Constructs in infrastructure resilience framing – from components to community services and the built and human infrastructures on which they rely
Constructs in infrastructure resilience framing – from components to community services and the built and human infrastructures on which they rely
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/24725854.2022.2070801
复制
发表时间：
2022-05
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Elise Miller-Hooks
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Elise Miller-Hooks
摘要本文介绍了框架基础设施弹性估算的五个构造。这些构造范围从对单个组件的考虑到通过一组功能依赖于相互依存的支持生命线的建筑物提供的社区服务。一个关键目的是探索采用的结构如何影响弹性理解。它讨论了围绕建筑环境而不是围绕构建系统本身提供的服务的弹性计算的价值。如果不是人类参与和其他需要的资源，则建筑环境几乎不会提供服务。扩展了框架弹性的构造，以纳入人类作为基础设施的作用，以及永久且易于限制的资源在创造服务能力中。采用基于服务的观点会导致视角变化，并带有波动的影响。它影响了测量弹性，适应性策略的指标选择，包括评估中包括的基线以及建筑环境的要素以纳入评估。它需要考虑社会技术问题。它还将隐藏的不平等问题带到了前景。本文表明，许多弹性研究的基本是框架弹性的隐含结构，并探讨了该结构如何影响并能够使弹性理解。
Abstract This article describes five constructs for framing infrastructure resilience estimation. These constructs range from the consideration of a single component to a community service provided through a set of buildings whose functionality relies on interdependent supporting lifelines. A key aim is to explore how the construct that is adopted affects resilience understanding. It discusses the value of reframing the resilience computation around services that are provided by built environments rather than around the built systems themselves. The built environment would provide little in the way of services if not for human involvement and other needed resources. A construct for framing resilience is expanded to incorporate the role of humans as infrastructure, as well as permanent and consumable limiting resources, in creating service capacity. Taking a service-based viewpoint induces a change in perspective with rippling impact. It affects the choice of metrics for measuring resilience, adaptation strategies to include in assessment, baselines for comparison, and elements of the built environment to incorporate in the evaluation. It necessitates consideration of socio-technical concerns. It also brings hidden issues of inequity to the foreground. This article suggests that underlying many resilience studies is an implicit construct for framing resilience, and explores how the construct affects and enables resilience understanding.