Integrated Perspectives on Sustainable Infrastructures for Cities and Military Installations

  • M. Merad
  • T. J. Wilbanks
  • L. Halfaoui
  • A. Marcomini
  • C. ST. John
  • A. Tkachuk
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


Central to all cities, communities, and military installations is the sustainability of infrastructures. Because infrastructures are intensely interconnected and interdependent, their sustainability is rooted in “systems of systems,” subject to cascading impacts as disruptions of one infrastructure spread to other infrastructures. As a result, assuring sustainable infrastructures requires an integrated perspective, recognizing not only connections between infrastructures but also connections between their sustainability and a wide range of threats and other driving forces, including but not limited to climate change. In most cases, such an integrated approach calls for broadening organizational practices to make them more participative, as well as strengthening the base of knowledge and technologies related to cross-sectoral infrastructure resilience.


Extreme Weather Event Infrastructure System Infrastructure Service Integrate Perspective Military Installation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    ORNL (2012) Climate change and infrastructure, urban systems, and vulnerabilities, Technical report to the US Department of Energy in support of the National Climate Assessment, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 29 Feb 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ORNL (2012) Climate change and energy supply and use, Technical Report to the US Department of Energy in support of the National Climate Assessment, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 29 Feb 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dechy N, Bourdeaux T, Ayrault N, Kordek M-A, Le Coze J-C (2004) First lessons of the Toulouse ammonium nitrate disaster, 21st September 2001, AZF plant, France. J Hazard Mater 111(2004):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jahn T, Becker E, Keil F, Schramm E (2009) Understanding social-ecological systems: frontier research for sustainable development. Implications for European Research Policy. Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norberg J, Cumming GS (2008) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sitarz DD (ed) (1994) Agenda 21: the earth summit strategy to save our planet. Earth Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sust Dev 13(1):38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merad M (2011) Processus d’aide à la décision en gestion des risques -de la conduite du processus d’expertise à sa gouvernance. Thèse d’habilitation à diriger les recherches (HDR). Université paris ix-dauphineGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilbanks T (1994) ‘Sustainable development’ in geographic context. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 84:541–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilbanks T, Kates R (2010) Beyond adapting to climate change: Embedding adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(4):719–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    NAS (2011) America’s climate choices. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 118 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    NSB (Naval Studies Board) (2011) National security implications of climate change for U.S. Naval forces. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith W et al (2012) Climate change planning for military installations: findings and implications. Noblis, Falls ChurchGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith A, Voβ JP, Grin J (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective, and its challenges. Res Pol 39:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SAP 4.5 (CCSP) (2007) Effects of climate change on energy production and use in the United States, a report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the subcommittee on Global Change Research [Wilbanks TJ et al (eds)], Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington DC, 160 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    NSF (National Science Foundation) (2009) NSF solving the puzzle: researching the impacts of climate change around the world. NSF, BallstonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peerenboom JP, Fisher RE, Whitfield R (2001) Recovering from disruptions of interdependent critical infrastructures, presented at the CRIS/DRM/IIIT/NSF workshop. Alexandria. 10–11 Sept 2001.
  18. 18.
    DEFRA Report (2011) Climate resilient infrastructure: preparing for a changing climate, synthesis of the independent studies commissioned by the Government’s Infrastructure & Adaptation Project.
  19. 19.
    Rosato V et al (2008) Modeling interdependent infrastructures using interacting dynamical models. Int J Crit Infrastruct 4:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hadjsaid M et al (2010) Interdependencies of coupled heterogeneous infrastructures: the case of ICT and energy. In: IDRC Davos 2010, 3rd international disaster and risk conference, Davos.
  21. 21.
    Wheeler TB, Hare MG (2011) Hurricane Irene leaves sewage spills in wake, The Baltimore sun, September 2.
  22. 22.
    Webster PJ, Holland GJ, Curry JA, Chang JR (2005) Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment, Science, New York. Available in pdf format by searching Google by author and titleGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brown T, Beyele W, Barton D (2004) Assessing infrastructure interdependencies: the challenge of risk analysis for complex adaptive systems. Int J Crit Infrastruct 1(1):108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (1997) Critical foundations: protecting America’s infrastructures, October.
  25. 25.
    Warner K et al (2009) In search of Shelter: mapping the effects of climate change on displacement and migration, a joint effort of the United Nations University Institute for Environment and human security, CARE International, and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at the Earth Institute of Columbia University.
  26. 26.
    Energy Sector Control Systems Working Group (2011) Roadmap to achieve energy delivery systems cybersecurity, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chillymanjaro (2011) San Diego power outage caused 2 million gallons of raw sewage spilled into Los Penasquitos Lagoon and Sweetwater River, Pollution. 9 Sept 2011.
  28. 28.
    Water Sector Coordinating Council Cyber Security Working Group (2008) Roadmap to secure control systems in the water sector.
  29. 29.
    U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (2004) Final report on the August 14, 2003 blackout in the United States and Canada: causes and recommendations, AprilGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Myers CA, Slack T, Singelmann J (2008) Social vulnerability and migration in the wake of disaster: the case of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Popul and Environ 29:271–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Titus JG, Richman C (2001) Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: modeled elevations along the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climate Res 18:205–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilbanks T (2012) Opportunities to improve the resilience of national infrastructures to all hazards. Presented on behalf of the Argonne National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory to the Infrastructure Subcommittee, Homeland and National Security Committee, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington DC, 13 Mar 2012Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Merad M, Dechy N, Marcel F (2011) Adapting participative governance framework for the implementation of a sustainable development plan within an Organization. Ouvrage collectif coordonné par Karl HA, Flaxman M, Vargas-Moreno JC, Lynn Scarlett P. Restoring and Sustaining Lands: Coordinating Science, Politics, and Action. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    NRC-National Research Council of the National Academies (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Panel on public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. In: Dietz T, Stern PC (eds) Committee on the human dimensions of global change. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tkachuk A, Thorne S, Butte G, Williams L, Kovacs D, Linkov I, Levchenko V, Decision Partners LLC, USACE ERDC (2012) Simulation systems software tools for achieving sustainability. SRA annual meeting. San Francisco, 9–12 Dec 2012Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kates R, Travis W, Wilbanks T (2012) Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. In: Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS), April 2012Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    IPCC SREX (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. In: IPCC, 2012- Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Available from Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8RU England, 582 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Merad
    • 1
  • T. J. Wilbanks
    • 2
  • L. Halfaoui
    • 3
  • A. Marcomini
    • 4
  • C. ST. John
    • 5
  • A. Tkachuk
    • 6
  1. 1.INERISVerneuil-en-HalatteFrance
  2. 2.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.CEI-HALFAOUITlemcenAlgeria
  4. 4.Universitá Ca’Foscari VeneziaVeniceItaly
  5. 5.U.S. Navy Task Force Climate Change, US Naval ObservatoryBostonUSA
  6. 6.Decision PartnersBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations