(1), pp.35-35.

Institution of Civil Engineers. (2013). Infrastructure Interdependencies Timelines. , , pp..

Dudenhoeffer Donald, Permann May, and Manic Milos. (2006). CIMS: A Framework for

Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling and Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Winter

Simulation Conference. : IEEE, pp.478-485. Available at:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4117643/.

Chou Chien-Cheng, and Tseng Ssu-Min. (2010). Collection and Analysis of Critical

Infrastructure Interdependency Relationships. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,

24(6), pp.539-547.

Chang S. (2010). Infrastructure resilience to disasters. In: , ed., Frontiers of Engineering.

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, pp..

Rosenberg Ges, Carhart Neil, Edkins Andrew, and Ward John. (2014). Development of a

Proposed Interdependency Planning and Management Framework. Bristol, UK: , pp..

Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1455020/.

Brown Theresa. (2008). Infrastructure Dependency Indicators. In: , ed., Wiley Handbook of

Science and Technology for Homeland Security. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., pp..

Stapelberg Rudolph. (2010). Infrastructure systems interdependencies and risk informed

decision making ( RIDM ): impact scenario analysis of infrastructure risks induced by natural

, technological and intentional hazards. Analysis, 6(5), pp.21-27.

Sanchez Jose, Caire Raphael, and HadjSaid N. (2013). ICT and Electric Power Systems

Interdependencies Modeling. Security in Critical …, 9, pp.5-10.


Interdependency Modeling. Contract, (August), pp..

Petit Fréderic, Verner Duane, Brannegan David, Buehring William, and Dickinson David.

(2015). Analysis of Critical Infrastructure Dependencies and Interdependencies. , , pp.50-50.

Cabinet Office. (2011). Natural Hazards and Infrastructure. , , pp.9-12.

Cabinet Office. (2010). Cabinet Office Section A : Introduction , Definitions and Principles of

Infrastructure Resilience. , , pp.7,8,9,10-7,8,9,10.

Heller M. (2001). Interdependencies in civil infrastructure systems. The Bridge, 31(4), pp.9-

15.

Grafius D R, Kim H, and Whyte J K. (2017). Ecological interdependencies of infrastructure

projects. International Symposia for Next Generation Infrastructure, , pp.1-11.

Grafius D, Varga Liz, and Jude Simon. (2017). Infrastructure Interdependency opportunities.

Risk Analysis, , pp..

Grafius Darren, Varga Liz, and Jude Simon. (2017). Infrastructure: opportunities from

interdependencies. , , pp..

Zimmerman Rae, and Restrepo Carlos E. (2006). The next step: quantifying infrastructure

interdependencies to improve security. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 2(2/3),

pp.215-215.

Zimmerman Rae. (2009). Understanding the Implications of Critical Infrastructure

Interdependencies for Water. In: , ed., Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for

Homeland Security. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp..

Zimmerman Rae. (2006). Critical Infrastructure and Interdependency. In: , ed., The McGraw-

Hill Homeland Security Handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, pp.523-545.

Zhang P, and Peeta S. (2011). A generalized modeling framework to analyze

interdependencies among infrastructure systems. Transportation Research Part B:

Methodological, 45(3), pp.553-579.

The Systems Centre, and University of Bristol. (2013). Workshop Application of a Matrix

Based Approach to the Identification of Infrastructure Interdependencies – Workshop Report

for Engineering the Future.. : , pp.. .

Wallace W A, Mendonça D, Lee E, Mitchell J, and Chow J. (2003). Managing Disruptions to

Critical Interdependent Infrastructures in the context of the 2001 World Trade Centre Attack.

In: Monday J L, ed., Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research.

Boulder, CO.: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, pp..

Satumtira Gesara, and Dueñas-Osorio Leonardo. (2010). Synthesis of Modeling and

Simulation Methods on Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies Research. In:

Gopalakrishnan K, and Peeta S, ed., Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure

Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.1-51.

Rosenberg Ges, and Carhart Neil. (2013). A Systems-based Approach to Creating Value

from Infrastructure Interdependencies. , , pp..

Peerenboom James. (2001). Infrastructure Interdependencies: Overview of Concepts and

Terminology. : , pp.. Available at: http://it4sec.org/article/infrastructure-interdependencies-

overview-concepts-and-terminology.

Idaho National Laboratory. (2006). Critical Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling: A

Survey of U.S. and International Research. : Idaho National Laboratory, pp.. Available at:

http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/911792-X4IFHO/.



O'Rourke T D. (2007). Critical infrastructure, interdependencies, and resilience. The Bridge,

37(1), pp.22-29.

Laprie Jean-Claude, Kanoun Karama, and Kaâniche Mohamed. (2007). Modelling

Interdependencies between the Electricity and Information Infrastructures. In: Saglietti F, and

Oster N, ed., Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.54-

67.

Johannson J, and Hassell H. (2010). An approach for modelling interdependent

infrastructures in the context of vulnerability analysis. Reliability Engineering & System

Safety, 95(12), pp.1335-1344.

Cabinet Office. (2011). Keeping the country running: natural hazards and infrastructure -

GOV.UK. : , pp.. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-the-

country-running-natural-hazards-and-infrastructure file:///Z:/Interdependencies

project/3.11.17/Carhart reference list/Cabinet office report/natural-hazards-infrastructure.pdf.

Engineering the Future. (2011). UK Infrastructure Timelines. : , pp.. .

Haimes Yacov Y. (2005). Infrastructure Interdependencies and Homeland Security. Journal

of Infrastructure Systems, 11(2), pp.65-66.

Frontier Economics. (2012). Systemic Risks and Opportunities in UK infrastructure. : , pp..

Available at: http://www.frontier-economics.com/documents/2013/10/frontier-report-systemic-

risk-and-opportunities-in-uk-infrastructure-2.pdf.

Friesz Terry L, Mookherjee Reetabrata, and Peeta Srinivas. (2007). Modeling Large Scale

and Complex Infrastructure Systems as Computable Games. In: , ed., Network Science,

Nonlinear Science and Infrastructure Systems. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp.53-75.

Nan C, and Sansavini G. (2017). A quantitative method for assessing resilience of

interdependent infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 157, pp.35-53.

Slingerland Maja, and Schut Marc. (2014). Jatropha Developments in Mozambique: Analysis

of Structural Conditions Influencing Niche-Regime Interactions. Sustainability, 6(11),

pp.7541-7563.

Rueda Diego F, and Calle Eusebi. (2017). Using interdependency matrices to mitigate

targeted attacks on interdependent networks: A case study involving a power grid and

backbone telecommunications networks. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure

Protection, 16, pp.3-12.

Ntalampiras Stavros, Soupionis Yannis, and Giannopoulos Georgios. (2015). A fault

diagnosis system for interdependent critical infrastructures based on HMMs. Reliability


Chertkov Michael, Backhaus Scott, and Lebedev Vladimir. (2015). Cascading of fluctuations

in interdependent energy infrastructures: Gas-grid coupling. Applied Energy, 160, pp.541-

551.

Cochrane T A, Arias M E, and Piman T. (2014). Historical impact of water infrastructure on

water levels of the Mekong River and the Tonle Sap system. Hydrology and Earth System

Sciences, 18(11), pp.4529-4541.

Bloomfield Robin E, Popov Peter, Salako Kizito, Stankovic Vladimir, and Wright David.

(2017). Preliminary interdependency analysis: An approach to support critical-infrastructure

risk-assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 167, pp.198-217.

Saidi Saeid, Kattan Lina, Jayasinghe Poornima, Hettiaratchi Patrick, and Taron Joshua. ( ).

Integrated infrastructure systems—A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, pp.1-11.

Adachi T, and Ellingwood B R. (2008). Serviceability of earthquake-damaged water systems:

Effects of electrical power availability and power backup systems on system vulnerability.

Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 93(1), pp.78-88.

Adewuyi A O, and Oyejide T A. (2012). Determinants of backward linkages of oil and gas

industry in the Nigerian economy. Resources Policy, 37(4), pp.452-460.

Alam U, Dione O, and Jeffrey P. (2011). Hydrology vs sovereignty: managing the

hydrological interdependency of international rivers. Water Policy, 13(3), pp.425-442.

Alves J, and Wille E C. G. (2015). Increasing Connectivity in VANETs Using Public

Transport Backbones. Ieee Latin America Transactions, 13(10), pp.3421-3431.

Andersson D E, and Andersson A E. (2008). Infrastructural change and secular economic

development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(6), pp.799-816.

Augutis J, Joksas B, Krikstolaitis R, and Urbonas R. (2016). The assessment technology of

energy critical infrastructure. Applied Energy, 162, pp.1494-1504.

Augutis J, Joksas B, Krikstolaitis R, and Zutautaite I. (2014). Criticality assessment of energy

infrastructure. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(2), pp.312-331.

Baken N H. G, Reitsma R O, van Boven , and E F M. (2003). Broadband infrastructures and

services - Trans-sector thinking, the difference between a beneficial sector or Tower of

Babel. Journal of the Communications Network, 2, pp.94-98.

Batten D F. (2009). Fostering Industrial Symbiosis With Agent-Based Simulation and

Participatory Modeling. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), pp.197-213.

Beheshtian A, Donaghy K P, and Rouhani O M. (2016). Flood-Resilient Deployment of

Fueling Stations: Extension of Facility Location Problem. Transportation Research Record,

(2599), pp.81-90.

Berariu R, Fikar C, Gronalt M, and Hirsch P. (2015). Understanding the impact of cascade

effects of natural disasters on disaster relief operations. International Journal of Disaster

Risk Reduction, 12, pp.350-356.

Bollinger L A, van Blijswijk , M J, Dijkema G P. J, and Nikolic I. (2016). An Energy Systems

Modelling Tool for the Social Simulation Community. Jasss-the Journal of Artificial Societies

and Social Simulation, 19(1), pp..

Bompard E, Napoli R, and Xue F. (2009). Analysis of structural vulnerabilities in power

transmission grids. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2(1-2), pp.5-12.

Byrne D M, Lohman H A. C, Cook S M, Peters G M, and Guest J S. (2017). Life cycle

assessment (LCA) of urban water infrastructure: emerging approaches to balance objectives

and inform comprehensive decision-making. Environmental Science-Water Research &

Technology, 3(6), pp.1002-1014.

Calderon C, and Chong A. (2004). Volume and quality of infrastructure and the distribution of

income: An empirical investigation. Review of Income and Wealth, (1), pp.87-106.

Campbell J M, Smith S D, Forde M C, and Ladd R D. (2007). Identifying hazards in

transportation construction and maintenance tasks - Case-based reasoning approach using

railroad data. Transportation Research Record, (1995), pp.69-75.

Carse A. (2017). An Infrastructural Event: Making Sense of Panama's Drought. Water

Alternatives-an Interdisciplinary Journal on Water Politics and Development, 10(3), pp.888-

909.

Chang S E, Svekla W D, and Shinozuka M. (2002). Linking infrastructure and urban

economy: simulation of water-disruption impacts in earthquakes. Environment and Planning

B-Planning & Design, 29(2), pp.281-301.

Cherry B A. (2008). Back to the future: How transportation deregulatory policies foreshadow

evolution of communications policies. Information Society, 24(5), pp.273-291.

Chester L. (2010). Conceptualising energy security and making explicit its polysemic nature.

Energy Policy, 38(2), pp.887-895.

Chopra S S, Dillon T, Bilec M M, and Khanna V. (2016). A network-based framework for

assessing infrastructure resilience: a case study of the London metro system. Journal of the

Royal Society Interface, 13(118), pp..

Conrad S H, LeClaire R J, O'Reilly G R, and Uzunalioglu H. (2006). Critical national

infrastructure reliability modeling and analysis. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 11(3), pp.57-71.

Cutts M, Wang Y M, and Yu Q S. (2017). New Perspectives on Building Resilience into

Infrastructure Systems. Natural Hazards Review, 18(1), pp..

Derrible S. (2017). Urban infrastructure is not a tree: Integrating and decentralizing urban

infrastructure systems. Environment and Planning B-Urban Analytics and City Science,

44(3), pp.553-569.

Derudder B, Liu X J, Kunaka C, and Roberts M. (2014). The connectivity of South Asian

cities in infrastructure networks. Journal of Maps, 10(1), pp.47-52.

DiNino T, and Baetz B W. (1996). Environmental linkages between urban form and

municipal solid waste management infrastructure. Journal of Urban Planning and

Development-Asce, 122(3), pp.83-100.

Eleuterio J, Hattemer C, and Rozan A. (2013). A systemic method for evaluating the

potential impacts of floods on network infrastructures. Natural Hazards and Earth System

Sciences, 13(4), pp.983-998.

Fagan J E, Reuter M A, and Langford K J. (2010). Dynamic performance metrics to assess

sustainability and cost effectiveness of integrated urban water systems. Resources

Conservation and Recycling, 54(10), pp.719-736.

Falk T, Lohmann D, and Azebaze N. (2016). Congruence of appropriation and provision in

collective water provision in Central Namibia. International Journal of the Commons, 10(1),

pp.71-118.

Faust K M, Abraham D M, and DeLaurentis D. (2017). Coupled Human and Water

Infrastructure Systems Sector Interdependencies: Framework Evaluating the Impact of Cities

Experiencing Urban Decline. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,

143(8), pp..

Ferrario E, and Zio E. (2014). Assessing nuclear power plant safety and recovery from

earthquakes using a system-of-systems approach. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,

125, pp.103-116.

Filippini R, and Silva A. (2015). I (R) ML: An Infrastructure Resilience-Oriented Modeling

Language. Ieee Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems, 45(1), pp.157-169.

Geidl M, and Andersson G. (2006). Operational and structural optimization of multi-carrier

energy systems. European Transactions on Electrical Power, 16(5), pp.463-477.

Ghani H, Khelil A, Suri N, Csertan G, Gonczy L, Urbanics G, and Clarke J. (2014).

Assessing the security of internet-connected critical infrastructures. Security and

Communication Networks, 7(12), pp.2713-2725.

Gonzalez-Gonzalez E, and Nogues S. (2016). Regional polycentricity: an indicator

framework for assessing cohesion impacts of railway infrastructures. European Planning

Studies, 24(5), pp.950-973.

Gorman S P, and McIntee A. (2003). Tethered connectivity? The spatial distribution of

wireless infrastructure. Environment and Planning A, 35(7), pp.1157-1171.

Green T L, Kronenberg J, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, and Gomez-Baggethun E. (2016).

Insurance Value of Green Infrastructure in and Around Cities. Ecosystems, 19(6), pp.1051-

1063.

Griffin G P, and Sener I N. (2016). Planning for Bike Share Connectivity to Rail Transit.

Journal of Public Transportation, 19(2), pp.1-22.

Grove N, and Baumann O. (2012). Complexity in the telecommunications industry: When

integrating infrastructure and services backfires. Telecommunications Policy, 36(1), pp.40-

50.

Grubesic T H, and Murray A T. (2006). Vital nodes, interconnected infrastructures, and the

geographies of network survivability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,

96(1), pp.64-83.

Grunwald A. (2014). Sustainability research as inter- and trans-disciplinary activity: the case

of German Energiewende. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 9(1), pp.11-20.

Hagebro C, and Cederwall K. (2003). Workshop 7 (synthesis): integrating the water and

energy sectors. Water Science and Technology, 47(6), pp.189-191.

Haimes Y Y, Horowitz B M, Lambert J H, Santos J R, Lian C Y, and Crowther K G. (2005).

Inoperability Input-Output Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Sectors. I: Theory and

Methodology. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(2), pp.67-79.

Hall J W, Henriques J J, Hickford A J, Nicholls R J, Baruah P, Birkin M, Chaudry M, Curtis T

P, Eyre N, Jones C, Kilsby C G, Leathard A, Lorenz A, Malleson N, McLeod F, Powrie W,

Preston J, Rai N, Street R, Stringfellow A, Thoung C, Tyler P, Velykiene R, Watson G, and

Watson J W. (2014). Assessing the Long-Term Performance of Cross-Sectoral Strategies for

National Infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20(3), pp..

Hall J W, Thacker S, Ives M C, Cao Y, Chaudry M, Blainey S P, and Oughton E J. (2017).

Strategic analysis of the future of national infrastructure. Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering, 170(1), pp.39-47.

Hall P J. (2008). Energy storage: The route to liberation from the fossil fuel economy?.

Energy Policy, 36(12), pp.4363-4367.

Hasan S, and Foliente G. (2015). Modeling infrastructure system interdependencies and

socioeconomic impacts of failure in extreme events: emerging R&D challenges. Natural

Hazards, 78(3), pp.2143-2168.

Heracleous C, Kolios P, Panayiotou C G, Ellinas G, and Polycarpou M M. (2017). Hybrid

systems modeling for critical infrastructures interdependency analysis. Reliability


Hickman W, Muzhikyan A, and Farid A M. (2017). The synergistic role of renewable energy

integration into the unit commitment of the energy water nexus. Renewable Energy, 108,

pp.220-229.

Hodson M, Marvin S, Robinson B, and Swilling M. (2012). Reshaping Urban Infrastructure

Material Flow Analysis and Transitions Analysis in an Urban Context. Journal of Industrial

Ecology, 16(6), pp.789-800.

Hopkins K G, Bain D J, and Copeland E M. (2014). Reconstruction of a century of landscape

modification and hydrologic change in a small urban watershed in Pittsburgh, PA.

Landscape Ecology, 29(3), pp.413-424.

Hornidge A K, Oberkircher L, Tischbein B, Schorcht G, Bhaduri A, and Manschadi A M.

(2011). Reconceptualizing water management in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Natural Resources

Forum, 35(4), pp.251-268.

Houck D J, Kim E, O'Reilly G, Picklesimer D D, and Uzunalioglu H. (2004). A network

survivability model for critical national infrastructures. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 8(4),

pp.153-172.

Housh M, Cai X M, Ng T L, McIsaac G F, Ouyang Y F, Khanna M, Sivapalan M, Jain A K,

Eckhoff S, Gasteyer S, Al-Qadi I, Bai Y, Yaeger M A, Ma S C, and Song Y. (2015). System

of Systems Model for Analysis of Biofuel Development. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

21(3), pp..

Hu X, Hall J W, Shi P J, and Lim W H. (2016). The spatial exposure of the Chinese

infrastructure system to flooding and drought hazards. Natural Hazards, 80(2), pp.1083-

1118.

Innes J E, Booher D E, Di Vittorio , and S . (2011). Strategies for Megaregion Governance.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(1), pp.55-67.

Islam T, and Moselhi O. (2012). Modeling Geospatial Interdependence for Integrated

Municipal Infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 18(2), pp.68-74.

Jacobs K, Lebel L, Buizer J, Addams L, Matson P, McCullough E, Garden P, Saliba G, and

Finan T. (2016). Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources

management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 113(17), pp.4591-4596.

Janssen R, Turhollow A F, Rutz D, and Mergner R. (2013). Production facilities for second-

generation biofuels in the USA and the EU - current status and future perspectives. Biofuels

Bioproducts & Biorefining-Biofpr, 7(6), pp.647-665.

Jaradat R M, and Keating C B. (2014). Fragility of oil as a critical infrastructure problem.

International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 7(2), pp.86-99.

Juizo D, and Liden R. (2010). Modeling for transboundary water resources planning and

allocation: the case of Southern Africa. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14(11),

pp.2343-2354.

Karamouz M, Zahmatkesh Z, and Olyaei M A. (2017). Application of Dynamic Simulation

Modeling Approach and Load-Resistance Concept to Water-Infrastructure Interactions in

Coastal Areas. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 143(8), pp..

Karlson M, Karlsson C S. J, Mortberg U, Olofsson B, and Balfors B. (2016). Design and

evaluation of railway corridors based on spatial ecological and geological criteria.

Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment, 46, pp.207-228.

Kelly S, Tyler P, and Crawford-Brown D. (2016). Exploring Vulnerability and

Interdependency of UK Infrastructure Using Key-Linkages Analysis. Networks & Spatial

Economics, 16(3), pp.865-892.

Khan S, and Mushtaq S. (2009). Regional partnerships to assist public-private investments

in irrigation systems. Agricultural Water Management, 96(5), pp.839-846.

Killip G. (2013). Transition management using a market transformation approach: lessons for

theory, research, and practice from the case of low-carbon housing refurbishment in the UK.

Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 31(5), pp.876-892.

Klessmann C, Nabe C, and Burges K. (2008). Pros and cons of exposing renewables to

electricity market risks-A comparison of the market integration approaches in Germany,

Spain, and the UK. Energy Policy, 36(10), pp.3646-3661.

Koutsoyiannis D. (2014). Reconciling hydrology with engineering. Hydrology Research,

45(1), pp.2-22.

Krishnamurthy V, Kwasinski A, and Duenas-Osorio L. (2016). Comparison of Power and

Telecommunications Dependencies and Interdependencies in the 2011 Tohoku and 2010

Maule Earthquakes. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 22(3), pp..

Kujinga K, Vanderpost C, Mmopelwa G, and Wolski P. (2014). An analysis of factors

contributing to household water security problems and threats in different settlement

categories of Ngamiland, Botswana. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 67-69, pp.187-201.

Kuznetsova E, Louhichi R, Zio E, and Farel R. (2017). Input-output Inoperability Model for

the risk analysis of eco-industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, pp.779-792.

Lehmann A, Giuliani G, Ray N, Rahman K, Abbaspour K C, Nativi S, Craglia M, Cripe D,

Quevauviller P, and Beniston M. (2014). Reviewing innovative Earth observation solutions

for filling science-policy gaps in hydrology. Journal of Hydrology, 518, pp.267-277.

Li F, Liu X S, Zhang X L, Zhao D, Liu H X, Zhou C B, and Wang R S. (2017). Urban

ecological infrastructure: an integrated network for ecosystem services and sustainable

urban systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, pp.S12-S18.

Li T, Eremia M, and Shahidehpour M. (2008). Interdependency of Natural Gas Network and

Power System Security. Ieee Transactions on Power Systems, 23(4), pp.1817-1824.

Li Y, and Shi L. (2015). The Resilience of Interdependent Industrial Symbiosis Networks A

Case of Yixing Economic and Technological Development Zone. Journal of Industrial

Ecology, 19(2), pp.264-273.

Li Z Y, Dey K, Chowdhury M, and Bhavsar P. (2016). Connectivity supported dynamic

routing of electric vehicles in an inductively coupled power transfer environment. Iet

Intelligent Transport Systems, 10(5), pp.370-377.

Lochner S. (2011). Modeling the European natural gas market during the 2009 Russian-

Ukrainian gas conflict: Ex-post simulation and analysis. Journal of Natural Gas Science and

Engineering, 3(1), pp.341-348.

Loggins R A, and Wallace W A. (2015). Rapid Assessment of Hurricane Damage and

Disruption to Interdependent Civil Infrastructure Systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

21(4), pp..

Lu Z M, Crittenden J, Southworth F, and Dunham-Jones E. (2017). An integrated framework

for managing the complex interdependence between infrastructures and the socioeconomic

environment: An application in metropolitan Atlanta. Urban Studies, 54(12), pp.2874-2893.

MacLachlan I. (2013). Kwinana Industrial Area: agglomeration economies and industrial

symbiosis on Western Australia's Cockburn Sound. Australian Geographer, 44(4), pp.383-

400.

Matthews J C. (2016). Disaster Resilience of Critical Water Infrastructure Systems. Journal

of Structural Engineering, 142(8), pp..

McCord P, Dell'Angelo J, Gower D, Caylor K K, and Evans T. (2017). Household-level

heterogeneity of water resources within common-pool resource systems. Ecology and

Society, 22(1), pp..

McDaniels T, Chang S, Peterson K, Mikawoz J, and Reed D. (2007). Empirical Framework

for Characterizing Infrastructure Failure Interdependencies. Journal of Infrastructure

Systems, 13(3), pp.175-184.

McFarlane C, and Rutherford J. (2008). Political infrastructures: Governing and experiencing

the fabric of the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(2), pp.363-

374.

Min H S. J, Beyeler W, Brown T, Son Y J, and Jones A T. (2007). Toward modeling and

simulation of critical national infrastructure interdependencies. Iie Transactions, 39(1), pp.57-

71.

Min O Y. (2017). A mathematical framework to optimize resilience of interdependent critical

infrastructure systems under spatially localized attacks. European Journal of Operational

Research, 262(3), pp.1072-1084.

Moini N. (2016). Modeling of Risks Threatening Critical Infrastructures: System Approach.

Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 22(1), pp..

Murrant D, Quinn A, and Chapman L. (2015). The water-energy nexus: future water

resource availability and its implications on UK thermal power generation. Water and

Environment Journal, 29(3), pp.307-319.

Ogie R, Holderness T, Dunbar M, and Turpin E. (2017). Spatio-topological network analysis

of hydrological infrastructure as a decision support tool for flood mitigation in coastal mega-

cities. Environment and Planning B-Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(4), pp.718-739.

Omidvar B, Malekshah M H, and Omidvar H. (2014). Failure risk assessment of

interdependent infrastructures against earthquake, a Petri net approach: case study-power

and water distribution networks. Natural Hazards, 71(3), pp.1971-1993.

O'Reilly G P, and Chu C H. K. (2008). Optimal deployment of power reserves across

telecom critical infrastructures. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 12(4), pp.127-141.

Pagano A, Pluchinotta I, Giordano R, and Vurro M. (2017). Drinking water supply in resilient

cities: Notes from L'Aquila earthquake case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28,

pp.435-449.

Pant R, Hall J W, and Blainey S P. (2016). Vulnerability assessment framework for

interdependent critical infrastructures: case-study for Great Britain's rail network. European

Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 16(1), pp.174-194.

Papadakis I S, and Kleindorfer P R. (2005). Optimizing infrastructure network maintenance

when benefits are interdependent. Or Spectrum, 27(1), pp.63-84.

Pauliuk S, Arvesen A, Stadler K, and Hertwich E G. (2017). Industrial ecology in integrated

assessment models. Nature Climate Change, 7(1), pp.13-20.

Pauliuk S, and Muller D B. (2014). The role of in-use stocks in the social metabolism and in

climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions,

24, pp.132-142.

Porse E, and Lund J. (2015). Network structure, complexity, and adaptation in water

resource systems. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 32(1-2), pp.143-156.

Porse E, and Lund J. (2016). Network Analysis and Visualizations of Water Resources

Infrastructure in California: Linking Connectivity and Resilience. Journal of Water Resources

Planning and Management, 142(1), pp..

Poudineh R, and Jamasb T. (2017). Electricity Supply Interruptions: Sectoral

Interdependencies and the Cost of Energy Not Served for the Scottish Economy. Energy

Journal, 38(1), pp.51-76.

Prezelj I, and Ziberna A. (2013). Consequence-, time- and interdependency-based risk

assessment in the field of critical infrastructure. Risk Management-an International Journal,

15(2), pp.100-131.

Qiu J, Dong Z Y, Zhao J H, Meng K, Luo F J, and Chen Y Y. (2015). Expansion co-planning

for shale gas integration in a combined energy market. Journal of Modern Power Systems

and Clean Energy, 3(3), pp.302-311.

Ramaswami A, Weible C, Main D, Heikkila T, Siddiki S, Duvall A, Pattison A, and Bernard M.

(2012). A Social-Ecological-Infrastructural Systems Framework for Interdisciplinary Study of

Sustainable City Systems An Integrative Curriculum Across Seven Major Disciplines. Journal

of Industrial Ecology, 16(6), pp.801-813.

Reed D, Wang S Q, Kapur K, and Zheng C. (2016). Systems-Based Approach to

Interdependent Electric Power Delivery and Telecommunications Infrastructure Resilience

Subject to Weather-Related Hazards. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8), pp..

Rietveld P, and Boonstra J. (1995). ON THE SUPPLY OF NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE -

HIGHWAYS AND RAILWAYS IN EUROPEAN REGIONS. Annals of Regional Science,

29(2), pp.207-220.

Roe E. (2009). Preventing Transboundary Crises: The Management and Regulation of

Setbacks. Review of Policy Research, 26(4), pp.457-471.

Ross A. (2012). Easy to say, hard to do: integrated surface water and groundwater

management in the Murray-Darling Basin. Water Policy, 14(4), pp.709-724.

Runge C A, Tulloch A I. T, Gordon A, and Rhodes J R. (2017). Quantifying the conservation

gains from shared access to linear infrastructure. Conservation Biology, 31(6), pp.1428-

1438.

Sadoff C W, and Grey D. (2005). Cooperation on international rivers: A continuum for

securing and sharing benefits. Water International, 30(4), pp.420-427.

Santella N, Steinberg L J, and Parks K. (2009). Decision Making for Extreme Events:

Modeling Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies to Aid Mitigation and Response Planning.

Review of Policy Research, 26(4), pp.409-422.

Santhosh J, Nair S S, and Jayasankar M N. (2005). Power-telecom convergence: Catalyzing

telecom revolution. Iete Technical Review, 22(5), pp.367-372.

Santos-Reyes J, Padilla-Perez D, and Beard A N. (2015). Modeling Critical Infrastructure

Interdependency: The Case of the Mexico City Metro Transport System. Human and

Ecological Risk Assessment, 21(5), pp.1428-1444.

Shao C C, Shahidehpour M, Wang X F, Wang X L, and Wang B Y. (2017). Integrated

Planning of Electricity and Natural Gas Transportation Systems for Enhancing the Power

Grid Resilience. Ieee Transactions on Power Systems, 32(6), pp.4418-4429.

Shove E, Watson M, and Spurling N. (2015). Conceptualizing connections: Energy demand,

infrastructures and social practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(3), pp.274-287.

Sithirith M, Evers J, and Gupta J. (2016). Damming the Mekong tributaries: water security

and the MRC 1995 Agreement. Water Policy, 18(6), pp.1420-1435.

Sparnocchia S, Nair R, Petihakis G, Aydogdu A, Dobricic S, Farcy P, Martinelli M, Petersen

W, de la Villeon , and L P. (2016). An interlinked coastal observatory network for Europe.

Journal of Operational Oceanography, 9, pp.S193-S201.

Spiteri C, Roddier-Quefelec C, Giraud J P, and Hema T. (2016). Assessing the progress in

depolluting the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(2), pp.295-308.

Sultana S, and Chen Z. (2009). Modeling flood induced interdependencies among

hydroelectricity generating infrastructures. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11),

pp.3272-3282.

Szimba E, and Rothengatter W. (2012). Spending Scarce Funds More Efficiently-Including

the Pattern of Interdependence in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

18(4), pp.242-251.

Tan P L, Bowmer K H, and Baldwin C. (2012). Continued challenges in the policy and legal

framework for collaborative water planning. Journal of Hydrology, 474, pp.84-91.

Tignino M. (2016). Joint infrastructure and the sharing of benefits in the Senegal and Niger

watersheds. Water International, 41(6), pp.835-850.

Tranos E, Kourtit K, and Nijkamp P. (2014). Digital urban network connectivity: Global and

Chinese internet patterns. Papers in Regional Science, 93(2), pp..

Val D V, Holden R, and Nodwell S. (2014). Probabilistic analysis of interdependent

infrastructures subjected to weather-related hazards. Civil Engineering and Environmental

Systems, 31(2), pp.140-152.

van der Vlies , and V . (2015). A qualitative approach to risk management of hazardous

materials in the Netherlands: lessons learned from 7 sluice cases. Journal of Risk Research,

18(7), pp.947-964.

von Hippel , D , Gulidov R, Kalashnikov V, and Hayes P. (2011). Northeast Asia regional

energy infrastructure proposals. Energy Policy, 39(11), pp.6855-6866.

von Lany , P H, Choudhury F, Hepworth N, and Akande K. (2013). Applying Optimisation

and Uncertainty Analysis to Help Develop an Integrated Water Resources Plan for South

East England. Water Resources Management, 27(4), pp.1111-1122.

Wallington K, and Cai X M. (2017). The Food-Energy-Water Nexus: A Framework to

Address Sustainable Development in the Tropics. Tropical Conservation Science, 10, pp..

Wang C, Wei W, Wang J H, Liu F, Qiu F, Correa-Posada C M, and Mei S W. (2017). Robust

Defense Strategy for Gas-Electric Systems Against Malicious Attacks. Ieee Transactions on

Power Systems, 32(4), pp.2953-2965.

Wang H B. (2013). A Rule-Based Decision Support System for Critical Infrastructure

Management. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 19(2), pp.566-576.

Wang Z R, Chan A P. C, Yuan J, Xia B, Skitmore M, and Li Q M. (2015). Recent Advances

in Modeling the Vulnerability of Transportation Networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

21(2), pp..

Wegerich K, Kazbekov J, Kabilov F, and Mukhamedova N. (2012). Meso-level Cooperation

on Transboundary Tributaries and Infrastructure in the Ferghana Valley. International

Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp.525-543.

Wilson T M, Stewart C, Sword-Daniels V, Leonard G S, Johnston D M, Cole J W, Wardman

J, Wilson G, and Barnard S T. (2012). Volcanic ash impacts on critical infrastructure. Physics

and Chemistry of the Earth, 45-46, pp.5-23.

Wu B C, Tang A P, and Wu J. (2016). Modeling cascading failures in interdependent

infrastructures under terrorist attacks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 147, pp.1-8.

Wu J, and Duenas-Osorio L. (2013). Calibration and Validation of a Seismic Damage

Propagation Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Systems. Earthquake Spectra, 29(3),

pp.1021-1041.

Zhang C, Liu X, Jiang Y P, Fan B, and Song X. (2016). A two-stage resource allocation

model for lifeline systems quick response with vulnerability analysis. European Journal of

Operational Research, 250(3), pp.855-864.

Zhang J H, Song B, Zhang Z J, and Liu H K. (2014). An approach for modeling vulnerability

of the network of networks. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 412,

pp.127-136.

Zhang P C, and Peeta S. (2011). A generalized modeling framework to analyze

interdependencies among infrastructure systems. Transportation Research Part B-


Zhang X P, Che L, Shahidehpour M, Alabdulwahab A S, and Abusorrah A. (2017).

Reliability-Based Optimal Planning of Electricity and Natural Gas Interconnections for

Multiple Energy Hubs. Ieee Transactions on Smart Grid, 8(4), pp.1658-1667.

Zhang X P, Shahidehpour M, Alabdulwahab A, and Abusorrah A. (2015). Optimal Expansion

Planning of Energy Hub With Multiple Energy Infrastructures. Ieee Transactions on Smart

Grid, 6(5), pp.2302-2311.

Zhang Y L, Yang N D, and Lall U. (2016). Modeling and simulation of the vulnerability of

interdependent power-water infrastructure networks to cascading failures. Journal of

Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 25(1), pp.102-118.

Zhao S, Liu X, and Zhuo Y. (2017). Hybrid Hidden Markov Models for resilience metrics in a

dynamic infrastructure system. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 164, pp.84-97.

Zio E, and Ferrario E. (2013). A framework for the system-of-systems analysis of the risk for

a safety-critical plant exposed to external events. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,

114, pp.114-125.

Interdependencies – What do we know, and how do we come to know it? A systematic literature review of interdependency conceptualisations and methods for modelling these in critical infrastructure settings.

(Names here…)

Abstract Our understanding of critical infrastructure systems is arguably too domain-specific, and not systematic enough. A more systemic understanding can be reached by means of understanding the interdependencies between infrastructure sectors, thus recognising critical infrastructures as complex, interconnected systems. This review addresses conceptualisations of interdependencies in the energy, waste, water, telecommunications, and transport sectors, and represents an attempt to work towards an integrated account of infrastructure interdependencies, building upon and complementing seminal, existing integrated accounts. Existing conceptualisation are seen to capture potential understandings of interdependencies effectively, and modelling methodologies are effective, however there are a number of research gaps in the literature. Although there is an increasing recognition that infrastructure interdependencies can be understood as complex systems, work remains to be done on integrating approaches to reach a common framework of understanding that recognises and can explain holistically these complex, socio-technical systems.

Interdependencies – what do we know? This review of infrastructure interdependencies will outline the diverse, yet increasingly convergent, ways in which interdependencies have been conceived in the literature. It will also address the multitude of methodologies used in modelling and understanding interdependencies, in an attempt not only to visualise the evidence base, but to come to an appreciation of the extent to which these models lend themselves to an integrated understanding of interdependencies, grounded in a holistic, complex-systems based framework. The first section will examine how interdependencies have been conceptualised, by drawing on the definitions employed in the literature. Following this, an outline will be given of how interdependencies have been used, understood and modelled in the context of the critical infrastructure sectors of water, waste, energy, transport and telecommunications. Understanding interdependencies within critical infrastructures is of crucial importance for understanding resilience, risks and the potential for failure propagation at different levels affecting general populations, economies and even national security. Yet our understanding of critical infrastructure independencies is spread across and shaped by different disciplinary frameworks and models. A multiplicity of fields including policy studies, planning, economics and engineering research draw on different examples, treating certain interdependencies as more important than others, and using different models for understanding interdependencies. In order to conceptualise and manage critical infrastructure interdependencies, a ‘common language’ for understanding outside of and across these disciplinary silos is arguably needed. To address issues of resilience and prevent failures, it is necessary to ensure collaboration and

an interdisciplinary, cross-sector framework of understanding at a systemic level involving multiple stakeholders. This means consciously working towards a holistic understanding, in which rather than individual infrastructures being understood discretely, they are conceptualised within a ‘system of systems’ framework; that is, as connected parts within a complex system (Carhart & Rosenberg, 2016; Eusgeld, Nan, & Dietz, 2011). The systemic metaphor also speaks to the importance of understanding interdependencies within the complex global system. As processes of globalisation and economic integration increase at both local and global scales, so do infrastructure systems become enmeshed, and new interdependencies arise. An understanding of interdependencies allows for a better overview and management of systemic infrastructure interdependencies, arguably to a greater extent than does an understanding of individual components by themselves. However, it is also true that the growth of such links increases the growth of vulnerabilities at a systemic and component level – as links increase, so do the chances of failures in one part of the system affecting others. Factors in the environment connected to business, the economy, public policy, legal and regulatory concerns, security, health and safety, socio-political and technical issues all potentially affect interdependent infrastructures in subtle and potentially disruptive ways (Rinaldi, Peerenboom, & Kelly, 2001). An understanding of interdependencies and ways to model them thus promises a better assurance of management and mitigation strategies to augment resilience within infrastructure systems that critically underlie the foundations upon which societies, and indeed the daily lives of everyone within them, operate and function. This review focuses on the definitions and methodologies used to understand interdependencies within the literature covering infrastructure relating specifically to water, waste, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors. Although the aim is for this work to represent an early contribution towards constructing such an integrated understanding, it acknowledges that there is seminal work that has already been done in this area, which the review cannot presume to supplant but aims to supplement. A number of researchers have recognised the importance of addressing this dispersed set of understandings. Rinaldi et al. (Rinaldi et al., 2001) provided arguably the most influential classification structure for interdependencies, pointing to four interdependency types, namely physical, cyber, logical and geographic types of interdependency. Their framework has been influential and has been used as a building block by other researchers working towards an integrated account. Rinaldi (Rinaldi, 2004) then addressed this expansion and added to his original framework by adding a number of organising principles with the potential to influence infrastructure interdependencies.

Reviewing the literature:

In attempting to carry out a systematic review of literature on infrastructure interdependencies, it was necessary to come up with a research question. This was “How have infrastructure interdependencies been defined and modelled in the literature”? Recognising that incorporating theoretical or conceptual papers and empirical studies with different methodological frameworks necessitated a flexible review, this review took the form of an iterative, thematic analysis, an approach that also allows for the combination of quantitative work with more qualitative work (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). In order to find relevant articles from across literatures, such as management and engineering, the Web of Science database was used. This allowed for searches to be conducted across disciplinary areas, and also for refinement and exclusion of areas thought to be less relevant,

for example physics and many areas of information technology focusing on ‘infrastructures’ of a different kind. Search strings were created based on the research question and the infrastructure sectors of interest, and so definitions, methodologies, the sectors in question and synonymous terms were searched for in an iterative manner. The goal was to be precise enough to identify the most relevant material, and also sensitive enough to identify as much relevant material as possible (Brunton, Stansfield, & Thomas, 2012).

Figure 1: Final search strings:

The final set of results obtained from the search strings above included 1,451 articles. These were then screened in two stages. After duplicate removal, 1,411 were screened for inclusion based on their titles and abstracts. 350 of these made it through to a second round of screening involving looking at the full texts of the articles. This resulted in 62 items being included for review. These details are outlined in the figure below:

Figure 2: Flow chart detailing systematic review screening procedure

TS=(Interdepend* OR link* OR coupl* OR connect* OR sharing OR coopetition OR mutual use OR shared use OR shared usage OR mutual usage OR joint usage OR collaborat*) AND TS=("water" OR "reservoir" OR "infrastructur*" OR public utilit* OR private utilit* OR energy OR power trans* OR power dist* OR electricity OR grid OR network OR transport* OR waste OR sewage OR sewerage OR telecom* OR wireline OR wireless OR mobile OR pipeline*) Refined By: TOPIC: ("model" OR "theor*" AND "definition") AND WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: (ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES OR ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL OR ECONOMICS OR ENGINEERING MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR WATER RESOURCES OR BUSINESS OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS OR MANAGEMENT OR TRANSPORTATION)

Results:

Reviews of interdependencies: A number of reviews of interdependency research have been undertaken to date. Ouyang (Ouyang, 2014) conducted a ‘review-of-reviews’, also examining interdependency types and frameworks for simulation. More recently, Saidi et al. (Saidi, Kattan, Jayasinghe, Hettiaratchi, & Taron, 2018) reviewed the evidence for the purposes of understanding infrastructure systems within an integrated framework. Pederson et al. (Pederson, Dudenhoeffer, Hartley, & Permann, 2006) attempted a review of global efforts to understand and model interdependencies, reporting in brief on the various labs undertaking such work, their research programmes and the strengths and weaknesses of each. A similar synthesis was undertaken by Satumtira and Duenas-Osorio, who provided a more focused overview of salient research efforts to date and framed their discussion in terms of major research trends over time in the area (Satumtira & Dueñas-Osorio, 2010). Interdependencies: A typology A number of types of interdependencies have been identified in the literature. Perhaps the most influential typology is that argued for in Rinaldi et al. (Rinaldi et al., 2001), who delimited physical, cyber, logical and geographic interdependencies; actually an adaptation of an earlier classification scheme (Peerenboom, Fischer, & Whitfield, 2001). Pederson at al. (Pederson et al., 2006) expanded on this typology, suggesting 5 types, physical, informational, geospatial, policy/procedural and societal. Zimmerman simplified this account and outlined two types, functional and spatial (Zimmerman, 2004). Zhang and Peeta combined some of these approaches and argued that due to economic factors, both ‘budgetary’ and ‘market and economic’ types should be included alongside ‘functional’ and ‘physical’ (Zhang & Peeta, 2011). Wallace et al. (Wallace, Mendonça, Lee, Mitchell, & Chow, 2003), approaching the issue in terms of mitigation and response in managing critical infrastuctures and potential disruptions, took a different approach, naming input, mutual, shared and exclusive/or types. The table overleaf, adapted from Ouyang (Ouyang, 2014), lists these typologies and gives details of each.

Table 1: Summary of interdependency types Authors Interdependency

types Definitions

Pederson et al. 2006 Geospatial Informational Physical Policy Societal

There is co-location of infrastructure components within the same footprint There is a binding or reliance on information flow between infrastructure systems There are direct linkages between infrastructure systems from a supply/consumption/production relationship There is a binding of infrastructure components due to policy or high level decisions Interdependencies or influences that an infrastructure component event may have on societal factors e.g. public opinion, confidence, fear cultural issues. Even if no physical linkage exists, consequences from events in one infrastructure may affect others.

Rinaldi et al 2001 Cyber Geographic Logical Physical

The state of one infrastructure system depends on information transmitted through the information infrastructure A local environmental event can create state changes in two or more infrastructure systems The state of one infrastructure system depends on the state of others via a mechanism that is not physical, cyber or geographic The state of one infrastructure system is dependent on the material output(s) of another infrastructure system

Wallace et al. 2003 Co-located Exclusive Or (XOR)

Input

Mutual Shared

Components of two or more systems are situated within a prescribed geographical region Only one of two or more services can be provided by an infrastructure system, where XOR can occur within a single infrastructure system or among two or more systems The infrastructure systems require as input one or more services from another infrastructure system in order to provide some other service At least one of the activities of each infrastructure system is dependent upon each of the other infrastructure systems Some physical components or activities of the infrastructure systems used in providing the services are shared with one or more other infrastructure systems

Zhang and Peeta 2011

Budgetary Functional Market and economic

Physical

Infrastructure systems involve some level of public financing, especially under a centrally-controlled economy or during disaster recovery The functioning of one system requires inputs from another system or can be substituted to an extent by the other system Infrastructure systems interact with each other in the same economic system or serve the same end users who determine the final demand for each commodity/service subject to budget constraints, or are in the shared regulatory environment where the government agencies may control and impact the individual systems through policy. Legislation or financial means such as taxation or investment Infrastructure systems are coupled through shared physical attributes, so that a strong linkage exists when infrastructure systems share flow right of way, leading to joint capacity constraints

Zimmerman 2004 Functional Spatial

The operation of one infrastructure system is necessary for the operation of another infrastructure system This refers to physical proximity between infrastructure systems

Eusgeld et al. 2011 Physical Cyber Geographic Logical Input Mutual Co-located Shared Exclusive-Or (XOR)

*Definitions as for Rinaldi and Wallace above. Emphasis is given as to their functions/interactions within SCADA IT control systems (Although note they did not provide an example of a logical interdependency in their framework).

Although the above table does a good job in counting for many of the interdependency types, the review uncovered a number of other types, as will be outlined in the results section below. Modelling and simulating typologies

A number of researchers have also provide notable classificatory schemes of methods used to simulate and model interdependencies. Rinaldi (Rinaldi, 2004), building on his earlier work on interdependency typologies, isolated six approaches to modelling interdependencies. Approach Description

Aggregate supply and demand tools Evaluate total demand for infrastructure services in given area along with the ability to supply these services. Ability to meet demand is indicator of system health.

Dynamic simulations Generation, distribution and consumption of infrastructure commodities and services seen as flows and accumulations in a dynamic simulation context.

Agent-based models Physical components modelled as agents for analyses of operational characteristics and physical states of infrastructures. Also allows for modelling of decisions when agents are decision/policy makers.

Physics-based models Standardised engineering techniques used. Power flow and stability analyses, hydraulic analyses. Detailed information down to component level.

Population mobility models Looks at movement of entities through urban regions, which interact with each other, generate and consume infrastructure commodities. Useful e.g. in modelling transport use, social networks, multimodal urban interdependencies.

Leontief Input-Output models Economic flows applied to infrastructure. Linear, aggregated, time-independent analysis of generation, flow, consumption of infrastructure commodities. Extensions incorporate time dependencies and non-linearities.

Ouyang (Ouyang, 2014) later outlined six approaches he had identified to modelling and simulation. These reflect Rinaldi’s classification, but arguably go a step further and subsume some of Rinaldi’s categories into a more general schema.

Table 2: Categories of modelling and simulation framework Category Description Empirical approaches Analyse critical infrastructure interdependencies

according to historical accident/disaster data and expert experience. Failure patterns, strength metrics, risk analysis, risk minimisation alternatives.

Agent-based approaches Envisions complex adaptive system. Bottom-up method assumes complex behaviour/phenomena emerge from simpler individual autonomous agent interactions. Agents modelled to interact with each other and environment based on simple sets of rules.

System dynamics based approaches Top-down modelling involving feedback, stock and flow concepts.

Economic theory based approaches Situated within market economy framework. Goods/services, labour/capital exchanged. Critical infrastructure systems seen as ‘intermediate goods’ and analysed using economic interdependencies. Models used include Input-Output models (IO) and Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Models.

Network based approaches Critical infrastructure systems described as networks in which different components represented by nodes, with links representing physical/relational etc. connections between these. Topology and flow based methods used to model connection behaviours and patterns.

Other approaches Hierarchical Holographic Modelling High Level Architecture Petri Net Dynamic Control System Theory Bayesian methods

Another strength of Ouyang’s paper is that, he evaluates the modelling techniques in terms of a number of criteria. These consider which approach can be used effectively with which types of interdependencies, how much data is needed for each and how accessible this data is, what the computational cost of each approach is, how well developed or ‘mature’ the approach was at the time of writing (2014). He also usefully attempts to categorise all of these approaches in terms of how they can be used to ensure infrastructure resilience, which he categorises as a combination of resistant, absorptive and restorative capacity.

Using these efforts as a template, the present review attempted to classify and identify research themes across the set of items included in the review. Many of these items were theoretical papers that helped to define or conceptualise interdependencies, their uses and how they are modelled, and these include the papers that were just discussed above. Other papers included case studies or methodological papers applying one or more methods to particular infrastructure frameworks. These papers have all been published over a timeline starting in 2001, the date not being a coincidence. Although the importance of better understanding and managing critical infrastructures is an older project, with research beginning in the early 1980s and picking up through the 1990s (Satumtira & Dueñas-Osorio, 2010) with the advent of attacks on critical infrastructure in the US (Clinton, 1998), the terrorist attacks on September 11 2001 this year in New York lent a new criticality to this research in the years that followed. Indeed, the framework for the Rinaldi typology lay in a conference presentation given by his colleagues running over September 10-11 organised as a quick response to events of that year (Peerenboom et al., 2001). Although a number of papers do accord due importance to security issues, the understanding of the importance of interdependencies has expanded to include many other environments. The graph below illustrates the trend in publishing since the first paper in 2001.

The mean number of articles published per year is 3.65. There seems to be a trend in which more articles in this set have been published in more recent years. Discounting 2018, which has not yet finished, the first 8 years saw an average of 2.38 articles published, and the subsequent 8, 5.25 articles. Articles were published in the journal listed in the graph below. Journals contributing to the review by frequency:

21

2 2 2

5

2

3 3 3

2

5 5

8

7

9

1

2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Articles by Year

There were 50 articles drawn from journals. Most journals contributed one article, although two came from The Bridge and from Natural Hazards, six from the Journal of Structural Engineering and nine from the largest contributor, Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Twelve items of the 62 were from other sources, with three items being reports, two book chapters and seven from conferences or symposia. These are listed in the table below:

Non-journal articles: Reports 1 by Institution of Civil Engineers, UK

1 from Argonne National Laboratory, USA 1 from International Centre for Infrastructure Futures, UK

Book Chapters 1 Chapter from Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security 1 Chapter from Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research

Conferences or Symposia 1 Paper presented at International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security 1 Paper presented at International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 1 Paper presented at International Symposium of Next Generation Infrastructure, Australia. 1 from Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Urban Sustainability & Resilience 1 from Proceedings of Security in Critical Infrastructures Today

11111111111111111

61111

2111

9111

2111

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Applied Energy

Contract

Energy Journal

European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure…

IEEE Control Systems Magazine

IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,…

International Journal of Complexity in Applied Science…

Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering

Journal of Industrial Ecology

Journal of Structural Engineering

Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering

Natural Hazards

OR Spectrum

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems

The Bridge

Urban Studies

Number of items

1 from Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference 1 from Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

As for the location of the research studies conducted, there is a prevalence for US-based studies (26 or 42% of the studies), with the UK next (8 or 13%), but otherwise there is a fairly wide selection of countries represented. 18 studies did not list a country (29%) and 5 listed multiple countries (8%). This is illustrated in the graph below:

Characterising the research: Considering the research question regarding how interdependencies have been defined and modelled in the literature, it would be expected that both theoretical material on definitions and methodological material covering modelling would be included in the set of final papers reviewed, and indeed this was the case. There were 19 theoretical papers discussing aspects of interdependencies, 39 discussing modelling or simulation approaches, and 4 that did both.Type of paper Number of papers Theoretical 19 (31% of total) Methodological 39 (63% of total) Both of the above 4 (6 % of total)

Interdependencies: There were many different types of interdependencies identified in the literature. The table below lists these and the frequencies identified in the various papers: Types of interdependencies Count Physical interdependency 40Cyber interdependency 24Geographic interdependency 40Logical interdependency 24Functional and spatial 11Horizontal 2Multiple 3Vertical 2Wallace types 2Other 9Geospatial 6Policy 4

Informational 7Input 5Mutual 3Co-located 5Shared 3Exclusive-Or 3Organisational interdependency 2Societal 4Interdependency opportunities 2Managerial 2Environmental 1Operational 3Budgetary 4Economic market supply and demand 7Digital interdependency 1Buehne framework 1Duedenhoeffer et al Mathematic formalisation of interdependencies 1PESTLE framework 1Internal interdependency 1External interdependency 1Interdependency matrix typology 1Synergistic and substitutive interdependencies 1

Another manner of understanding interdependencies is according to the environment they are situated in. The following table lists the different environments found for interdependencies in the review: Environment Count Economic 24Legal or regulatory 8Technical 24Social or political 20Health or safety 7Security 20Public policy 11Business 7Ecological impact 29None of the codes above 1

In terms of infrastructure, this review focused on a specific set of infrastructure sectors, namely water, waste, energy, transport and telecommunications, meaning that only papers focusing on one or more of these sectors was included. Nevertheless, among these papers there were also other infrastructure sectors represented, as can be seen below:

Infrastructure characteristics are also an important framework through which to understand critical infrastructures, and the following were found in the papers included in the review:

Also of interest were the state of operation, the type of failure and coupling and response behaviour, categories found in a number of, although not all of, the papers. These are listed in the tables below: State of operation Count Normal 3Repair or restoration 12Stressed or disrupted 10None of the codes above 46

Type of failure Count Common cause 4Coupling strength as indicator of probability of coupling damage 1Cascading 19Escalating 5Inoperability 3Nojima and Kameda 1996 2Yao et al 2004 1None of the codes above 40

Coupling and response behaviour Count Adaptive 4Coupling damage 1Inflexible 2

Loose or tight 4Linear or complex 2Functional coupling via network topology 1Stochastic association 1None of the codes above 55

A few papers focused specifically on resilience, and enumerated different frameworks for understanding resilience. These are outlined below: Resilience focus Count Resist, Absorb, Recover model 1Absorption, adaptation, recovery model 1Robustness 4Redundancy 1Resourcefulness 1Rapidity 1Robustness, vulnerability, recovery 1None of the codes above 56

Modelling and simulation approaches: Although there are a number of categories that can be used to organise similar approaches, as listed in Table 2 above, there were a large amount of modelling, simulation and other frameworks found in the papers. Some of these have been placed into the above tabulated categories, but not all of them. This is due to the large number of different approaches, paper authors not stating the categorisation for their approach, or uncertainty about which category to place these into. Model or method for understanding interdependencies Count Agent-based modelling or simulation 11Aggregate supply and demand tools 1Artificial data sets 1Carbon emission reduction model 1Cascade effects 9Case analysis 1Cost-benefit analysis 2Cross-correlation functions 1Data issues 2Data mining 1Decision making tools 5Dependency curves 1Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) 1Dynamic mixed integer algorithm 1Emergency Management Strategies 1Empirical 4Expected consequence modelling 1Expert interviews 3Flood frequency analysis 1Gas flow equations - Partial Differential Equations 1Generalised sequential pattern (GSP) discovery algorithm 1Genetic algorithms 2GIS visualisation 4

Graph theory 3Hierarchy modelling 1High Level Architecture (HLA) 3Hybrid systems 5Hypothetical extraction method 1Income multipliers 1Industrial symbiosis networks 1Influence diagramming 1Infrastructure disruption model using optimization techniques 1Infrastructure failure interdependencies model 1Input-output models 11Interactive workshop 4Interdependence Fragility Algorithm (IFA) 1Interdependency matrices 2Interdependency planning and management framework (IP&MF) 2Interdependency strength 1Joint interdependency matrices 1Joint restoration strategy 1Key linkages analysis 1Knowledge discovery process 1Latent-class residential community choice model 1Level of analysis considerations 2Lifeline systems 3Linear time invariant model 1Literature review 6Machine learning 1Market-based economic approach 4Markov models 3Mathematical model 5Matrix mapping 1Megaprojects 2Mixed qualitative and quantitative methods 2Monte Carlo simulation 3Network models 21Nonlinear dynamics 1Nonlinear optimization algorithms 1Optimisation procedures 1PESTLE framework 1Petri net 3Physics-based models 1Preliminary interdependency analysis 1Probabilistic analysis 3Political sovereignty 1Population mobility models 1Predictive 4Qualitative models 1Reliability Block Analysis 1Research programme evaluation 1

Resilience factor model 1Resilience quantification metric 1Retooling strategy 1Risk mitigation 6Scenario planning 1Secondary datasets 2Security-constrained unit commitment model 1Seismic damage propagation model 1Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) model 1Software 19Stakeholder engagement 3Stochastic process 5Survey instruments 2Survivability and dependability 1Sustainability 2System dynamics model 9Systemic safety management model 1System reliability theory 1Targeted attacks framework 6Topological complex weighted graphs 1Value creation 1Vulnerability assessment 11Water stress 1None of the codes above 0

Conclusions: Interdependency research is a mature, yet still unintegrated field. A number of scholars have discussed the need for integrating understanding of infrastructure interdependencies, to construct a ‘common language’ of understanding and escape from disciplinary silos, many have also noted that this is a difficult task. However, it is argued here that this is not insurmountable, and that adopting a complex systems framework, as indeed a number of researchers in this review have, holds promise in terms not only of integrating our understanding of infrastructure interdependencies, but also of creating new ways of working with them and even shifting the debate from one merely focused on risk mitigation to one focused on opportunities. With regard to further research, it can be seen that while there has been fairly extensive study of systemic interdependencies, there are large gaps in one of the areas identified as of relevance – that of behavioural and human influences. As recognised by Saidi et al (Saidi et al., 2018), work remains to be done in this area. Survey instruments represent one of the potential avenues for understanding, and questionnaires addressing the attitudes and behaviour of both experts and members of the public regarding these sectors could prove a fruitful avenue for further research. Arguably, however, research on behaviour change with regard to infrastructure sectors already represents a particular area of research that is already abundant and can be integrated into our understanding by means of reframing existing work and replicating it in an interdependency framework.

References: List of references included in systematic review:

Alam U, Dione O, and Jeffrey P. (2011). Hydrology vs sovereignty: managing the

hydrological interdependency of international rivers. Water Policy, 13(3), pp.425-442.

Bloomfield Robin E, Popov Peter, Salako Kizito, Stankovic Vladimir, and Wright David.

(2017). Preliminary interdependency analysis: An approach to support critical-infrastructure

risk-assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 167, pp.198-217.

Carhart Neil, and Rosenberg Ges. (2016). A framework for characterising infrastructure

interdependencies. International Journal of Complexity in Applied Science and Technology,

1(1), pp.35-60.

Chertkov Michael, Backhaus Scott, and Lebedev Vladimir. (2015). Cascading of fluctuations

in interdependent energy infrastructures: Gas-grid coupling. Applied Energy, 160, pp.541-

551.

Chou Chien-Cheng, and Tseng Ssu-Min. (2010). Collection and Analysis of Critical

Infrastructure Interdependency Relationships. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,

24(6), pp.539-547.

Dudenhoeffer Donald, Permann May, and Manic Milos. (2006). CIMS: A Framework for

Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling and Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Winter

Simulation Conference. : IEEE, pp.478-485. Available at:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4117643/.

Eusgeld Irene, Nan Cen, and Dietz Sven. (2011). “System-of-systems” approach for

interdependent critical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(6),

pp.679-686.

Faust K M, Abraham D M, and DeLaurentis D. (2017). Coupled Human and Water

Infrastructure Systems Sector Interdependencies: Framework Evaluating the Impact of Cities

Experiencing Urban Decline. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 143(8),

pp.1-17.

Grafius D, Varga Liz, and Jude Simon. (2017). Infrastructure Interdependency opportunities.

In: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Urban Sustainability & Resilience. : ,

pp.1-7. .

Haimes Y Y, Horowitz B M, Lambert J H, Santos J R, Lian C Y, and Crowther K G. (2005).

Inoperability Input-Output Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Sectors. I: Theory and

Methodology. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(2), pp.67-79.

Hasan S, and Foliente G. (2015). Modeling infrastructure system interdependencies and

socioeconomic impacts of failure in extreme events: emerging R&D challenges. Natural

Hazards, 78(3), pp.2143-2168.

Heller M. (2001). Interdependencies in civil infrastructure systems. The Bridge, 31(4), pp.9-

15.

Heracleous C, Kolios P, Panayiotou C G, Ellinas G, and Polycarpou M M. (2017). Hybrid

systems modeling for critical infrastructures interdependency analysis. Reliability


Institution of Civil Engineers. (2013). Infrastructure Interdependencies Timelines. London:

Engineering the Future, pp.1-17. Available at:

http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/responses/etf-infrastructure-interdependencies-report.

Islam T, and Moselhi O. (2012). Modeling Geospatial Interdependence for Integrated

Municipal Infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 18(2), pp.68-74.

Johannson J, and Hassell H. (2010). An approach for modelling interdependent infrastructures

in the context of vulnerability analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 95(12),

pp.1335-1344.

Kelly S, Tyler P, and Crawford-Brown D. (2016). Exploring Vulnerability and

Interdependency of UK Infrastructure Using Key-Linkages Analysis. Networks & Spatial

Economics, 16(3), pp.865-892.

Krishnamurthy V, Kwasinski A, and Duenas-Osorio L. (2016). Comparison of Power and

Telecommunications Dependencies and Interdependencies in the 2011 Tohoku and 2010

Maule Earthquakes. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 22(3), pp.1-16.

Laprie Jean-Claude, Kanoun Karama, and Kaâniche Mohamed. (2007). Modelling

Interdependencies between the Electricity and Information Infrastructures. In: International

Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer,

pp.54-67. Available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.4107.pdf.

Lee II Earl E, Mitchell John E, and Wallace William A. (2007). Restoration of services in

interdependent infrastructure systems: A network flows approach. IEEE Transactions on

Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, and Part C (Applications and Reviews), 37(6), pp.1303-1317.

Li T, Eremia M, and Shahidehpour M. (2008). Interdependency of Natural Gas Network and

Power System Security. Ieee Transactions on Power Systems, 23(4), pp.1817-1824.

Li Y, and Shi L. (2015). The Resilience of Interdependent Industrial Symbiosis Networks A

Case of Yixing Economic and Technological Development Zone. Journal of Industrial

Ecology, 19(2), pp.264-273.

Loggins R A, and Wallace W A. (2015). Rapid Assessment of Hurricane Damage and

Disruption to Interdependent Civil Infrastructure Systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

21(4), pp.1-12.

Lu Z M, Crittenden J, Southworth F, and Dunham-Jones E. (2017). An integrated framework

for managing the complex interdependence between infrastructures and the socioeconomic

environment: An application in metropolitan Atlanta. Urban Studies, 54(12), pp.2874-2893.

McDaniels T, Chang S, Peterson K, Mikawoz J, and Reed D. (2007). Empirical Framework

for Characterizing Infrastructure Failure Interdependencies. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

13(3), pp.175-184.

Min H S. J, Beyeler W, Brown T, Son Y J, and Jones A T. (2007). Toward modeling and

simulation of critical national infrastructure interdependencies. Iie Transactions, 39(1), pp.57-

71.

Min O Y. (2017). A mathematical framework to optimize resilience of interdependent critical

infrastructure systems under spatially localized attacks. European Journal of Operational

Research, 262(3), pp.1072-1084.

Nan C, and Sansavini G. (2017). A quantitative method for assessing resilience of

interdependent infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 157, pp.35-53.

Ntalampiras Stavros, Soupionis Yannis, and Giannopoulos Georgios. (2015). A fault

diagnosis system for interdependent critical infrastructures based on HMMs. Reliability


Omidvar B, Malekshah M H, and Omidvar H. (2014). Failure risk assessment of

interdependent infrastructures against earthquake, a Petri net approach: case study-power and

water distribution networks. Natural Hazards, 71(3), pp.1971-1993.

O'Rourke T D. (2007). Critical infrastructure, interdependencies, and resilience. The Bridge,

37(1), pp.22-29.



Ouyang Min, and Wang Zhenghua. (2015). Resilience assessment of interdependent

infrastructure systems: With a focus on joint restoration modeling and analysis. Reliability


Pant R, Hall J W, and Blainey S P. (2016). Vulnerability assessment framework for

interdependent critical infrastructures: case-study for Great Britain's rail network. European

Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 16(1), pp.174-194.

Papadakis I S, and Kleindorfer P R. (2005). Optimizing infrastructure network maintenance

when benefits are interdependent. OR Spectrum, 27(1), pp.63-84.


Interdependency Modeling: A survey of US and international research. : Idaho National

Laboratory, Technical Support Working Group, DOE, pp.1-116. .

Petit Fréderic, Verner Duane, Brannegan David, Buehring William, and Dickinson David.

(2015). Analysis of Critical Infrastructure Dependencies and Interdependencies. : Argonne

National Laboratory, pp.1-38. Available at:

http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2015/06/111906.pdf.

Poudineh R, and Jamasb T. (2017). Electricity Supply Interruptions: Sectoral

Interdependencies and the Cost of Energy Not Served for the Scottish Economy. Energy

Journal, 38(1), pp.51-76.

Prezelj I, and Ziberna A. (2013). Consequence-, time- and interdependency-based risk

assessment in the field of critical infrastructure. Risk Management-an International Journal,

15(2), pp.100-131.

Reed D, Wang S Q, Kapur K, and Zheng C. (2016). Systems-Based Approach to

Interdependent Electric Power Delivery and Telecommunications Infrastructure Resilience

Subject to Weather-Related Hazards. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8), pp.1-13.

Rinaldi Steven M. (2004). Modeling and simulating critical infrastructures and their

interdependencies. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences. : IEEE, pp.1-8. Available at: files/121/Rinaldi - 2004 - Modeling and simulating

critical infrastructures a.pdf files/99/1265180.html.


understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems

Magazine, 21(6), pp.11-25.

Rosenberg Ges, and Carhart Neil. (2013). A Systems-based Approach to Creating Value from

Infrastructure Interdependencies. In: Paper presented at International Symposium of Next

Generation Infrastructure, Australia.. : , pp.1-15. Available at:

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=isngi2013

file:///Z:/Interdependencies project/3.11.17/Carhart reference list/A Systems-based Approach

to Creating Value from Infrastructure In.pdf.

Rosenberg Ges, Carhart Neil, Edkins Andrew, and Ward John. (2014). Development of a

Proposed Interdependency Planning and Management Framework. Bristol, UK: International

Centre for Infrastructure Futures, pp.1-76. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1455020/.

Rueda Diego F, and Calle Eusebi. (2017). Using interdependency matrices to mitigate

targeted attacks on interdependent networks: A case study involving a power grid and

backbone telecommunications networks. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure

Protection, 16, pp.3-12.

Saidi Saeid, Kattan Lina, Jayasinghe Poornima, Hettiaratchi Patrick, and Taron Joshua.

(2018). Integrated infrastructure systems—A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, pp.1-

11.

Sanchez Jose, Caire Raphael, and HadjSaid N. (2013). ICT and Electric Power Systems

Interdependencies Modeling. In: Proceedings of Security in Critical Infrastructures Today. : ,

pp.5-10. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6661648.

Santella N, Steinberg L J, and Parks K. (2009). Decision Making for Extreme Events:

Modeling Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies to Aid Mitigation and Response Planning.

Review of Policy Research, 26(4), pp.409-422.

Santos-Reyes J, Padilla-Perez D, and Beard A N. (2015). Modeling Critical Infrastructure

Interdependency: The Case of the Mexico City Metro Transport System. Human and

Ecological Risk Assessment, 21(5), pp.1428-1444.

Satumtira Gesara, and Dueñas-Osorio Leonardo. (2010). Synthesis of Modeling and

Simulation Methods on Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies Research. In:

Gopalakrishnan K, and Peeta S, ed., Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems.

Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.1-51.

Stapelberg Rudolph. (2008). Infrastructure systems interdependencies and risk informed

decision making ( RIDM ): impact scenario analysis of infrastructure risks induced by natural

, technological and intentional hazards. Journal of Systemics, and Cybernetics and

Informatics, 6(5), pp.21-27.

Sultana S, and Chen Z. (2009). Modeling flood induced interdependencies among

hydroelectricity generating infrastructures. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11),

pp.3272-3282.

Szimba E, and Rothengatter W. (2012). Spending Scarce Funds More Efficiently-Including

the Pattern of Interdependence in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

18(4), pp.242-251.

Val D V, Holden R, and Nodwell S. (2014). Probabilistic analysis of interdependent

infrastructures subjected to weather-related hazards. Civil Engineering and Environmental

Systems, 31(2), pp.140-152.

Wallace W A, Mendonça D, Lee E, Mitchell J, and Chow J. (2003). Managing Disruptions to

Critical Interdependent Infrastructures in the context of the 2001 World Trade Centre Attack.

In: Monday J L, ed., Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research.

Boulder, CO.: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, pp.1-37.

Wang Jianwei, Jiang Chen, and Qian Jianfei. (2014). Robustness of interdependent networks

with different link patterns against cascading failures. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and

its Applications, 393, pp.535-541.

Wu B C, Tang A P, and Wu J. (2016). Modeling cascading failures in interdependent

infrastructures under terrorist attacks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 147, pp.1-8.

Wu J, and Duenas-Osorio L. (2013). Calibration and Validation of a Seismic Damage

Propagation Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Systems. Earthquake Spectra, 29(3),

pp.1021-1041.

Zhang P C, and Peeta S. (2011). A generalized modeling framework to analyze

interdependencies among infrastructure systems. Transportation Research Part B-


Zhang Y L, Yang N D, and Lall U. (2016). Modeling and simulation of the vulnerability of

interdependent power-water infrastructure networks to cascading failures. Journal of Systems

Science and Systems Engineering, 25(1), pp.102-118.

Zimmerman Rae. (2009). Understanding the Implications of Critical Infrastructure

Interdependencies for Water. In: Voeller John G, ed., Wiley Handbook of Science and

Technology for Homeland Security. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.1-15.

References cited in paper: Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., & Thomas, J. (2012). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S.

Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 107–134). London: SAGE.

Carhart, N., & Rosenberg, G. (2016). A framework for characterising infrastructure interdependencies. International Journal of Complexity in Applied Science and Technology, 1(1), 35. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJCAST.2016.10002359

Clinton, B. (1998). Presidential directive 63: Critical Infrastructure Protection (PDD 63). Eusgeld, I., Nan, C., & Dietz, S. (2011). “System-of-systems” approach for interdependent

critical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(6), 679–686. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2010.12.010

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. (D. Gough, J. Thomas, & S. Oliver, Eds.). London: Sage.

Ouyang, M. (2014). Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems TL - 121. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 121 VN-, 4360. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.040

Pederson, P., Dudenhoeffer, D., Hartley, S., & Permann, M. (2006). Critical infrastructure interdependency modeling: a survey of US and international research. Idaho National Laboratory, (August), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.2172/911792

Peerenboom, J., Fischer, R., & Whitfield, R. (2001). Recovering from disruptions of interdependent critical infrastructures. In Prepared for CRIS/DRM/IIIT/NSF Workshop on “Mitigating the Vulnerability of Critical Infrastructures to Catastrophic Failures.”Alexandria, VA.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Synthesizing the evidence. In Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (pp. 164–214). Blackwell Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.3.244

Rinaldi, S. M. (2004). Modeling and simulating critical infrastructures and their interdependencies. In 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the (p. 8 pp.). http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265180

Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. K. (2001). Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(6), 11–25. http://doi.org/10.1109/37.969131

Saidi, S., Kattan, L., Jayasinghe, P., Hettiaratchi, P., & Taron, J. (2018). Integrated infrastructure systems—A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2017.09.022

Satumtira, G., & Dueñas-Osorio, L. (2010). Synthesis of Modeling and Simulation Methods on Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies Research. In K. Gopalakrishnan & S. Peeta (Eds.), Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems (pp. 1–51). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11405-2_1

Wallace, W. A., Mendonça, D., Lee, E., Mitchell, J., & Chow, J. (2003). Managing Disruptions to Critical Interdependent Infrastructures in the context of the 2001 World Trade Centre Attack. In J. L. Monday (Ed.), Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research. Boulder, CO.: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center.

Zhang, P., & Peeta, S. (2011). A generalized modeling framework to analyze interdependencies among infrastructure systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45(3), 553–579. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRB.2010.10.001

Zimmerman, R. (2004). Decision-making and the vulnerability of interdependent critical infrastructure. Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 5, 4059–4063. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2004.1401166

Appendix 3 – Presentations from Event

21/06/2018

1

Interdependencies

ENCORE Infrastructure Interdependencies Workshop - 25 January 2018Imperial College London

2

Introduction to Interdependencies

Dictionary definition:

interdependencenoun

plural noun: interdependencies

1. the dependence of two or more people or things on each other.: "the new economic

interdependence of the two nations".

21/06/2018

2

3


Council for Science and Technology:A National Infrastructure for the 21st

Century• Recognised the interdependence of

infrastructure networks

• Saw interdependencies as both

risks AND opportunities for

resilience and cost saving

4


Engineering the Future report Infrastructure, Engineering and Climate Change Adaptation• Started to develop interdependency

mapping

• Many climate change risks were

interdependencies and outside of

the control of individual sectors

21/06/2018

3

5


Engineering the Future report Infrastructure Interdependencies Timelines

• Looked across all Govt

Infrastructure projects /policies

• Looked for obvious

interdependencies between policies

• Recommended more join-up

6

21/06/2018

4

7

Messy and Wicked problems

● Messy problems are characterized by Systems Complexity.

● Wicked problems by Behavioral Complexity.

● Interdependencies are a key component of Messy and Wicked Problems

Hancock, D, 2017

8

The question about Interdependencies

1. Infrastructure is definitely a Messy problem, probably a Wicked problem when regulation, markets and policy are taken into account.

2. Interdependencies are crucial to the normal functioning of the wider system.

BUT - Do they represent a Risk or an Opportunity?

AND - Do we understand them enough to know which?

21/06/2018

5

9

History

Infrastructure Interdependencies are not new - However:● Recognition surged around 2000● Citations still rising exponentially

10

Infrastructure: network of networks

Electric

Oil

Water

Transportation

Natural Gas

Telecom

Financial Markets

Fuels, Lubricants

SCADA, Communications

SCAD

A, C

omm

unic

atio

ns

SCAD

A,

Com

mun

icat

ions

Fuel for Generators, Lubricants

Fuels, Lubricants

Fuel for Generators

Power for Pumping Stations, Storage, Control Systems

Power for Pump and Lift Stations, Control Systems

Power for Compressors, Storage, Control Systems

Fuel for Generators

Shipping

Shi

ppin

g

Fuel Transport, Shipping

Rinaldi et al., 2001

21/06/2018

6

11 Enter the presentation's title using the menu option View > Header and Footer

Resilience

12

Resilience

Verizon Building 9/11

● 70,000 copper pairs severed

● 4 digital switches

● 17,000 optical lines

● 4.4m data circuits

● 41,600m3 water inundated

● PATH tunnels flooded

● NY Telecoms severely disrupted

21/06/2018

7

13

UK Interdependency Research

1. Driven by researchers with Systems Engineeringbackground

2. Recognises substantial benefits from understanding and managing interdependencies

3. Emphasis on interdependencies in new, large projects rather than managing existing infrastructure/assets

4. Based on understanding and managing interdependencies at the earliest possible stage of project delivery.

14

ITRC and NISMod

1. The Infrastructure Transitions Research Consortium (ITRC) developed the National Infrastructure Systems Model (NISMod)

2. Computer model of major infrastructure systems in UK with interdependencies

3. Used to study UK infrastructure responses to climate change and other externalities over time, but worked with IPA to look at interdependent resilience and the impact of the Infrastructure Pipeline

21/06/2018

8

15

Hotspot analysis - ITRC

16

IP&MF

1. In 2012, IUK sponsored a joint research project by Bristol University and UCL.

2. Created the Interdependency Planning and Management Framework (IP&MF)

3. Evidence base provided through UCL OMEGA Centre expertise on major projects

4. Case studies included● Northern Line Extension● HS2● Lower Thames Crossing

21/06/2018

9

17

IP&MF - Output

1. Categorization of Interdependency Types

2. Tool for mapping and understanding interdependencies

3. Three main elements:● Problem Structuring● Measurement and Appraisal● Creating Stakeholder

Understanding

18

IP&MF - Output

1. Models of infrastructure as a system of systems

2. Need to understand the services that infrastructure provides to society in the policy context

3. Three key layers to consider

21/06/2018

10

19

IP&MF - Output

1. Types of interdependency are important to consider

2. Some are avoidable and increase risk inherently

3. Some provide opportunities for joint delivery

Interdependency Characteristic

Physical Interdependency/Dependency

Digital Interdependency/Dependency

Geographic Interdependency/Dependency

Organisational Interdependency/Dependency

20

IP&MF - Lano n2

1. The key tool to emerge from the IP&MF work was the development of the Interdependency Matrix

2. Based on early 1970s work by Robert Lano3. Original purpose was to identify and engineer-out

interdependencies in spacecraft systems to make satellites more resilient.

4. Applied at a project level, but as a tool to identify and manage

21/06/2018

11

21

22

Valuing Infrastructure Spend

1. Using IP&MF has the potential to improve projects, highlight risks and opportunities

2. Identify conditions within which they become important

3. identify the value of resultant impacts in terms of costs and benefits

21/06/2018

12

23

Larger Scale

1. The Oxford - Milton Keynes - Cambridge Corridor presents a really good opportunity to use these tools

2. Already complex with multiple investments over a 2.5m acre area.

3. Huge number of stakeholders4. Transport solutions affect housing opportunities and vice-

versa.

24

21/06/2018

13

25

NIC StudyOverarching strategy will need to account for recommendations made by NIC.Question: Is the strategy the government’s response to the NIC or are these different products?Action: Need close dialogue between NIC and programme team.

NIC Report may recommend particular routes, stations, frequency of services etc for East West Rail and Expressway projects.Action: DfT and the overall programme needs to be prepared to respond to recommendations.Question: Would announcements risk harming land value capture prospects?

NIC Report may recommend particular locations for expanded or new settlements.Action: DCLG and the overall programme needs to be prepared to respond to recommendations.Question: Would announcements risk harming land value capture prospects?

NIC Study may make particular recommendations for water, utilities, broadband, etc.Action: programme needs to quickly define the scope of ‘other infrastructure’ and begin to establish issues and solutions, working with BEIS, Defra and DCMS .

NIC may make recommendations on land value capture.Action: programme needs to be prepared with government response.Specific announcements could harm land value capture potential.Action: dialogue with NIC to avoid losing opportunities for LVC.

NIC Study remit includes economic growth, but most dialogue to date has been on infrastructure and housing.Action: to explore how NIC is handling economic growth, as their recommendations could be accounted for by wider IS/clusters work.

NIC’s recommendations for infrastructure and housing would need to be delivered buy the planning system.Action: planning work stream to consider what governance and planning mechanisms would be needed to deliver NIC recommendations.

NIC has close links with local places, and its line of thinking could influence what places aim for through deals.

Given its remit the NIC will make recommendations independent of the government’s strategy, but they may be more successful if they take account of government intentions and priorities.Action: Need close dialogue between NIC and programme team.

Overarching Strategy

Overarching strategy will specify new settlements; areas of major housing growth; areas of new businesses. This will influence transport infrastructure plans.

Overall strategy will dictate housing locations. E.g. are we primarily increasing employment in the corridor rather than supporting employment in London?

NIC study takes evidence from government and non-government bodies.Action: DfT ensures NIC has correct range of information on transport schemes, opportunities and constraints to carry out its work.

Some sections or road & rail strategy are settled (western section of EW Rail is an existing line & the central section is limited by landscape. Expressway will run along upgraded portions of the A34, A421 & A428.) New transport links and junctions will be constrained by economic viability.

Transport•New housing development must take full advantage of East-West rail expansion and Expressway.•Feasibility of different route options for E/W railway and Expressway will dictate potential for increasing housing supply through new settlements/urban densification/urban extension will dictate most suitable routes of E/W railways and Expressway (e.g. if have fewer station stops – does that mean we need fewer but larger settlements?)

•Road & rail network will dictate location and effectiveness of new wider infrastructure developments.•East-West rail and Expressway expansions will provide opportunities for new sites and investment.

The announcement and construction of new transport links will result in uplift in land values.Details on Route and stations will be included in public consultation documents.



Feasibility of increasing housing supply through new settlements/urban densification/urban extension will dictate general approach to corridor.

Feasibility of increasing housing supply through new settlements/urban densification/urban extension will dictate most suitable routes of E/W railways and Expressway (e.g. do you have a transport spine or multiple transport routes?).

HousingWider Infrastructure investment must be directed with consideration towards housing sites. e.g. weak network in-between towns could lead to high reinforcement costs for new self-contained communities.

Planning permission grants for new housing development present opportunities for LVC.

Potential for home building will impact success of clusters (e.g. Oxfordshire’s low affordability –does this threaten long term viability of Life Science cluster?).

Establishing strategies for meeting house-building targets will be key deliverable for Place-based deals.

East-West Rail and Expressway must integrate optimally with new planned infrastructural assets. Plans for new rail station at Calvert would, for example, be dependent on all other planned infrastructure; the area currently having none.

•New housing sites must integrate with new utility infrastructure. New housing sites may need to be located within existing settlements if networks outside them are weak.•The capacity of existing infrastructure must also be considered (e.g. concerns flagged in OXIS report for Oxfordshire’s electricity capacity if promised

Other Infrastructure

Wider infrastructure investment will be a major factor for place-based deals, particularly as part of remit to cultivate sense of place and regional identity.

Opportunities for capturing land value uplift for funding East West Rail, Expressway and A1 upgrade are critical. Funding for these projects is not committed beyond 2019.

•LVC will be major financial factor towards development of new housing sites. Sites with higher potential for LVC will be key focus.•Publication/public discussion of potential housing sites will limit potential for LVC.

Land Value Capture and Private Finance

LVC mechanisms that government is willing to devolve may form key part of deals with areas (e.g. Oxfordshire have asked for this) .

Rail and road links and junctions must consider geographic & economic clusters to ensure that these areas are optimally served. E.g. commuter routes.

•Ensure housing work packages are framed in the context of industrial strategy directive.•Clusters will direct where new housing should be built (e.g. need to be easily commutable to key hubs of Oxford and Cambridge) .

Industrial strategy directive may establish hard targets or specific vision, which will need to be directly incorporated into infrastructure work package. Industrial

Strategy and Clusters

Clusters are a core feature of the economic geography of each place-based deal. The No. 10 directive to use a Cluster-centric framework to identify and promote regional growth will likely share objectives with place-based deals.

New road/rail networks will span breadth of corridor’s Local Authority jurisdictions.

•Place-based deals will establish housing need and plans/sites in concert with Local Authorities.•Housing delivery will in some cases rely on changes to governance (e.g. the need for a Joint Statutory Spatial Plan for Oxfordshire).

Planning and Governance

The Government’s preference for governance along the Corridor will be a major consideration in establishing the terms of the place-based deals.

Size & location of new settlements and new local road networks (first/last mile) will impact road & rail strategy.

•Place-based deals will be key deliverer of housing objective.•Potential for housing delivery will dictate place prioritisation .

Input from Local Authorities, collected during place-based deals will inform strategy towards infrastructure need/ambition.

LVC mechanisms that government is willing to devolve may form key part of deals with areas (e.g. Oxfordshire have asked for this) .

Place-basedDeals

26

Any Questions

21/06/2018

1

Infrastructure interdependencies–

a systematic literature reviewWarren Greig

Cranfield University

ENCORE NetworkInterdependencies Workshop25 January 2018

© Cranfield University 2018

www.cranfield.ac.uk/som

2

Outline

I will:

- Describe the structure of the review, which is a work in progress.

- Focus on key, informative papers:

These capture important themes in understanding types of interdependencies and ways of modelling and simulating them.


21/06/2018

2

3

Plan

• Structure of the SLR

• Description of SLR steps

• Findings – Key readings and themes

• Further development, synthesis and research opportunities


4

Systematising the review

• Based on guidelines including Gough et al 2012, Petticrew and Roberts 2006.

• First step is to formulate a research question

• In order to design search strings and conduct valid searches

• Then come mapping, screening and coding studies, followed by synthesis

• Used EPPI-Reviewer Systematic Review software for conducting the review

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage.Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing.


21/06/2018

3

5

Guiding question

How have infrastructure interdependencies been defined and modelled in the literature?


6

Searching for relevant items

• Need to search for ‘interdependencies’ and synonymous terms

• As well as searching for models and frameworks of understanding

• While keeping the search relevant to the infrastructure sectors of interest – for us, these were energy, transport, telecommunications, waste and water.


21/06/2018

4

7

Quick definition: Interdependency

• Rinaldi 2004:

“An interdependency is a bidirectional relationship between infrastructures through which the state of each infrastructure is influenced by or correlated to the state of the other”


8

Quick definitions: Infrastructure

• From Saidi et al 2018 (Drawing on Allen, 1999):

“systems that organise and manage complex systems of flows, movement and exchange”

• Or ‘critical infrastructures’, from Rinaldi 2004 (Drawing from the USA Patriot Act, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001):

… “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States* that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters”

*Of course, here replace ‘United States’ with the UK or another country of your choice!


21/06/2018

5

9

Conducting the search

• A combined strategy – using targeted search strings, feedback from peers and ‘snowballing strategy’

• Used Web of Science for searches due to coverage of engineering and technology sectors

• Search results saved as .ris files and uploaded to EPPI-Reviewer for screening and coding


10

Search strings

Refined in stages- By topic- By inclusion/exclusion of fields- In consultation with Information Specialist


21/06/2018

6

11

Flow diagram

Search database

(WoS)

Output –data

retrieved(1451 items)

Title and abstract

screeningExclude Include

(350 items)

Include(70 items)

ExcludeFull text

screening

Included documents

Descriptive data extraction

Descriptive coding

Thematic and emergent coding

SynthesisSLR

Duplicate removal

(ca. 40 items)

Start

1411 items were screened based on their Titles and Abstracts.

70 were found to be relevant to our question

350 made it to the ‘second round’ of

screening based on the full text

versions of the documents.

End© Cranfield University 2018

12

Key papers for this presentation

• Rinaldi Steven M, Peerenboom James P, and Kelly Terrence K. (2001). Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(6), pp.11-25.

• Rinaldi Steven M. (2004). Modeling and simulating critical infrastructures and their interdependencies. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004 pp.1-8. Available at: files/121/Rinaldi - 2004 - Modeling and simulating critical infrastructures a.pdf files/99/1265180.html.

• Pederson P, Dudenhoeffer D, Hartley S, and Permann M. (2006). Critical Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling: A survey of US and international research. Prepared for the Technical Support Working Group Under Work For Others Agreement, DOE Idaho Operations Office (August), pp1-126.

• Ouyang Min. (2014). Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 121, pp.43-60.

• Saidi Saeid, Kattan Lina, Jayasinghe Poornima, Hettiaratchi Patrick, and Taron Joshua. (2018 ). Integrated infrastructure systems—A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, pp.1-11.


21/06/2018

7

13

Classic interdependency typology: Rinaldi 2001

Types of interdependencies : Logical, Geographic, Cyber, Physical

Physical: Two infrastructures are physically dependent if the state of each depends on the material output(s) of the other. Physical interdependencies arise from physical linkages or connections among elements of the infrastructures.

Cyber: An infrastructure has a cyber interdependency if its state depends on information transmitted through the information infrastructure. The computerization and automation of modern infrastructures and widespread use of supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems have led to pervasive cyber interdependencies.

Logical: Two infrastructures and logically interdependent of the state of each depends upon the state of the other via some mechanism that is not a physical, cyber or geographic connection. For example, various policy, legal or regulatory regimes can give rise to logical linkage among two or more infrastructures.

Geographic: Infrastructures are geographically interdependent if a local environmental event can create state changes in all of them. This implies close spatial proximity of elements of different infrastructures, such as collocated elements of different infrastructures in a common right-of-way.


14

Illustration of interdependent Chains of influence and nth-order effects

From Rinaldi, Peerenboom and Kelly 2001© Cranfield University 2018

21/06/2018

8

15

Factors affecting interdependency analysis: Rinaldi 2004

• Time scales

• Geographic scales

• Cascading and higher order effects

• Social/psychological elements

• Operational procedures

• Business policies

• Restoration and recovery policies

• Government regulatory, legal, policy regimes

• Stakeholder concerns


16

Activities for protecting critical infrastructures (USA): Rinaldi 2004

• Integrate modelling, simulation and analysis

• Develop long and short term economic models re effects of terror attacks

• Develop critical node/chokepoint and interdependency analysis capabilities

• Model interdependencies among sectors with respect to conflicts between sector alert and warning procedures and actions

• Conduct integrated risk modelling of cyber and physical threats, vulnerabilities and consequences

• Develop models to improve information integration


21/06/2018

9

17

Modelling interdependencies 1: Rinaldi 2004

6 general modelling/simulation approaches:

1. Aggregate supply and demand tools

2. Dynamic simulations

3. Agent-based models

4. Physics-based models

5. Population mobility models

6. Leontief Input-Output models


18

Modelling interdependencies 2: Pederson et al 2006

• Report attempts to provide a ‘reference framework’ based on survey of available tools.

• Report (126 pages) is notable for description of individual methodologies and the research groups involved with them.

• Provides informative tables detailing the modelling approaches, categorised by infrastructures, modelling/simulation techniques, integrated vs coupled models, hardware/software requirements (for running programmes), intended users and maturity levels (of development of programmes). Separate tabulated notes also provide more information on the programmes.


21/06/2018

10

19

Summaries and descriptions of modelling approaches Pederson et al. 2006


Subsample – table of modelling approaches

Brief tabulated notes to supplement the first

table

Bulk of report consists of more detailed notes on each

program/approach

20

Interdependency typology

• Different (expanded) typology:

5 types: Physical, informational, geospatial, policy/procedural, societal.

Type Explanation

Physical Physical inter-reliance between different components

Informational Informational or control requirement between components, e.g. relianceof managing process on control systems

Geospatial Relationship due to proximity of components

Policy/procedural Policy or procedure where event or state changes to one component have effect on another

Societal Effect component event has on societal factors e.g. attitudes, anxiety, cultural changes

Pederson et al. 2006 expanded interdependency typology


21/06/2018

11

21

Recommendations: Pederson et al. 2006

•Authors note that there is ‘No cross program working group’ for working on critical infrastructure interdependencies.

•Recommend that such work take place at national or international level, i.e. formal/informal working group with central focus on infrastructure interdependency.


22

Ouyang 2014

• Comprehensive review of interdependency types and modelling/simulation approaches (including ‘review-of-reviews’)

• Provides a comparative perspective on modelling approaches using ‘resilience’ as an organising concept

• Identifies 6 modelling and simulation frameworks:

1. Empirical approaches

2. Agent-based approaches

3. System dynamics based approaches

4. Economic theory based approaches

5. Network based approaches

6. Other approaches


21/06/2018

12

23

A summary of interdependency types in Ouyang 2014

Authors Interdependency types Definitions

Rinaldi et al. PhysicalCyberGeographicLogical

The state of one infrastructure system is dependent on the material output(s) of another infrastructure systemThe state of one infrastructure system depends on information transmitted through the information infrastructureA local environmental event can create state changes in two or more infrastructure systemsThe state of on infrastructure system depends on the state of others via a mechanism that is not physical, cyber or geographic

Zimmerman FunctionalSpatial

The operation of one infrastructure system is necessary for the operation of another infrastructure systemIt refers to proximity between infrastructure systems

Dudenhoeffer et al. PhysicalGeospatialPolicyInformational

There are direct linkages between infrastructure systems from a supply/consumption/production relationshipThere is co-location of infrastructure components within the same footprintThere is a binding of infrastructure components due to policy or high level decisionsThere is a binding or reliance on information flow between infrastructure systems

Wallace et al. Input

MutualShared

Exclusive ir (XOR)

The infrastructure systems require as input one or more services from another infrastructure system in order to provide some other serviceAt least one of the activities of each infrastructure system is dependent upon each of the other infrastructure systemsSome physical components or activities of the infrastructure systems used in providing the services are ahared with one or more other infrastructure systemsOnly one of two or more services can be provided by an infrastructure system, where XOR can occur within a single infrastructure system or among two or more systemsComponents of two or more systems are situated within a prescribed geographical region

Zhang and Peeta Functional

Physical

Budgetary

Market and economic

The functioning of one system requires inputs from another system, or can be substituted, to a certain extent, by the other systemInfrastructure systems are coupled through shared physical attributes, so that a strong linkage exists when infrastructure systems share flow right of way, leading to joint capacity constraintsInfrastructure systems involve some level of public financing, especially under a centrally-controlled economy or during disaster recoveryInfrastructure systems interact with each other in the same economic system or serve the same end users who determine the final demand for each commodity/service subject to budget constraints, or are in the shared regulatory environment where the government agencies may control and impact the individual systems through policy, legislation or financial means such as taxation or investment

24

Which type? Ouyang 2014

Argues that Rinaldi’s typology is the most self-contained, based on a classification exercise for a number of real-life infrastructure interdependency examples.


21/06/2018

13

25

Modelling/simulation frameworks compared: Ouyang 2014


26

Strategies for improving resilience: Ouyang 2014


21/06/2018

14

27

Saidi et al. 2018

• Discuss interdependencies in the context of trying to develop an account of ‘integrated infrastructure systems’

• Emphasise interdependency types and definitions, complex network abstractions and differen modelling and simulation techniques. Emphasis on networks and particularly ‘multi-layered networks’.

• Present an ‘infrastructure interdependency matrix’ to illustrate mapping of implementation, utilisation and integration/lack of integration among infrastructure systems.

• Argue that most modelling focuses on the short term an extreme events, and that longer term scenario and policy planning efforts are needed


28

Illustration of integrated, multi-layered network of interdependencies between (civil) sectors: Saidi 2018


21/06/2018

15

29

Scale of integration: Saidi 2018

• The interdependency matrix on the following pages includes literature with real-life case studies or that discuss practical applications of infrastructure systems.

• The table includes civil, social and ecological environments, methods used, focus of studies and relative scales of integration, as follows:

1. No integration within or among civil infrastructure systems

2. High level integration within one civil infrastructure systems

3. Detailed level integration within a single civil infrastructure systems

4. High level integration within multiple civil infrastructure systems

5. Detailed level integration within multiple civil infrastructure systems


30

Interdependency Matrix: Saidi et al 2018


Lists 23 studies involving civil infrastructure

Organised by:

- Author and year- Civil entities (transport, energy, waternwaste, telecom,)- Ecology (urban form, land, climate)- Social structures (economic system, community)- Scale of integration- Method used- Focus of study

21/06/2018

16

31

Calls for further research: Saidi et al 2018

•Need for longer-term models e.g. scenario planning

•A call for more social and behavioural models to be included – e.g. looking at behavioural trends, preferences, perceptions and responses to infrastructure. Would add to complexity of scenarios, but represents an essential component of understanding.


32

Discussion

•The review papers mentioned summarise interdependency research effectively, as well as discussing outstanding issues

•More integration is needed, as well as cross-party working groups –cross-sector, nationally and internationally

•There are systemic elements that have not been integrated into models or conceptualised within interdependencies effectively, such as the social and behavioural levels – hopefully we will discuss aspects of these in our workshop!


reference date: feasibility study outcomes preparation overview · reference: urms 143938 date:...

Documents