WATER AND WASTEWATER POINT: RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AN ERA OF CLIMATE EXTREMES, DIGITAL RISK, AND GLOBAL UNCERTAINTY

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

In a world where floods disrupt cities, cyberattacks target utilities, and heatwaves overwhelm buildings, our infrastructure can no longer afford to be rigid. True resilience means adaptability. This article calls for a global shift in how we build—not just to endure but to evolve. Could you share it, discuss it, and act on it? Resilience is not optional anymore—it is survival.

1. Foundations of Resilience

What if the strongest infrastructure is not built from steel and concrete, but from foresight, equity, and ecosystems? As the climate turns volatile, systems crash under pressure, and vulnerabilities multiply, we stand at a defining threshold. The chapter opens a window into the urgent reinvention of resilience: not as a reaction to the crisis, but as a blueprint for surviving tomorrow—woven with data, rooted in nature, governed with inclusion, and financed with purpose.

In these opening pages, we confront a new reality: resilience is no longer a luxury but a lifeline. The chapter lays the foundation for a future where infrastructure is adaptive, nature-powered, digitally intelligent, and socially just. It invites us to move beyond outdated paradigms of durability and embrace a living system—where strength lies in flexibility and survival is shared. The memories we build into our systems today will define the stories we tell tomorrow.

To translate vision into action, we begin by examining the mounting pressures that demand a new infrastructure paradigm—where Resilience is not an aspiration but a necessity

1.1 The New Urgency: Rethinking Infrastructure in a Disrupted World

Infrastructure systems are under increasing strain as the world faces an intensifying convergence of climate extremes, technological disruptions, and socio-political uncertainty. Traditional notions of strength—measured in concrete, steel, and static design—are no longer sufficient. Today, resilience requires dynamic systems that integrate flexibility, equity, and environmental stewardship (Goh et al., 2024; Hallegatte & Li, 2022).

Transformation is not merely technical. It is a cultural and strategic shift in how we plan, finance, and govern the built environment. Resilience must become a foundational principle, guiding infrastructure to endure disruptions while co-delivering health, ecological, and economic benefits for communities.

1.2 Expanding the Resilience Toolbox: Nature, Technology, and Governance

Resilience is not one-dimensional. It includes digital systems that spot dangers as they happen, nature-based solutions (NbS) that help repair ecosystems and handle city risks, and policies that promote teamwork among different areas (Silva et al., 2022; Kopanaki, 2022). Urban forests, green roofs, and bioswales are now vital components of flood and heat mitigation. When coupled with digital twins and AI-based predictive tools, infrastructure becomes both intelligent and regenerative (Olanrewaju & Lazzaro, 2023).

However, effective governance is necessary for these innovations. Integrated governance allows for coordination at different levels, involvement from the community, and learning across various fields—key elements for building resilience in water, energy, transport, and digital systems.

However, innovation without funding is an empty promise. For Resilience to move from blueprint to buildout, we must turn to the systems that enable it: finance and policy

1.3 Equitable Financing and Policy Alignment: Making Resilience Real

Even the most advanced designs mean little without financial backing. Green bonds, climate adaptation funds, and blended public-private investments are essential for scaling infrastructure upgrades—especially in under-resourced regions. Innovative financing mechanisms link capital to measurable risk-reduction outcomes (Anderson & Gough, 2021; Koch & Kelly, 2023).

At the same time, resilience must be built on equitable policy. Disadvantaged communities—those most affected by climate shocks—must be central to infrastructure decisions. Planning must shift from top-down to participatory, ensuring inclusive access to safe, adaptable systems (Scharte, 2024; Kimic & Ostrysz, 2021).

1.4 Learning, Adapting, Empowering: A Cultural Shift

Resilient infrastructure depends as much on mindsets as materials. Public education, stakeholder engagement, and local leadership are critical to fostering a culture of preparedness. When citizens understand climate risks and see their role in response systems, resilience becomes collective (Wu, 2021; Kong et al., 2019).

Ultimately, resilience is not just about bouncing back; it is about bouncing forward. It is the ability to learn, evolve, and build systems that thrive amid uncertainty. An overview sets the stage for deeper exploration of the tools, models, and principles shaping tomorrow's infrastructure.

Resilient infrastructure is about remembering what broke, who was left behind, and what must never be repeated. The future is shaped by the memories embedded in our designs, policies, and values. In a fractured world, remembering is a radical act of reconstruction.

The chapter closes with a call to remember—not as nostalgia, but as strategy. By embedding memory into our infrastructure planning—through inclusive governance, ecosystem integration, data-driven anticipation, and equitable investment—we build more than systems; we build trust, continuity, and future belonging. Resilience, in view, is a collective memory made real: one that adapts, protects, and uplifts in an era of global uncertainty. The blueprint begins here.

Having laid the foundations of Resilience—technical, social, and ecological—we now turn to a more profound question: how can Resilience evolve? What does it mean to redesign infrastructure not as a wall against chaos but as a living system that anticipates, learns, and grows

2. Redefining Resilience

What happens when the walls we trust begin to crack—not from neglect but from a world evolving too fast for old foundations? In the 21st century, infrastructure is no longer just about steel and concrete; it is about systems that think, adapt, and grow. The chapter invites readers to reimagine resilience not as brute endurance but as intelligent flexibility. From modular energy grids to data-driven flood barriers, we are entering an era where strength lies in agility, interconnection, and foresight.

Chapter sets the stage for a profound shift in how we conceive, construct, and care for the systems that support modern life. Resilience is no longer just a technical feature; it is a moral and strategic imperative. By looking into backup systems, flexible designs, and how different infrastructures work together, the introduction shows how adaptable systems can handle multiple risks and support communities. Here begins a new narrative—where resilience is not a response to crisis but a design philosophy for thriving in a world of uncertainty.

2.1 From Strength to Adaptability: The New Face of Resilience

Historically, resilience in infrastructure was equated with brute strength—massive concrete barriers, steel reinforcements, and rigid forms designed to withstand physical shocks. However, in an era marked by climate change, cyber threats, and complex supply chain disruptions, resilience has evolved into a multi-dimensional paradigm that emphasizes adaptability, redundancy, modularity, and interconnectivity (Arhun et al., 2025; Sanne et al., 2021).

Modern infrastructure must do more than resist; it must anticipate, absorb, recover from, and evolve after aftershocks. Transformation requires systems that isolate failures, reroute functions, and restore services with minimal disruption. The pivot from static fortifications to adaptive systems is not just architectural but strategic, reflecting a broader shift toward designing infrastructure that thrives under uncertainty (Broniatowski, 2017).

2.2 Comparative Table: Traditional vs. Modern Resilience Attributes

Attribute	Traditional Resilience	Modern Resilience
Design Philosophy	Rigid, Strength-based	Flexible, Adaptive
Failure Response	Reactive	Predictive & Preventive
System Connectivity	Isolated	Interconnected and Networked
Component Structure	Monolithic	Modular and Interchangeable
Recovery Approach	Singular Focus (repair)	Multifaceted (learn, adapt, recover)
Community Integration	Top-down	Participatory and Inclusive

2.3 Redundancy and Modularity: Building Layers of Protection

Redundancy is a cornerstone of resilient infrastructure, offering fallback options when primary systems falter. In power grids, the term could mean auxiliary generators, transportation, alternate routes, data infrastructure, and mirrored systems (Xan & Aletras, 2019; Markolf et al., 2018). Such backups reduce systemic vulnerability and ensure operational continuity during crises.

Modularity furthers resilience by enabling systems to be reconfigured rapidly in response to changing needs. For instance, modular flood defenses can be deployed or scaled quickly to meet storm surges. In energy, modular microgrids allow regions to disconnect from failing central systems and operate independently (Keating et al., 2017).

2.4 Community-Scale Modularity

In underserved communities, modular sanitation hubs and decentralized water purification systems represent a bottom-up application of the principle. Similarly, microgrids powered by solar or biogas offer localized, resilient energy sources that reduce dependency on vulnerable national grids. These scalable solutions are particularly vital in disaster-prone or remote regions where traditional infrastructure lags.

"Design, however, is only as strong as the relationships it fosters. True resilience requires infrastructures that do not just function in isolation but operate as part of a collaborative ecosystem."

2.5 Interconnectivity and Integrated Systems: Designing for Collaboration

Effective resilience requires seamless interplay among interconnected systems. Infrastructure must not only withstand disruption but also synchronize across sectors. Singapore's underground utility corridors exemplify the principle that when one channel fails, services are rerouted within the same network (Ahmed et al., 2024).

An integrated approach amplifies resilience across water, energy, telecom, and transport networks, allowing shared monitoring and mutual support. Such interdependence demands governance mechanisms capable of coordinating multisectoral responses during emergencies (Luo & Reimers, 2019).

2.6 Measuring Resilience: From Indicators to Innovation

Operationalizing resilience requires adaptive metrics. Rather than relying on static standards, infrastructure planners increasingly use modular indicators tailored to specific systems and local contexts (Mignacca & Locatelli, 2021). These tools allow comparative benchmarking while maintaining contextual relevance.

Emerging technologies enhance these efforts. AI and predictive analytics forecast system vulnerabilities, enabling preemptive action (Kharrazi et al., 2020). Innovative grid technologies optimize energy allocation during peak demand or disruptions. Digital twins simulate various stress scenarios, helping planners visualize cascading failures and test response protocols in advance (Gupta & Duchon, 2018).

2.7 Equity, Governance, and the Human Dimension

Without equity, resilience is incomplete. Marginalized communities often bear the brunt of infrastructure failures yet are least involved in decision-making. Inclusive planning—through participatory design processes—ensures systems meet the needs of all users, especially the most vulnerable (Manik, 2022).

Governance must evolve to support inclusivity. Multilevel collaboration across agencies, disciplines, and civil society enhances adaptive capacity. As infrastructure becomes more intelligent and integrated, policies must support transparency, community engagement, and accountability (Ajibola et al., 2020).

2.8 Toward a Living Infrastructure Ethos

Redefining Resilience involves shifting from brute force to adaptive intelligence. Infrastructures of the future must be flexible, modular, and inclusive—capable of responding to both anticipated and unforeseen challenges. As climate extremes intensify and systems grow more complex, resilience becomes not just a safeguard but a foundational principle of sustainable development.

By integrating redundancy, interconnectivity, community-scale modularity, and equitable governance, societies can future-proof their infrastructure in a rapidly evolving risk landscape. Redefinition invites a new ethos: resilience not as an endpoint but as a living, adaptive process embedded into every layer of planning and implementation.

The future does not demand that we build harder—it asks us to tomaked wiser. Our memories of cascading failures, inequities in disaster response, and brittle systems must become the blueprint for transformation. Resilience is no longer a fallback plan—it is the forward path. The challenge is not to avoid disruption but to embrace complexity with designs that remember, adapt, and evolve.

As we close the foundational chapter, one truth is clear: Resilience is no longer just a property of infrastructure—it is a promise we make to future generations. It is a memory captured in design, a principle embedded in governance, and a value that demands inclusive, intelligent, and integrative approaches. Redefinition of Resilience marks the beginning of a movement where infrastructures serve not just function but also fairness, foresight, and collective survival. The following chapters build on legacy—carrying memory forward as a strategy.

As infrastructure evolves to become modular, inclusive, and interconnected, we confront a harsher truth: Resilience is no longer about preventing disruption; it is about coexisting with it. The upcoming chapter delves into the need for engineering to adapt to unpredictability.

3. Designing for Extremes: Engineering for the Unpredictable Subtitle: When Infrastructure Meets the Unexpected

What happens when infrastructure encounters unimaginable challenges? As climate patterns break norms and environmental extremes become the new standard, yesterday's design models no longer suffice. The chapter opens with a pressing question How do we engineer cities not just to survive disasters—but to dance with them? From Jakarta's adjustable seawalls to Japan's seismic-swaying bridges, the future demands infrastructure that moves with uncertainty, not against it.

The unpredictability of our climate is not a distant threat; it is a design constraint of the present. The chapter explores the evolution of engineering from rigid structures to fluid systems that respond to heat waves, floods, earthquakes, and rising seas. Through innovations like floodable parks, elevated highways, and passive cooling architecture, cities are rewriting the rules of resilience. The blueprint is no longer about resisting nature; it is about designing with it.

3.1 Climate Uncertainty and the Shift in Design Thinking

Climate extremes have disrupted conventional assumptions of durability in infrastructure design. No longer can cities rely solely on static engineering principles that prioritize physical strength. Instead, resilience today requires infrastructure to anticipate disruption, absorb shocks, and respond dynamically to uncertainty (Kim et al., 2022; Fernandez-Perez et al., 2024). Transformation signals a shift from rigidity to adaptability, emphasizing solutions such as floodable parks, elevated highways, passive cooling systems, and hybrid infrastructure models.

Adaptive designs now integrate both green and grey solutions. These approaches protect against floods and heatwaves and promote ecological sustainability, reduce emissions, and improve public health outcomes. The focus is on building systems that adjust to evolving threats rather than resisting them.

3.2 Infrastructure in Action: Innovations for a Shifting Climate

Cities like Rotterdam and Tokyo exemplify the shift. Elevated roadways, for instance, protect essential mobility during extreme flooding while integrating intelligent drainage systems for rapid water discharge (Janiszek & Krzysztofik, 2023). Meanwhile, Japan's seismic-adaptive bridges sway with tectonic shifts, reducing structural damage during earthquakes and improving public safety (Garmabaki et al., 2021).

Floodable parks offer dual-use benefits, serving as recreational spaces during dry weather and flood retention zones during storms (Cheng, 2016). These designs illustrate how multifunctional infrastructure can mitigate climate risks while enhancing urban livability and green space access. Passive cooling systems further reduce dependence on air conditioning and lower energy costs while preventing heat-related illnesses during climate extremes (Ha et al., 2017; Lykou et al., 2017). Jakarta's adaptive sea walls demonstrate how design must iterate in response to rising sea levels. With features such as adjustable height and real-time drainage integration, these barriers highlight the importance of constant adaptation to future scenarios (Liu et al., 2022).

3.3 Equity in Design: Who Benefits from Resilience?

While advanced infrastructure holds immense promise, evaluating its equity implications requires a critical lens. Who has access to these adaptive designs? Are elevated roadways serving wealthy districts while isolating low-income neighborhoods? Do floodable parks replace previously inhabited informal settlements, displacing communities under the guise of climate adaptation?

Affordability and inclusion remain persistent challenges. Many resilient technologies are deployed in high-income areas, while vulnerable communities face aging infrastructure and slow adaptation responses. Bridging the gap requires equity-centered planning and participatory decision-making.

Equity in design is only the first step. Equitable access—where resilience reaches every corner of the city—is where justice meets implementation."

3.4 Equity in Access to Urban Resilience

Urban resilience must be democratized. Community engagement ensures that solutions in infrastructure planning—from designing floodable parks to placing microgrids— reflect local needs and priorities. Inclusive infrastructure means providing cooling centers in underserved neighborhoods, maintaining accessible elevated roadways, and integrating affordable, modular retrofits in social housing. Equity is not an optional feature of resilience; it is its ethical core (Aljoufie & Tiwari, 2015; Manik, 2022).

3.5 Co-benefits of Climate-Responsive Infrastructure

Beyond their immediate protective function, climate-resilient designs deliver broad co-benefits. Passive cooling and green roofs, for example, lower heat stress and reduce hospital visits during extreme temperatures. Permeable pavements reduce urban runoff and groundwater contamination while beautifying streetscapes. Urban forests and bioswales filter air pollutants, improving respiratory health and urban biodiversity.

These integrated benefits amplify the case for investment in adaptive systems. Infrastructure that cools, cleans, protects, and enhances quality of life becomes a public good that justifies not just technical feasibility but moral responsibility. Hybrid green-grey designs further extend these benefits by blending ecological restoration with civil engineering, improving cost-effectiveness and resilience (Kuwae & Crooks, 2021).

3.6 Planning for the Unknown: Resilience through Flexibility

Future-proofing infrastructure requires flexible systems designed to evolve. Vulnerability assessments help planners prioritize retrofits based on exposure and sensitivity. Modular elements, such as portable flood barriers or scalable solar microgrids, allow for targeted deployment during emergencies.

Transportation networks must adapt to shifting flood zones and rising temperatures, using innovative materials and structures that can flex under pressure (Quinn et al., 2018; Lashof & Neuberger, 2023). Intelligent monitoring systems provide real-time data to guide adjustments, while green-grey approaches reduce maintenance expenses by allowing natural systems to complement built ones.

3.7 From Passive Resistance to Adaptive Empowerment

In an era of unpredictable extremes, infrastructure can no longer be passive or reactive. It must be intelligent, inclusive, and iterative—designed not only to endure shocks but butalso to support societal well-being in the process. Engineering for the unpredictable means prioritizing both innovation and equity, embedding resilience at every scale, from skyscrapers to sidewalks.

By embracing adaptive design, cities are safeguarding assets and empowering communities. The new infrastructure ethos reimagines resilience as a shared civic responsibility—a framework that defends, adapts, and uplifts in the face of uncertainty.

Infrastructure can no longer afford to be surprised. The next storm, tremor, and heatwave are not anomalies but inevitabilities. Resilient cities will be defined not by their defenses but by their willingness to rethink permanence. Adaptive design is not a luxury—it is survival rendered in steel, soil, and sensors.

As the chapter concludes, one truth becomes clear: the future of infrastructure lies in its ability to embrace unpredictability. Cities that integrate nature with engineering, embed intelligence in design, and plan not for what was—but for what might be—will lead the way. These are not just technical innovations; they are moral imperatives. Designing for extremes is not merely an engineering challenge; it is a declaration of readiness in a world where the only constant is change.

"And while steel, concrete, and sensors have their place, nature remains one of our oldest, most resilient engineers. What if our strongest future lies not in building over nature—but in building with it?"

4. Nature as Infrastructure: Hybrid Solutions for a Warming Planet

What If the Strongest Infrastructure Grew from the Ground?" In a world where cities are heating faster than they can cool, the strongest solutions might not come from concrete but rather from the soil. As climate shocks grow more intense, nature is no longer just a backdrop—it becomes infrastructure. The chapter opens with a paradigm shift from resisting nature to working with it. Mangroves, bioswales, and green roofs—these are no longer aesthetic flourishes but frontline defenses in a new era of hybrid design.

"Engineering with Life" As cities reach their limits against floods, heat waves, and rising seas, the future of resilience lies in a radical alliance—where nature meets engineering. The chapter introduces the evolving practice of hybrid infrastructure: systems that blend ecological wisdom with built strength. Through examples like floating neighborhoods in Rotterdam, living walls in urban cores, and flood-absorbing forests, we explore how nature-based infrastructure offers a scalable, cost-effective, and regenerative model for climate-resilient urban futures.

4.1 Redefining Infrastructure: Nature as a Strategic Asset

The integration of natural ecosystems into infrastructure marks a paradigm shift in urban resilience planning. Mangroves, wetlands, forest corridors, and bioswales now complement traditional grey infrastructure, providing critical ecological services while bolstering climate defenses (Carter et al., 2024; Green et al., 2016). These nature-based solutions (NbS) offer flood control, heat mitigation, and air purification while simultaneously restoring biodiversity and ecological function.

The fusion of ecology and engineering represents more than aesthetic greening; it is a strategic move toward sustainable, multifunctional systems. As climate challenges escalate, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are emerging as cost-effective, high-impact tools essential for 21st-century infrastructure.

These concepts are not theoretical. Across the globe, cities are embedding nature-based strategies into their urban fabric—with results that are both measurable and inspiring."

4.2 Synergies in Practice: From Bioswales to Floating Neighborhoods

Cities are already showcasing successful green innovations. Bioswales, for instance, help manage stormwater, cool urban microclimates, and reduce sewer overflow. In New York City, these features filter pollutants and prevent flooding while supporting urban biodiversity (Shaker et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018). Likewise, green roofs and living walls in Mexico City enhance insulation and reduce urban heat, offering both energy efficiency and aesthetic improvements (Tudorie et al., 2019).

Urban trees and rain gardens in Tokyo perform evapotranspiration functions, cooling the city and filtering air. In Rotterdam, floating neighborhoods represent a model of hybrid infrastructure that adapts to sea level rise through buoyant, storm-ready architecture (Clarke et al., 2019). These hybrid models illustrate the versatility of NbS when thoughtfully integrated into modern designs.

Global Snapshot: Cities Leading with Nature-Based Solutions

City	Innovation Type	NbS Strategy
Rotterdam	Floating neighbourhoods	Flood Resilience via buoyant infrastructure
New York City	Bioswales	Urban flood and pollution control
Tokyo	Rain gardens and trees	Heat mitigation and air purification
Singapore	Green roofs on housing	Energy savings and biodiversity
Mexico City	Living walls	Urban heat island reduction
Jakarta	Mangrove buffer zones	Coastal defence and erosion control

4.3 Limitations and Lessons: When Green Isn't Enough

Ignoring the ecological context can lead to the failure of nature-based solutions, despite their promise. Jakarta's seawall exemplifies risk. Initially built to protect against sea level rise, it faced challenges due to inadequate attention to land subsidence, exacerbated by unchecked groundwater extraction. The result is that walls built to keep water out now face the irony of sinking land behind them (LUAN et al., 2021).

Underscores a core principle in hybrid design: ecological knowledge must guide infrastructure. NbS are not plug-and-play solutions; their success depends on alignment with environmental, hydrological, and social systems.

4.4 Co-Benefits, Communities, and the Human Dimension

NbS offers profound co-benefits beyond climate defense. Green infrastructure improves public health by lowering urban heat and filtering pollutants. It increases property values and enhances social cohesion through shared green spaces. Community gardens, for example, serve ecological functions while empowering neighborhoods and strengthening food security (Shirgir et al., 2019; García et al., 2022).

Inclusive planning is essential. Engaging local communities in co-design ensures that green infrastructure reflects lived realities. Jakarta's mangrove restoration projects have achieved partial success because they involve residents in planting and maintenance. The approach builds ownership and sustainability into the infrastructure itself (Xue et al., 2024).

4.5 Conclusion: From Mitigation to Regeneration

Nature as infrastructure is no longer an option; it is an imperative. Bioswales, green roofs, forest buffers, and hybrid systems combine ecological insight with engineering precision. They regenerate degraded ecosystems while protecting urban assets, creating infrastructure that heals even as it defends.

Cities must transcend symbolic greening to achieve success. Moreover, they must, er, commit to systems then, where NbS is embedded across planning, budgeting, and policy frameworks. By aligning natural systems with human needs, hybrid infrastructure sets a course not just for resilience but for regeneration.

"We have always looked to steel for strength—now we look to roots." Steel can bend. Concrete can crack. But roots? They adapt, regrow, and restore. As the chapter comes to a close, one thing is clear: the future of resilient cities will be as alive as the people they serve. Hybrid infrastructure is not a compromise—it is a convergence of logic, legacy, and living systems. What we grow today may very well save us tomorrow.

"Nature Rebuilt as Strategy" The chapter ends with an urgent insight: resilience is no longer built solely with machines but with ecosystems. The convergence of green and grey—of bioswales , bridges, trees, and towers—is redefining how we protect, adapt, and evolve. Hybrid infrastructure offers more than protection from the elements; it restores the balance between urban ambition and ecological necessity. As cities face escalating climate pressures, embracing nature as infrastructure is not just smart—it is survival, sustainability, and memory-made material.

"Nature teaches us to adapt slowly. Technology, on the other hand, equips us to adapt instantly. As we move from bioswales to algorithms, a new frontier of resilience unfolds—one where infrastructure learns, senses, and evolves in real-time."

5. Real-Time Resilience: AI, IoT, and Predictive Systems

"What If Infrastructure Could Think?" Imagine a city that sees the storm before it arrives, feels the tremor before it shakes, and speaks in data before disaster strikes. The chapter opens at the dawn of a new era—where smart infrastructure does not just stand still but senses, learns, and reacts. Through AI, IoT, and digital twins, we are engineering systems that adapt in real time, transforming passive assets into intelligent guardians of urban life.

From Static to Sentient:" The age of reactive infrastructure is over. In its place, a new paradigm emerges: real-time resilience, where networks of sensors, algorithms, and simulations anticipate and respond to risks before they unfold. The chapter explores how technologies like AI-powered maintenance, flood-predicting models, and interconnected urban systems are reshaping cities into self-aware, self-adjusting environments. It is no longer about infrastructure built to last—it is about infrastructure built to learn and survive.

5.1 Introduction: Infrastructure That Thinks

The digital transformation of infrastructure has ushered in a new era of resilience—one characterized by situational awareness, real-time response, and predictive foresight. As urban systems face mounting risks from climate change, cyberattacks, and resource strain, artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) have become core enablers of adaptive infrastructure (Ametepey et al., 2024).

Innovative technologies allow infrastructure to "think": sensors detect flood levels, AI models forecast bridge fatigue, and digital twins simulate extreme scenarios. Evolution signifies a shift from reactive design to anticipatory governance, where data drives resilience and operational continuity.

5.2 Sensors and Simulations: The Intelligent Backbone

IoT sensors are foundational in transition. Deployed across transportation, water, and energy systems, they provide continuous feedback on performance and environmental conditions. In flood-prone zones, water-level sensors trigger drainage pumps, send alerts, and coordinate emergency responses within seconds (Kulkarni, 2020).

AI strengthens these capabilities through predictive analytics. By learning from historical data, AI can anticipate disruptions—such as structural failures or system overloads—and optimize response strategies (Nguyen et al., 2024). In Jakarta, AI-powered rainfall modeling has enhanced canal flow management, reducing flood risk in real time through dynamic adjustments (Sudhakar, 2024).

Digital twins further elevate planning precision. These virtual models mimic infrastructure under different pressures, allowing planners to spot weaknesses and try out solutions before they are put into action. Used in sectors from water to energy, digital twins offer foresight, agility, and cost-effective decision-making.

5.3 Ethical Infrastructure: Data Governance and Transparency

As infrastructure becomes intelligent, questions arise: Who owns the data? How is it used? Transparency in AI deployment is critical to public trust and ethical governance. Many predictive systems operate as proprietary "black boxes," leaving citizens unaware of how organizations decide to use personal or environmental data and handle its itsprocessing, how decisions are made, or how personal or ecological data is processed.

Governments must establish clear protocols for data ownership, sharing, and security. Infrastructure data—especially from public sensors—should be treated as a public asset. Ethical frameworks must mandate transparency in AI algorithms, particularly in decisions affecting evacuation routes, service prioritization, or risk profiling (Saravi et al., 2019).

5.4 Open vs. Proprietary: The Platform Dilemma

A critical divide exists between proprietary and open-source resilience platforms. Proprietary systems, often developed by private firms, offer advanced tools but risk vendor lock-in, opaque governance, and limited interoperability. In contrast, open-source platforms promote transparency, adaptability, and collaborative innovation.

For example, open-source GIS tools enable local governments to map climate vulnerabilities without dependence on costly software. Similarly, civic technology platforms allow communities to co-develop solutions, enhancing inclusion and system relevance. Future infrastructure must prioritize interoperability, openness, and shared innovation to balance efficiency with equity.

5.5 Engagement and Resilience Culture

A cultural one must match the technological dimension of resilience. Real-time systems increase transparency and empower citizens—but only if supported by community engagement. Dashboards, alerts, and participatory tools must be user-friendly and accessible, especially in vulnerable areas.

Cities like Pune and Seoul use real-time dashboards for waste collection, traffic flow, and water management—enhancing services and citizen trust. These tools shift resilience from government mandates to a shared civic mission (Huang & Ling, 2019).

Embedding resilience into daily life means educating communities on how to interpret data, respond to alerts, and contribute to collective safety. Public awareness campaigns, training programs, and inclusion in system design are key steps in building adaptive capacity.

5.6 Conclusion: Smart, Safe, and Shared

The integration of AI, IoT, and predictive analytics has revolutionized infrastructure design. No longer passive, urban systems can now anticipate shocks, communicate across sectors, and self-adjust in the face of disruption. However, intelligence must be transparent, inclusive, and ethically governed.

Resilience in the digital age is not just about sensing and simulating—it is about sharing power, protecting rights, and aligning technology with the public good. Cities that embrace this mindset will not only survive the next crisis but thrive in the face of it.

"The Future Does Not Wait—And Neither Should Our Infrastructure." Disasters do not issue warnings—and cities can no longer afford to operate in delay. Real-time resilience means knowing before breaking, acting before failing, and designing before the damage is done. The intelligence we embed today will decide how safely we live tomorrow.

"Intelligence Is the New Infrastructure" chapter closes with a clear message: Resilience in the modern age is built not just with materials but with memory, modeling, and machine learning. By embedding AI, IoT, and digital simulations into our infrastructure, we transform systems into living networks—capable of sensing change, predicting threats, and orchestrating swift responses. These are not optional upgrades—they are lifelines in a world where risk is constant, and the cost of inaction is growing. The future of resilience is real-time, and it starts now.

"These smart systems, however, require more than innovation—they need investment. The next frontier in resilience is not just digital—it is financial. How we fund the future determines who gets to survive it."

6. Financing the Future: Resilience Bonds, Policy Mandates, and ESG Pressure

"Can Risk Be Turned Into Opportunity?" What if investing in resilience was not just the right thing to do, but also the most profitable? As climate volatility intensifies, cities and investors are rethinking how to fund the future The chapter opens with a new equation: every dollar spent on resilient infrastructure can prevent disasters in disaster recovery. Welcome to a financial revolution—where bonds, procurement policies, and ESG mandates shift the story from damage control to proactive value creation.

"Resilience as an Asset Class" Infrastructure resilience is no longer a cost—it is a competitive advantage. In this chapter, we explore how innovative financial tools like resilience bonds, sustainability-linked procurement, and ESG-aligned investments are redefining how societies prepare for the unpredictable. As governments and private sectors converge on risk prevention, the shift transforms infrastructure from passive liability into active capital. Financing resilience is not just a wise policy—it is smart economics driven by data, ethics, and long-term returns.

6.1 Investing in Prevention: Resilience as a Financial Strategy

In an age of climate volatility and systemic risk, the ability to finance resilient infrastructure is no longer a policy aspiration—it is a financial necessity. Traditional investment models centered on post-disaster recovery are being replaced by proactive frameworks that reward prevention. Resilience bonds, insurance-linked securities, and ESG-aligned instruments are leading the change by directing money towards infrastructure that reduces risk and provides lasting benefits.

Resilience bonds function by linking investment returns to the measurable success of resilience initiatives. Studies suggest that for every dollar invested in such projects, as much as four dollars in disaster-related losses can be averted (Bednárová et al., 2021). These tools have redefined infrastructure from a sunk cost into a value-generating asset class.

6.2 ESG Integration and Green Bond Performance: Lessons from the Field

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks now shape global capital flows. Investors increasingly prioritize infrastructure projects with measurable ESG impacts, incentivizing developers to embed climate resilience, equity, and sustainability into their proposals (Dzuke & Naude, 2015; Mandala et al., 2024).

6.3 Comparative Case: A Tale of Two Green Bonds

In Germany, the federal government's 2022 green bond issuance successfully raised billions to fund railway electrification, flood prevention, and building retrofits, backed by strong governance and transparent metrics. In contrast, a 2021 green bond in Nigeria struggled to gain traction due to limited investor confidence and a lack of third-party auditing despite promising environmental goals. The divergence highlights the role of accountability, policy stability, and institutional capacity in determining bond success.

These outcomes emphasize that for green bonds to fulfill their promise, they must be underpinned by robust ESG standards, measurable targets, and inclusive governance structures.

6.4 Procurement as Policy: Embedding Resilience in Contracts

Governments are increasingly using procurement policy as a lever for sustainability. By embedding resilience benchmarks into bidding processes, they ensure that public infrastructure funding supports not just basic service delivery but also long-term environmental and social goals (Grandia et al., 2015; Lamprinidis, 2023).

Resilient procurement emphasizes lifecycle costing, performance-based contracts, and climate-aligned materials. Collaborative public-private partnerships (PPPs) can amplify these efforts by blending public oversight with private-sector efficiency and innovation (Pelša & Bāliņa, 2018).

Sidebar: Checklist for Resilient Procurement

✅ Lifecycle cost analysis
✅ ESG alignment in project scoring
✅ Climate adaptation and mitigation clauses
✅ Community benefit provisions
✅ Independent third-party verification
✅ Flexibility for future upgrades

6.5 Localizing Impact: Community Engagement and Circular Capital

Effective financing strategies are incomplete without meaningful stakeholder engagement. Community involvement enhances accountability, ensures project relevance, and helps bridge the gap between capital markets and local priorities (Kędra, 2021; Ama et al., 2023).

Circular capital models—where cost savings from resilience investments are reinvested into local infrastructure or services—further strengthen bonds. Countries adopting strong green procurement practices have seen secondary benefits, such as job creation, pollution reduction, and improved health outcomes (Demircioğlu & Vivona, 2021).

The shift marks a move from transactional infrastructure to transformational impact: financing not just for resilience but for regeneration.

"Finance becomes transformative when it reconnects with people. When every dollar invested reflects community priorities and regenerative outcomes, infrastructure becomes a vehicle for inclusive growth."

6.6 The Future of Infrastructure Finance Is Now

Resilience financing serves as a bridge between economic pragmatism and ethical obligation. Instruments like resilience bonds, ESG-aligned frameworks, and adaptive procurement policies are not just enablers of climate action—they are foundational to economic stability.

As global risks multiply, the financial sector must act as a catalyst for long-term resilience. By leveraging innovative funding tools, embedding ESG into public procurement, and empowering communities through transparent governance, we can finance a future where infrastructure protects, performs, and prospers.

"Return on Resilience Is the Return on the Future" We no longer ask if we can afford to invest in resilience. The real question is: can we afford not to? In a world shaped by disruption, every resilient bridge, seawall, and policy becomes a dividend for tomorrow—financially, socially, and environmentally.

"From Reactive Spending to Resilient Investing" The chapter closes with a bold vision: resilience financing is not a niche—it is a necessary pillar of future economies. Through resilience bonds, ESG-driven accountability, and policy-aligned procurement, we move from reactive expenditures to proactive investments. Each decision to fund resilience today safeguards economies, ecosystems, and communities tomorrow. The financial tools are here. The frameworks are forming. The returns—economic, ethical, and environmental—are undeniable. The time to finance the future is now.

"Yet no strategy, bond, or mandate can succeed without roots in the places they serve. The next chapter explores how regional action becomes the bedrock of global resilience—where frameworks become footpaths."

7. Regional Readiness: Local Policy Meets Global Strategy

"When the Global Climate Agenda Reaches the Village Gate" The promises of global climate agreements mean little if they do not materialize on the streets of Jakarta, the coastal villages of Sumatra, or the parched fields of Java. The chapter opens with a vital truth: resilience begins not in conference halls but in communities. It is in the intersection between regional readiness and global ambition that real change happens. We must translate the climate fight—policy by policy, zone by zone—into local action that saves lives, from new building codes to drought-adaptive irrigation.

"Think Globally, Act Locally—Finance Strategically" As climate disasters grow in frequency and cost, regional governments are emerging as the frontline agents of global resilience strategies. The chapter explores how frameworks like the ASEAN Resilience Strategy and COP adaptation targets are guiding national and local systems to align policy, investment, and equity. From ESG mandates to early-warning systems, we uncover how local governments are not just reacting to climate risks but actively shaping the global resilience landscape, turning strategic alignment into tangible, life-saving infrastructure.

7.1 Aligning Frameworks: Translating Global Goals into Local Implementation

In the face of escalating climate risks, the convergence of global agreements and local implementation has become essential. Regional readiness—meaning how well governments can adapt global resilience strategies to their local areas—is crucial for meeting the goals of frameworks like the COP28 Adaptation Goals and the ASEAN Resilience Strategy.

Indonesia's climate strategy, for example, aligns national infrastructure planning with global resilience targets. Through initiatives such as coastal retreat zones and drought-resistant irrigation systems, the country illustrates how transnational commitments can materialize into tangible, place-specific interventions. The model demonstrates how multilevel governance can bridge global ambition with community needs.

7.2 Infrastructure Under Threat: Making the Case for Regional Action

Approximately 90% of climate-related disasters directly impair critical infrastructure—schools, hospitals, transport, and utilities (Épule & New, 2019). These events impose not only structural costs but also human and economic economiclossess, particularly in vulnerable regions. With climate disasters exceeding $300 billion in annual damages, resilience has shifted from a technical ambition to a financial imperative (Toker et al., 2024).

Investing in regional readiness addresses both engineering and equity. Communities disproportionately affected by disaster—often low-income and under-resourced—require resilience that is locally informed and economically justified. Merging adaptation goals with financing mechanisms through ESG frameworks ensures that infrastructure planning is both socially responsible and financially viable (Nagari et al., 2023; Ayuningtyas et al., 2022).

7.3 Comparative Insight: ASEAN vs. African Union Readiness Strategies

Both the ASEAN and the African Union (AU) have developed regional resilience strategies, but implementation, enforcement, and financial capacity vary widely. A comparative lens reveals shared challenges and divergent strengths:

Feature	ASEAN Strategy	African Union Strategy
Policy Framework	ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management	Africa Climate Resilient Investment Plan
Enforcement Capacity	Moderate with country-led monitoring	Variable, dependent on external funding
Funding Mechanism	Regional plus multilateral donors	Primarily international climate finance
Implementation Gaps	Urban-rural disparities, capacity gaps	Institutional instability, data scarcity
Strengths	Regional task forces, early-warning systems	Ecosystem-based adaptation, strong civil society involvement

These insights underscore the need for scalable, flexible strategies that respect regional contexts while sharing best practices globally.

7.4 From Strategy to Infrastructure: Mechanisms for Local Uptake

Localizing resilience requires enabling policies—building codes, land use laws, and procurement guidelines—that are climate-informed and inclusive. Indonesia's updated building regulations and coastal planning zones exemplify this principle (Mauco et al., 2016).

To operationalize global strategies, cities must align ESG metrics with local procurement practices, incorporate early warning systems, and involve communities in co-designing infrastructure solutions (Aditya, 2021; Al-rawahna et al., 2018). Equity-centered urban planning becomes a conduit for resilience—not only through technology but also through governance.

Infographic Placement
"From Global Strategy to Local Infrastructure: Flow of Action"

Global Frameworks (e.g., COP28, SDGs) ⟶
Regional Policy Translation (e.g., ASEAN, AU strategies) ⟶
National Policy Alignment (e.g., Indonesia's coastal zoning law) ⟶
Local Regulation and Procurement Reform ⟶
Community-led Implementation (e.g., early-warning systems, retreat zones)

7.5 The Strategic Imperative of Localization

Regional readiness embodies the operational bridge between aspiration and action. By translating global resilience goals into policy mandates, financing frameworks, and local infrastructure standards, regions empower cities and communities to withstand escalating threats.

The path forward requires integrative approaches that combine data, finance, policy, and participation. Whether in ASEAN, the African Union, or beyond, success lies in designing systems that not only endure but also adapt, regenerate, and reflect the voices of those they serve.

Resilience is not Decreed—It is Built, Block by Block" True resilience does not trickle down—it rises from the ground up. Overall, it is not the declarations in global charters that protect communities—it is the dikes, schools, codes, and conversations rooted in local soils. The climate crisis may be global, but its solutions are intensely personal—and profoundly regional.

"From Frameworks to Footpaths" The chapter closes with a powerful insight: the strength of global climate strategies lies in their ability to adapt locally. Regional readiness is more than administrative coordination—it is a practical commitment to bridge policy and people, mandates and municipalities. When global frameworks meet local ingenuity, they form a pathway not only to resilience but also to inclusive development. In a warming world, those who localize adaptation will lead the transformation, creating cities and communities that not only survive but thrive.

"From international frameworks to grassroots action, resilience is increasingly a shared project. However, our design ethos must accelerate with the climate—toward systems that do more than survive; they must regenerate."

8. Designing for a Living Planet

"What If Infrastructure Could Evolve Like Ecosystems?" In a time when nature adapts faster than concrete can cure, the question we must ask is no longer what can we build?—but how can we make to live? The final chapter opens with a bold shift in thinking: Resilience is no longer a technical fix; it is a living philosophy. To thrive on a warming planet, we must design infrastructure not as static systems but as living frameworks—ones that bend with floods, breathe with forests, and protect not just cities but life itself.

"From Strongholds to Stewardship" Chapter reframes infrastructure from the ground up—transforming it from a symbol of domination over nature to a facilitator of co-existence. Here, we explore how aligning engineering with ecology, equity, and innovation can build more than walls against climate risk—we can build communities that flourish. Through examples from ASEAN to coastal Indonesia and frameworks like COP28, the chapter positions resilience as a journey of systems thinking, stakeholder collaboration, and ethical investment in a living, breathing world.

8.1 Rethinking Infrastructure: Toward Adaptive Systems

Designing for a living planet requires a fundamental reimagining of infrastructure, not as static assets but as dynamic, responsive systems. In an era defined by climate disruption, infrastructure must move beyond conventional engineering paradigms to embody resilience through predictive technologies, ecological harmony, and inclusive governance (Korbee et al., 2014; Cozzoli et al., 2014).

Transformation is not theoretical. Disasters have consistently exposed the fragility of systems once thought unbreakable. Hospitals, water utilities, and transit systems fail during floods, fires, and blackouts—disrupting daily life and endangering livelihoods, particularly in underserved communities (Matutini et al., 2022; Ferreira et al., 2021). Therefore, embedding resilience into infrastructure planning becomes both a moral imperative and a sound economic strategy.

8.2 Localizing Global Visions: Translating Strategy into Impact

Global frameworks such as the COP28 Adaptation Goals and the ASEAN Resilience Strategy provide blueprints for action. However, these visions must be localized through building codes, land-use reforms, and community-focused initiatives. Indonesia's national efforts—such as implementing coastal retreat zones and drought-resistant irrigation—serve as a model for translating international goals into place-based policy (Kim et al., 2020; Amaral et al., 2022).

The path forward depends on interlinking global ambition with municipal capacity. This means empowering local actors with technical knowledge, financing tools, and participatory mechanisms to lead adaptation from the ground up. Only then can infrastructure planning embody the agility and responsiveness demanded by climate uncertainties.

8.3 Equity at the Core: Infrastructure for All

True resilience cannot exist without justice. Marginalized populations, who often suffer the most from climate-related shocks, must be prioritized in infrastructure investments. Equity-centered resilience focuses not just on survival but on enabling communities to thrive (BenDor et al., 2018; Franin et al., 2016).

Participatory planning ensures local voices shape infrastructure solutions, especially when it comes to integrating nature-based systems and multifunctional green spaces When tailored to specific social contexts, these interventions not only manage environmental risks but also deliver co-benefits—health, mobility, and community cohesion (Semeraro et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2011).

8.4 From Resilience to Regeneration: Infrastructure That Heals

Living infrastructure does not merely withstand stress—it contributes to regeneration. When infrastructure supports biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and community well-being, it becomes an agent of healing. This marks a transition from sustainability as mitigation to infrastructure as a form of restoration (Ermgassen et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2024).

Achieving resilience requires collaboration across sectors—governments, businesses, and civil society—and sustained investment in systems thinking. Therefore, resilience is not a fixed end point but a continuous journey of learning, adaptation, and co-creation.

"To turn vision into practice, we need principles that guide every decision—from budget to blueprint. The following tenets define what it means to design for a living planet."

8.5 Living Infrastructure Manifesto: 10 Principles for the Future

Design with nature, not against it—integrate ecosystems into every stage of planning.
Build adaptively—prioritize modular, flexible, and scalable systems.
Prioritize justice—center the needs of marginalized communities.
Plan for uncertainty—embed foresight tools and stress-testing in all designs.
Ensure transparency—open governance and data sharing are foundational.
Think in systems—Infrastructure must be interoperable across sectors.
Enable participation—co-design infrastructure with local communities.
Value co-benefits—Design for health, equity, economy, and ecology.
Decarbonize infrastructure—Embed net-zero targets from materials to maintenance.
Foster stewardship—shift from ownership to collective responsibility.

8.6 Conclusion: Resilience as a Way of Living

Designing for a living planet is more than technical foresight—it is a cultural commitment. Resilient, inclusive, and regenerative infrastructure must become the new norm, built not just to last but to uplift and evolve.

In a decisive decade, infrastructure must answer not only to engineering excellence but also to ethical purposes. When designed with empathy and vision, infrastructure can be a foundation for human dignity, ecological healing, and climate hope for generations and those yet to come.

"We Do not Just Build for Today—We Design for the Generations We will Never Meet." True resilience is not built on concrete alone—it is written in the roots of mangroves, in the memories of flooded neighborhoods, and in the shared commitment to protect what matters most. Designing for a living planet means planning beyond the life of a project—it means preparing for the lives that depend on it.

"From Infrastructure to Interdependence" The chapter closes with clarity: Resilience is no longer a destination but a living, evolving commitment. It calls for an infrastructure that listens to local knowledge, adapts to nature, and distributes protection and prosperity equally. In vision, we no longer build against the elements—we build with them. As we face a future shaped by uncertainty, our most potent legacy will not be the structures we leave behind but the systems we create that allow life to endure, adapt, and thrive on a planet we choose to care for together.

"In the end, resilient infrastructure is not built once—it is lived, stewarded, and renewed by each generation. The legacy we leave behind is not only in the structures we raise but also in the values they carry. Let it be our blueprint—not just for survival, but for a world worth inheriting."

References

Adejola, F., Ngaunje, S., Ogunlolu, A., Aliu, U., Ajiferuke, O., Adetoro, O., Omoniwa, F., Sofolahan, O., Miju, R., Olagunju, O., Akinola, G., Tunji-Olayeni, P. (2024). Disaster resilient infrastructure: a bibliometric analysis of global research trends. *Iop Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science*, 1342.0(1), 12032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1342/1/012032

Adewusi, A., Okoli, U., Olorunsogo, T., Adaga, E., Daraojimba, D., Chimezie, O. (2024). Artificial intelligence in cybersecurity: protecting national infrastructure: a usa review. *World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews*, 21.0(1), 2263-2275. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.0313

Aditya, D. (2021). Embarking digital learning due to covid-19: are teachers ready?. *Journal of Technology and Science Education*, 11.0(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1109

Ahmed, F., Bijoy, M., Hemal, H., Noori, S. (2024). Smart aquaculture analytics: enhancing shrimp farming in bangladesh through real-time iot monitoring and predictive machine learning analysis. *Heliyon*, 10.0(17), e37330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37330

Ajibola, O., El-Gorashi, T., Elmirghani, J. (2020). A network topology for composable infrastructures. *nan*, , 2025-04-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1109/icton51198.2020.9203275

Akunyumu, S., Fugar, F., Adinyira, E. (2021). An assessment of the readiness of construction firms for international construction joint ventures (icjvs) using the verdict model. *Journal of Engineering Design and Technology*, 21.0(5), 1253-1279. https://doi.org/10.1108/jedt-04-2021-0198

Al-rawahna, A., Chen, S., Hung, C. (2018). The barriers of e-government success : an empirical study from jordan. *International Journal of Managing Public Sector Information and Communication Technologies*, 9.0(2), 2018-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijmpict.2018.9201

Alenazi, M. (2023). Enrn: a system for evaluating network resilience against natural disasters. *Mathematics*, 11.0(20), 4250. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11204250

Aljoufie, M., Tiwari, A. (2015). Climate change adaptions for urban water infrastructure in jeddah, kingdom of saudi arabia. *Journal of Sustainable Development*, 8.0(3), nan. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v8n3p52

Ama, O., Aki, T., TÄ±za, M. (2023). Implementation of public procurement standards in nigeria: challenges and prospects. *Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances*, 16.0(3), 090-098. https://doi.org/10.30574/gjeta.2023.16.3.0167

Amaral, R., Bezerra, M., Baptista, G. (2022). Landscape planning and design by identifying areas for ecological restoration based on carbon fluxes. *International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation*, 42.0(2), 318-335. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-11-2021-0148

Ametepey, S., Aigbavboa, C., Thwala, W., Addy, H. (2024). The impact of ai in sdg implementation: a delphi study. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.1544.v1

Ametepey, S., Aigbavboa, C., Thwala, W., Addy, H. (2024). The impact of ai in sustainable development goal implementation: a delphi study. *Sustainability*, 16.0(9), 3858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093858

Anderson, V., Gough, W. (2021). Nature-based cooling potential: a multi-type green infrastructure evaluation in toronto, ontario, canada. *International Journal of Biometeorology*, 66.0(2), 397-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-021-02100-5

Anderson, V., Gough, W. (2021). Harnessing the four horsemen of climate change: a framework for deep resilience, decarbonization, and planetary health in ontario, canada. *Sustainability*, 13.0(1), 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010379

Anderson, V., Å½gela, M., Gough, W. (2023). Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: a multi-scale case study of the atmospheric cleansing potential of green infrastructure in southern ontario, canada. *Sustainability*, 15.0(19), 14146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914146

Anderson, V., Gough, W. (2021). Nature-based resilience: a multi-type evaluation of productive green infrastructure in agricultural settings in ontario, canada. *Atmosphere*, 12.0(9), 1183. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12091183

Anderson, V., Gough, W., Å½gela, M., MiloÅ¡eviÄ‡, D., DunjiÄ‡, J. (2022). Lowering the temperature to increase heat equity: a multi-scale evaluation of nature-based solutions in toronto, ontario, canada. *Atmosphere*, 13.0(7), 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13071027

Applegate, J., Tilt, J. (2023). Using content and comparative analysis to contextualize the criteria for urban resiliency planning from international and us cities perspectives. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, 11.0, nan. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1103115

Arhun, S., Hnatov, A., Sokhin, P., Kunicina, N. (2025). Autonomous power sources for electric vehicles and their charging infrastructure. *Energy Storage*, 7.0(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1002/est2.70121

Ayuningtyas, D., Agustin, R., Prasetyo, R., Febrianti, T., Ulibasa, E., Barinda, S. (2022). Governance efforts for tb-friendly village development during the covid-19 pandemic: lessons learned from depok city, west java, indonesia. *Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences*, 10.0(E), 1812-1823. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.10892

Beaulieu, M., Ruel, S., DupouÃ«t, O. (2024). Procurement-network contributions to healthcare supply chain resilience: a case study from canada. *International Journal of Public Sector Management*, 37.0(5), 712-728. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-12-2022-0280

Becker, A., Hippe, A., Mclean, E. (2017). Cost and materials required to retrofit us seaports in response to sea level rise: a thought exercise for climate response. *Journal of Marine Science and Engineering*, 5.0(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse5030044

BednÃ¡rovÃ¡, L., MichalkovÃ¡, S., VandÅ¾ura, S. (2021). Public procurement in the conditions of the slovak republic with regard to the participants in the procurement. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge*, 9.0(1), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.37335/ijek.v9i1.124

BenDor, T., Shandas, V., Miles, B., Belt, K., Olander, L. (2018). Ecosystem services and u.s. stormwater planning: an approach for improving urban stormwater decisions. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 88.0, 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.006

BiaÅ‚as, A. (2015). Experimentation tool for critical infrastructures risk management. *nan*, 5.0, 1099-1106. https://doi.org/10.15439/2015f77

Broniatowski, D. (2017). Flexibility due to abstraction and decomposition. *Systems Engineering*, 20.0(2), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21381

CampennÃ¬, M., Cronk, L., Aktipis, A. (2017). Correlated disasters and need-based transfers: the limits of risk pooling systems in simulated ecologies. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.1101/230607

Carter, J., Labib, S., Mell, Ä. (2024). Understanding and assessing climate change risk to green infrastructure: experiences from greater manchester (uk). *Land*, 13.0(5), 697. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13050697

Chen, M., Jiang, Y., Wang, E., Wang, Y., Zhang, J. (2022). Measuring urban infrastructure resilience via pressure-state-response framework in four chinese municipalities. *Applied Sciences*, 12.0(6), 2819. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12062819

Cheng, C. (2016). Spatial climate justice and green infrastructure assessment: a case study for the huron river watershed, michigan, usa. *Gi_forum*, 4.0(1), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.1553/giscience2016_01_s176

Clarke, M., Davidson, M., Egerer, M., Anderson, E., Fouch, N. (2019). The underutilized role of community gardens in improving citiesâ€™ adaptation to climate change: a review. *People Place and Policy Online*, 12.0(3), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.2019.3396732665

Clarkâ€Ginsberg, A., Rueda, I., Monken, J., Liu, J., Chen, H. (2020). Maintaining critical infrastructure resilience to natural hazards during the covid-19 pandemic: hurricane preparations by us energy companies. *Journal of Infrastructure Preservation and Resilience*, 1.0(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43065-020-00010-1

Coleman, N., Li, X., Comes, T., Mostafavi, A. (2024). Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal review and future directions. *nan*, 1.0(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00022-x

Constantinides, P., Barrett, M. (2015). Information infrastructure development and governance as collective action. *Information Systems Research*, 26.0(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0542

Cozzoli, F., Eelkema, M., Bouma, T., Ysebaert, T., Escaravage, V., Herman, P. (2014). A mixed modeling approach to predict the effect of environmental modification on species distributions. *Plos One*, 9.0(2), e89131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089131

DemircioÄŸlu, M., Vivona, R. (2021). Positioning public procurement as a procedural tool for innovation: an empirical study. *Policy and Society*, 40.0(3), 379-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1955465

Dzuke, A., Naude, M. (2015). Procurement challenges in the zimbabwean public sector: a preliminary study. *Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management*, 9.0(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v9i1.166

Emmanuel, R., Loconsole, A. (2015). Green infrastructure as an adaptation approach to tackling urban overheating in the glasgow clyde valley region, uk. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 138.0, 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.012

Erick, G., Navid, F. (2023). Safeguarding stability: strategies for addressing dynamic system variations in power grid cybersecurity. *Eph - International Journal of Science and Engineering*, 9.0(3), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.53555/ephijse.v9i3.215

Ermgassen, S., Baker, J., Griffiths, R., Strange, N., Struebig, M., Bull, J. (2019). The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under â€œno net lossâ€ policies: a global review. *Conservation Letters*, 12.0(6), nan. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12664

Fernandez-Perez, A., Losada, Ã., Lara, J. (2024). A framework for climate change adaptation of port infrastructures. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4727209

FernÃ¡ndez-Pablos, E., VÃ¡zquez, A., ZaldÃvar, Ã., DÃez, R. (2021). Periurban areas in the design of supra-municipal strategies for urban green infrastructures. *Forests*, 12.0(5), 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12050626

Ferreira, J., Monteiro, R., Silva, V. (2021). Planning a green infrastructure network from theory to practice: the case study of setãºbal, portugal. *Sustainability*, 13.0(15), 8432. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158432

Ford, J., LabbÃ©, J., Flynn, M., Araos, M. (2017). Readiness for climate change adaptation in the arctic: a case study from nunavut, canada. *Climatic Change*, 145.0(2025-02-01 00:00:00), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2071-4

Franin, K., BariÄ‡, B., KuÅ¡tera, G. (2016). The role of ecological infrastructure on beneficial arthropods in vineyards. *Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research*, 14.0(1), e0303. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016141-7371

Fu, G., Sun, S., Hoang, L., Yuan, Z., Butler, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence underpins urban water infrastructure of the future: a holistic perspective. *Cambridge Prisms Water*, 1.0, nan. https://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2023.15

Gajanayake, A., Iyerâ€Raniga, U. (2022). Infrastructure financing for climate change adaptation in australia: practitionersâ€™ perspectives. *Construction Economics and Building*, 22.0(4), nan. https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v22i4.8184

GarcÃa, Ã., Berraquero-DÃaz, L., Ituarte, L. (2022). Contested spaces for negotiated urban resilience in seville. *nan*, , 197-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07301-4_9

Garmabaki, A., Thaduri, A., Famurewa, S., Kumar, U. (2021). Adapting railway maintenance to climate change. *Sustainability*, 13.0(24), 13856. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413856

Goh, K., Kurniawan, T., Goh, H., Zhang, D., Jiang, M., Dai, W., Khan, M., Othman, M., Aziz, F., Anouzla, A., Meidiana, C. (2024). Strengthening infrastructure resilience for climate change mitigation: case studies from the southeast asia region with a focus on wastewater treatment plants in addressing flooding challenges. *Acs Es&t Water*, 4.0(9), 3725-3740. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.4c00591

Grandia, J., Steijn, B., Kuipers, B. (2015). It is not easy being green: increasing sustainable public procurement behaviour. *Innovation the European Journal of Social Science Research*, 28.0(3), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2015.1024639

Grandia, J., Voncken, D. (2019). Sustainable public procurement: the impact of ability, motivation, and opportunity on the implementation of different types of sustainable public procurement. *Sustainability*, 11.0(19), 5215. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195215

Grandia, J., Meehan, J. (2017). Public procurement as a policy tool: using procurement to reach desired outcomes in society. *International Journal of Public Sector Management*, 30.0(4), 302-309. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-03-2017-0066

Green, T., Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., GÃ³mezâ€Baggethun, E. (2016). Insurance value of green infrastructure in and around cities. *Ecosystems*, 19.0(6), 1051-1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-9986-x

Gromek, P., Sobolewski, G. (2020). Risk-based approach for informing sustainable infrastructure resilience enhancement and potential resilience implication in terms of emergency service perspective. *Sustainability*, 12.0(11), 4530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114530

Gupta, P., Duchon, M. (2018). Developing self-similar hybrid control architecture based on sgam-based methodology for distributed microgrids. *Designs*, 2.0(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs2040041

Ha, S., Kim, H., Kim, K., Lee, H., Kim, H. (2017). Algorithm for economic assessment of infrastructure adaptation to climate change. *Natural Hazards Review*, 18.0(4), nan. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000247

Hallegatte, S., Li, J. (2022). Investing in resilience and making investments resilient. *Plos Climate*, 1.0(10), e0000077. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000077

Hammoumi, L., Maanan, M., Rhinane, H. (2024). Characterizing smart cities based on artificial intelligence. *Smart Cities*, 7.0(3), 1330-1345. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7030056

Hayes, S., Desha, C., Burke, M., Gibbs, M., Chester, M. (2019). Leveraging socio-ecological resilience theory to build climate resilience in transport infrastructure. *Transport Reviews*, 39.0(5), 677-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1612480

Helmrich, A., Chester, M., Hayes, S., Markolf, S., Desha, C., Grimm, N. (2020). Using biomimicry to support resilient infrastructure design. *Earth S Future*, 8.0(12), nan. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ef001653

Hepcan, Ã., CangÃ¼zel, A. (2024). The impact of blue-green infrastructure on climate resilience for hydrometerological hazards: the case of bayraklä±, ä°zmir. *DÃ¼zce Ãœniversitesi Orman FakÃ¼ltesi OrmancÄ±lÄ±k Dergisi*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1413255

Huang, W., Ling, M. (2019). Machine learning-based method for urban lifeline system resilience assessment in gis*. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82748

Husnain, A., Rasool, S., Saeed, A., Gill, A., Hussain, H. (2023). Ai's healing touch: examining machine learning's transformative effects on healthcare. *Journal of World Science*, 2.0(10), 1681-1695. https://doi.org/10.58344/jws.v2i10.448

HÃ©der, M., Tenczer, S., Biancini, A. (2019). Collaboration between saml federations and openstack clouds. *Softwarex*, 9.0, 44-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2018.12.003

Janiszek, M., Krzysztofik, R. (2023). Green infrastructure as an effective tool for urban adaptationâ€”solutions from a big city in a postindustrial region. *Sustainability*, 15.0(11), 8928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118928

Keating, A., Campbell, K., Szoenyi, M., McQuistan, C., Nash, D., BÃ¼rer, M. (2017). Development and testing of a community flood resilience measurement tool. *Natural Hazards and Earth System Science*, 17.0(1), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-77-2017

Kharrazi, A., Yu, Y., Jacob, A., Vora, N., Fath, B. (2020). Redundancy, diversity, and modularity in network resilience: applications for international trade and implications for public policy. *Current Research in Environmental Sustainability*, 2.0, 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.06.001

Kim, M., Nicholls, R., Preston, J., Almeida, G. (2022). Evaluation of flexibility in adaptation projects for climate change. *Climatic Change*, 171.0(2025-02-01 00:00:00), nan. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03331-0

Kim, D., Shin, W., Choi, H., Kim, J., Song, Y. (2020). Estimation of ecological connectivity in a city based on land cover and urban habitat maps. *Sustainability*, 12.0(22), 9529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229529

Kimic, K., Ostrysz, K. (2021). Assessment of blue and green infrastructure solutions in shaping urban public spacesâ€”spatial and functional, environmental, and social aspects. *Sustainability*, 13.0(19), 11041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911041

Koch, C., Kelly, M. (2023). Localized water infrastructure: investing in one water solutions for drinking water challenges. *American Water Works Association*, 115.0(7), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.2143

Kong, J., SimonoviÄ‡, S. (2018). A model of interdependent infrastructure system resilience. *International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering*, 8.0(3), 377-389. https://doi.org/10.2495/safe-v8-n3-377-389

Kong, J., SimonoviÄ‡, S., Zhang, C. (2019). Resilience assessment of interdependent infrastructure systems: a case study based on different response strategies. *Sustainability*, 11.0(23), 6552. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236552

Kopanaki, E. (2022). Conceptualizing supply chain resilience: the role of complex it infrastructures. *Systems*, 10.0(2), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10020035

Korbee, D., Mol, A., Tatenhove, J. (2014). Building with nature in marine infrastructure: toward an innovative project arrangement in the melbourne channel deepening project. *Coastal Management*, 42.0(1), 2016-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2013.863722

Koutsikouri, D., Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O. (2017). Building digital infrastructures: towards an evolutionary theory of contextual triggers. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2017.575

Krystallis, I., Mahi, Z., Maddaloni, F. (2024). Flexible infrastructure design: a real options reasoning approach to navigating uncertainty in large-scale projects. *Journal of Management in Engineering*, 40.0(3), nan. https://doi.org/10.1061/jmenea.meeng-5678

Kulkarni, T. (2020). Leveraging digital infrastructure and data management systems for water infrastructure emergency response planning. *International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation*, 1.0(3), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.54660/.ijmrge.2020.1.3-56-62

Kumar, P., Karsai, G. (2015). Integrated analysis of temporal behavior of component-based distributed real-time embedded systems. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.1109/isorcw.2015.56

Kuwae, T., Crooks, S. (2021). Linking climate change mitigation and adaptation through coastal greenâ€“gray infrastructure: a perspective. *Coastal Engineering Journal*, 63.0(3), 188-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/21664250.2021.1935581

KÄ™dra, A. (2021). Evaluation of the perception of universitiesâ€™ role in the public procurement market. *Econometrics*, 25.0(1), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.15611/eada.2021.1.05

LI, Q., Ren, C. (2024). Optimizing management and service systems in higher education: a quantitative examination of data imaging, interaction systems, and decision support for informed decision-making and performance enhancement. *Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management*, 9.0(2), 23912. https://doi.org/10.55267/iadt.07.14677

LUAN, B., Ding, R., Wang, X., Zhu, M. (2021). Exploration of resilient design paradigm of urban green infrastructure. *Landscape Architecture Frontiers*, 0.0(0), 1. https://doi.org/10.15302/j-laf-0-030001

Lamprinidis, L. (2023). The eu model of socially responsible public procurement. *Journal of Public Policy and Administration*, 8.0(3), 2025-06-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.47604/jppa.1852

Lashof, D., Neuberger, J. (2023). Climate-smart infrastructure in the united statesâ€”what does it look like and how do we get it built?. *Environmental Research Infrastructure and Sustainability*, 3.0(1), 12003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/acbc95

Liu, k., Wang, Q., Wang, M., Koks, E. (2022). Global transportation infrastructure exposure to the change of precipitation in a warmer world. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1285854/v1

Livet, M., Yannayon, M., Richard, C., Sorge, L., Scanlon, P. (2020). Ready, set, go!: exploring use of a readiness process to implement pharmacy services. *Implementation Science Communications*, 1.0(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00036-2

Luo, Y., Reimers, K. (2019). Emergence of an information infrastructure through integrating waste drug recycling, medication management, and household drug management in china. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2019.485

Lykou, G., Stergiopoulos, G., Papachrysanthou, A., Gritzalis, D. (2017). Protecting the transportation sector from the negative impacts of climate change. *nan*, , 2021-03-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70395-4_1

Mandala, N., Renson, A., Kipketer, T. (2024). The impact of technology adoption on efficiency and transparency in public procurement processes in kenya. *European Scientific Journal Esj*, 25.0, nan. https://doi.org/10.19044/esipreprint.1.2024.p483

Manik, L. (2022). Performance factors effect on the performance metrics of the enterprise service bus. *International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems*, 11.0(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.12785/ijcds/110108

Markolf, S., Chester, M., Eisenberg, D., Iwaniec, D., Davidson, C., Zimmerman, R., Miller, T., Ruddell, B., Chang, H. (2018). Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (setss) to address lockâ€in and enhance resilience. *Earth S Future*, 6.0(12), 1638-1659. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ef000926

Matsler, A., Miller, T., Groffman, P. (2021). The eco-techno spectrum: exploring knowledge systemsâ€™ challenges in green infrastructure management. *Urban Planning*, 6.0(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3491

Matutini, F., Baudry, J., Fortin, M., Pain, G., Pithon, J. (2022). Conservation networks do not match the ecological requirements of amphibians. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.18.500425

Mauco, K., Scott, R., Mars, M. (2016). Critical analysis of e-health readiness assessment frameworks: suitability for application in developing countries. *Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare*, 24.0(2), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x16686548

Mignacca, B., Locatelli, G. (2021). Modular circular economy in energy infrastructure projects: enabling factors and barriers. *Journal of Management in Engineering*, 37.0(5), nan. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000949

Monteiro, C., Santos, C., Wood, J., Rosenbom, K. (2022). Nature-based solutions using leca lwa to increase urban sustainability and support stormwater management. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102997

Nagari, P., Sahid, S., Hussin, M. (2023). Let's explore! the factor, reliability, and validity analyses of readiness for a knowledge-based economy among undergraduate students. *International Journal of Educational Methodology*, 9.0(4), 697-710. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.4.697

Namulondo, S., Rasweswe, M., Mooa, R. (2023). Blended learning during and beyond the covid-19 pandemic: attitudes of nurse educators in gauteng. *Health Sa Gesondheid*, 28.0, nan. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v28i0.2194

Narayanan, N., Ghapar, F., Chew, L., Sundram, V., Naidu, B., Zulfakar, M., Daud, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence-powered risk assessment in supply chain safety. *Information Management and Business Review*, 16.0(3S(I)a), 107-114. https://doi.org/10.22610/imbr.v16i3s(i)a.4124

Ncube, S., Arthur, S. (2021). Influence of blue-green and grey infrastructure combinations on natural and human-derived capital in urban drainage planning. *Sustainability*, 13.0(5), 2571. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052571

Nguyen, T., Tu, V., Nguyen, T. (2024). Enhancing water pressure sensing in challenging environments: a strain gage technology integrated with deep learning approach. *Measurement and Control*, 58.0(2), 208-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/00202940241256802

Olanrewaju, O., Lazzaro, U. (2023). Review of nature based ecohydraulic aquaforest technology for coastal resilience and sea level rise climate-induced adaptation - part a. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202305.0812.v2

PANYA, K., Awuor, E. (2023). Public procurement reforms in africa: challenges, constraints and improvement opportunities. *nan*, 10.0(2), nan. https://doi.org/10.61426/sjbcm.v10i2.2676

Panior, K., Ithnin, Z., Jihin, R., Nazri, A., Zakaria, S., Zulkipli, M. (2025). Design concept and stress analysis of a self-activated flood barrier. *Iop Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science*, 1444.0(1), 12027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1444/1/012027

Park, K., Choi, S. (2022). Analysis of the influence of urban spatial and green infrastructure on flood adaptation. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2279106/v1

Park, C., Han, S., Lee, K., Lee, Y. (2017). Analyzing drivers of conflict in energy infrastructure projects: empirical case study of natural gas pipeline sectors. *Sustainability*, 9.0(11), 2031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112031

PelÅ¡a, I., BÄliÅ†a, S. (2018). Green public procurement opportunities in electronic procurement system: case study in latvia. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.33422/8icmeh.2018.12.40

PlaÄek, M., Valentinov, V., Campo, C., VacekovÃ¡, G., Ochrana, F., umpÃkovÃ¡, M. (2021). Stewardship and administrative capacity in green public procurement in the czech republic: evidence from a large-n survey. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-599536/v1

Powell, E., Tyrrell, M., Milliken, A., Tirpak, J., Staudinger, M. (2018). A review of coastal management approaches to support the integration of ecological and human community planning for climate change. *Journal of Coastal Conservation*, 23.0(1), 2018-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0632-y

Quinn, A., Ferranti, E., HODGKINSON, S., Jack, A., Beckford, J., Dora, J. (2018). Adaptation becoming business as usual: a framework for climate-change-ready transport infrastructure. *Infrastructures*, 3.0(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures3020010

Rane, N., Choudhary, S., Rane, J. (2024). Artificial intelligence for enhancing resilience. *Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence*, 5.0(2), 1933-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.48185/jaai.v5i2.1053

Rane, N., Rane, J., Paramesha, M., Kaya, Ã. (2024). Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning for enabling smart and sustainable cities and infrastructure. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.70593/978-81-981271-1-2_2

Raub, K., Flynn, S., Stepenuck, K., Hedderman, C. (2024). Integrating resilience and nexus approaches in managing flood risk. *Frontiers in Water*, 6.0, nan. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2024.1306044

Ryu, J., Park, H. (2018). Resilience assessment for interdependent water supply systems based on a system dynamics model. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.2495/eid180221

SIKOLIA, G., MUTHINI, D. (2019). Influence of procurement ethics, professional training, and compliance with government regulations on procurement committees performance in public secondary schools in kenya: a case of khwisero sub county. *nan*, 6.0(2), nan. https://doi.org/10.61426/sjbcm.v6i2.1191

Sanne, J., Ekholm, H., Rahmberg, M. (2021). Contextualizing resilience indicators â€“ comparable across organizations yet specific to context. *Journal of Risk Research*, 24.0(12), 1652-1667. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1913632

Saravi, S., Kalawsky, R., Joannou, D., Casado, M., Fu, G., Meng, F. (2019). Use of artificial intelligence to improve resilience and preparedness against adverse flood events. *Water*, 11.0(5), 973. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050973

Scharte, B. (2024). Discussing trust and resilience: the need for a healthy dose of distrust. *Risk Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy*, 16.0(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12287

Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C., Smith, A., Turner, B. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences*, 375.0(1794), 20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120

SeletkoviÄ‡, A., KiÄiÄ‡, M., AnÄiÄ‡, M., KoliÄ‡, J., Pernar, R. (2023). The urban heat island analysis for the city of zagreb in the period 2013â€“2022 utilizing landsat 8 satellite imagery. *Sustainability*, 15.0(5), 3963. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053963

Semeraro, T., Radicchio, B., Medagli, P., Arzeni, S., Turco, A., Geneletti, D. (2020). Integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of a peri-urban development plan. *Sustainability*, 13.0(1), 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010122

Shaker, R., Rybarczyk, G., Brown, C., Papp, V., Alkins, S. (2019). (re)emphasizing urban infrastructure resilience via scoping review and content analysis. *Urban Science*, 3.0(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020044

Shigemitsu, M., Gray, E. (2021). Building the resilience of japanâ€™s agricultural sector to typhoons and heavy rain. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.1787/4ed1ee2c-en

Shirgir, E., Kheyroddin, R., Behzadfar, M. (2019). Developing strategic principles of intervention in urban green infrastructure to create and enhance climate resilience in citiesâ€”case study: yousef abad in tehran. *Journal of Climate Change*, 5.0(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.3233/jcc190007

Silva, A., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R. (2022). Green and blue infrastructure as nature-based better preparedness solutions for disaster risk reduction: key policy aspects. *Sustainability*, 14.0(23), 16155. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316155

Srivast, A. (2024). Economic analysis of set-asides in public procurement: advancing human rights goals. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4334054/v1

Sudhakar, V. (2024). Ai-driven network optimization improving connectivity and user experience through intelligent design for blue-green infrastructure projects. *nan*, , 45-60. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-8069-7.ch003

Sundarakani, B., Rajamani, H., Madmoune, A. (2023). Sustainability study of electric vehicles performance in the uae: moderated by blockchain. *Benchmarking an International Journal*, 31.0(1), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-10-2021-0624

Toker, S., Akay, C., BasmacÄ±, F., KÄ±lÄ±Ã§arslan, M., Mumcu, E., Ã‡aÄŸÄ±ltay, N. (2024). Expectancy from, and acceptance of augmented reality in dental education programs: a structural equation model. *Journal of Dental Education*, 88.0(9), 1277-1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.13580

Tudorie, C., Gielen, E., VallÃ©s-Planells, M., Galiana, F. (2019). Urban green indicators: a tool to estimate the sustainability of our cities. *International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics*, 14.0(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.2495/dne-v14-n1-19-29

Umoh, A., Nwasike, C., Tula, O., Ezeigweneme, C., Gidiagba, J. (2024). Green infrastructure development: strategies for urban resilience and sustainability. *World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews*, 21.0(1), 020-029. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.2683

Vecchi, V., Cusumano, N., Boyer, E. (2020). Medical supply acquisition in italy and the united states in the era of covid-19: the case for strategic procurement and publicâ€“private partnerships. *The American Review of Public Administration*, 50.0(2025-07-06 00:00:00), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942061

Wang, L., Xue, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, L. (2018). A unified assessment approach for urban infrastructure sustainability and resilience. *Advances in Civil Engineering*, 2018.0(1), nan. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2073968

Welsh, L., Endterâ€Wada, J., Downard, R., Kettenring, K. (2013). Developing adaptive capacity to droughts: the rationality of locality. *Ecology and Society*, 18.0(2), nan. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05484-180207

Wilkinson, C. (2025). Environmental health and societal wealth predict movement patterns of an urban carnivore. *Ecology Letters*, 28.0(2), nan. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70088

Wu, T. (2021). Quantitative coastal resilience assessment framework under climate change and sea level rise. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202104.0740.v1

Xanthis, C., Aletras, A. (2019). Coremri: a high-performance, publicly available mr simulation platform on the cloud. *Plos One*, 14.0(5), e0216594. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216594

Xiao, H., Yuan, Q., Ren, Z. (2011). The research of ecological pattern construction based on ecological infrastructure valuation. *nan*, , nan. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmt.2011.6003215

Xu, W., Cong, J., Proverbs, D. (2021). Evaluation of infrastructure resilience. *International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation*, 41.0(2), 378-400. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-09-2020-0075

Xu, Y., Liu, W., He, T., Tsai, S. (2023). Buzzword or fuzzword: an event study of the metaverse in the chinese stock market. *Internet Research*, 34.0(1), 174-194. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-07-2022-0526

Xue, F., Luan, B., Fan, Y., Xie, S., Yang, X., Luo, J., Zheng, R. (2024). Assessing the lifecycle environmental resilience of urban green infrastructures coping with acute disturbances and chronic stresses. *Water*, 16.0(8), 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16081162

Zheng, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, X., Wen, Y., Guo, S. (2024). Managing landscape urbanization and assessing biodiversity of wildlife habitats: a study of bobcats in san jose, california. *Land*, 13.0(2), 152. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13020152

Ã‰pule, T., Chehbouni, A., Dhiba, D., Moto, M. (2021). The readiness index for climate change adaptation in africa: the role of climate and adaptive capacity proxies. *Applied Sciences*, 11.0(20), 9413. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11209413

Ã‰pule, T., New, M. (2019). Vulnerability of crop yields to variations in growing season precipitation in uganda. *Sn Applied Sciences*, 1.0(8), nan. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0912-7

Saturday, April 12, 2025

RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AN ERA OF CLIMATE EXTREMES, DIGITAL RISK, AND GLOBAL UNCERTAINTY