Resilience and Sustainability of Civil Infrastructure:

Toward a Unified Approach

Paolo Bocchini, M.ASCE 1; Dan M. Frangopol, Dist.M.ASCE 2; Thomas Ummenhofer 3; and Tim Zinke 4

Abstract: In recent years, the concepts of resilience and sustainability have become very topical and popular. The concept of sustainability
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rose to prominence in the late 1980s and became a central issue in world politics, when the construction industry began to generate the first
sustainable building assessment systems with more or less equally weighted environmental, economic, and social aspects for office buildings
over their life cycles. On the other hand, resilience is usually connected to the occurrence of extreme events during the life cycle of structures
and infrastructures. In the last decade, it has been used to minimize specifically direct and indirect losses from hazards through enhanced
resistance and robustness to extreme events, as well as more effective recovery strategies. A detailed comparison of the studies dealing with
either infrastructure sustainability or resilience presented in this paper leads to the conclusion that they have a vast number of similarities and
common characteristics. For instance, they both combine structural analyses with social and economic aspects; they both rely on techniques
for the life-cycle analysis and decision making; they both are in an early stage, where the academic world is trying to find the best way to
promote the application of the scientific results among professional engineers and the industry. Indeed, both approaches try to optimize a
system, such as a civil infrastructure system, with respect to structural design, utilized material, maintenance plans, management strategies,
and impacts on the society. However, for the most part, researchers and practitioners focusing on either resilience or sustainability operate
without a mutual consideration of the findings, which leads to a severe inefficiency. Therefore, this paper suggests that resilience and sustain-
ability are complementary and should be used in an integrated perspective. In particular, the proposed approach is rooted in the well-
established framework of risk assessment. The impact of the infrastructure and its service states on the society in normal operational
conditions (assessed by sustainability analysis) and after exceptional events (assessed by resilience analysis) should be weighted by the
associated probabilities of occurrence and combined in a global impact assessment. The proposed perspective and assessment technique
is applicable to various types of civil infrastructure systems, but the case of transportation networks and bridge systems is emphasized herein.
A numerical application dealing with the comparative analysis of two possible bridge layouts is presented to exemplify the approach. The
results show that both resilience and sustainability analyses assess a relevant amount of the impact of the bridge on the community where it is
built, so neither one can be neglected. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Resilience; Sustainability; Life cycle; Assessment; Risk; Infrastructure; Bridges; Transportation networks.

Introduction
The words “resilience” and “sustainability” are currently dominat-
ing research trends and practical interests in the field of civil infra-
structure. From the descriptions of the opening faculty positions in
the top universities to the titles of the best-attended scientific
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh Univ., 117 ATLSS Dr.,
Bethlehem, PA 18015-4729. E-mail: paolo.bocchini@lehigh.edu
2
Professor and The Fazlur R. Khan Endowed Chair of Structural En-
gineering and Architecture, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh Univ., 117 ATLSS Dr.,
Bethlehem, PA 18015-4729 (corresponding author). E-mail: dan
.frangopol@lehigh.edu
3
Professor, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Research Center for
Steel, Timber, and Masonry, Otto-Amann-Platz 1, 76131 Karlsruhe,
Germany. E-mail: thomas.ummenhofer@kit.edu
4
Research Assistant, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Research Cen-
ter for Steel, Timber, and Masonry, Otto-Amann-Platz 1, 76131 Karlsruhe,
Germany; formerly, Visiting Scholar, Lehigh Univ., Advanced Technology
for Large Structural Systems Engineering Research Center. E-mail: tim
.zinke@kit.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 25, 2012; approved on
June 21, 2013; published online on July 1, 2013. Discussion period
open until June 22, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Infrastructure Sys-
tems, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0342/04014004(16)/$25.00.
symposia, and from the topics of the latest research projects spon-
sored by science foundations around the world to the most recent
requirements of local administrations for new constructions, “resil-
ience” and “sustainability” together seem to cover more than 50%
of the cases. Nevertheless, to the best of the authors’ knowledge,
there have been very few investigations into how to combine resil-
ience and sustainability in a unified methodology for the design,
assessment, and maintenance management of civil infrastructure
systems.
A severe inefficiency can be identified because the theoretical
and practical development of resilience and sustainability has taken
place separately and, for the most part, without a mutual consid-
eration of the findings. The main cause of this issue probably stems
from the different historical origins of these two concepts. This
paper presents an effort to develop a unified perspective for both
resilience and sustainability.
Resilience is a metric that measures the ability of a system to
withstand an unusual perturbation and to recover efficiently from
the damage induced by such perturbation. In the case of civil infra-
structure, resilience is usually associated with the ability to deliver a
certain service level even after the occurrence of an extreme event,
such as an earthquake, and to recover the desired functionality as
fast as possible.
Sustainability is a model that addresses simultaneously today’s
needs and the impacts on future generations. It is characterized by a
holistic view and brings together three dimensions: ecology,

© ASCE 04014004-1 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 economy, and society. Within the past 25 years, it has become
important for political strategies, for goals of nations, cities, and
communities, and for companies’ business strategies. A long-term
sustainable development can be achieved only if the idea of sus-
tainability is implemented at different levels, from national guide-
lines to the practical application on site. The different levels should
exchange information and knowledge to guarantee an efficient
advancement.
The original contribution of this paper consists of a unified ap-
proach that uses the concepts of probability of occurrence and risk
in order to address resilience and sustainability of the civil infra-
structure simultaneously and quantitatively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The first part of this paper provides an introduction to the history
of both sustainability and resilience, for the benefit of those readers
who might be unfamiliar with at least one of the two concepts.
Next, similarities and differences are analyzed, considering the
probability of occurrence during the life cycle. Afterward, issues
such as integration of resilience and sustainability for infrastruc-
tures, midterm strategies, and long-term necessities are addressed.
Next, the assessment of the impact on resilience and sustainability
of some practical design decisions is exemplified. Finally, the most
relevant conclusions are drawn.
History of Discussion in the Field of Sustainability
Sustainability has passed through an intensively discussed process
of development during the past 20 years. As a result, a broad array
of different approaches and perspectives exist. Depending on the
field of application (i.e., sustainability policies of countries, sus-
tainability reports of companies, sustainability indices of stock mar-
kets), the term “sustainability” is used differently and the indicators
used for its description are manifold. On the basis of political de-
cisions and strategies, the implementation of sustainable develop-
ment has to be achieved by practical actions. Overall, both political
decisions and practical implementations are important to promote
sustainable development. To create a basic understanding of sus-
tainability and to provide a common basis for further discussions,
a brief overview of the history of sustainability is provided.
Macrolevel Development Driven by World Politics
The origins of contents discussed in connection with the term
“sustainability” go back to the beginning of the 20th century
and are rooted in the historic development of environmentalism
Fig. 1. Aspects of sustainability
© ASCE 04014004-2
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
(Pepper 2005). During the 1970s and 1980s, problems caused
by environmental pollution and consumption of resources became
increasingly important. The most significant report of that time that
deals with this topic was by Meadows et al. (1972), which analyzes
the growth of the world’s population and the resulting consumption
of resources over the following 100 years. The results predict a fail-
ure of the world economy in case the economic system and the
treatment of the environment were not changed.
The Brundtland report “Our Common Future” can be identified
as a milestone (Brundtland 1987). It covers the relationship be-
tween development and environmental policies and defines the
model of sustainable development for the first time: “Sustainable
development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs” (Brundtland 1987). This report provided the im-
petus for the convention of the first United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, also known as the “Earth Summit,”
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. The most important result was
the adoption of Agenda 21, an action program containing specifi-
cations, inter alia, to fight poverty and create effective energy pol-
icy, as well as fostering financial and technological cooperation
of industrialized and developing countries (UNCED 1993). In ad-
dition, the results were extended and strengthened during the
Johannesburg summit in 2002 (UN 2002). For the first time, the
transcription into specific policy goals was realized at the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto in
1997 (UN 1998) by determining obligatory targets for the limita-
tion of environmental impacts, such as the reduction of CO2
emissions.
On the basis of the abovementioned conventions and reports,
a broad discussion dealing with sustainability and sustainable
development took place. As a result, an understanding of three dif-
ferent dimensions or pillars was developed, which specified the
conceptual model of sustainability. The three dimensions of
sustainability—economic, ecological, and social—are internation-
ally accepted as a well-established framework these days (Otto
2007). Several other categories for organizing sustainability indica-
tors and criteria (such as technical aspects, impacts on land and
water, and health and safety) can be used. Depending on the differ-
ent countries and fields of application, various arrangements for the
criteria can be applied. Fig. 1 illustrates a possible categorization
considering four levels of hierarchy and important aspects for con-
struction works. In this figure, the lower levels influence one or
more goals associated with the higher levels. For example, the
project management can influence the ecological, economical,
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 and social output of a project, while impacts on communities and
neighbors mainly address the social dimension. This allocation also
can be performed for the rest of the indicators.
Sustainability Achievements and Discussion in Civil
Engineering
In the building industry, the development of sustainability assess-
ment methods and systems started at the beginning of the 1990s,
when the international discussion in politics was emerging. For
buildings, the British Building Research Establishment Environ-
mental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was the first sustainability
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
assessment system; it was launched in 1990 (Lee 2012). In 1998,
the American Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) system entered the market (Berardi 2012). Both first-
generation assessment systems are characterized by a strong focus
on environmental aspects and explicitly embed this emphasis in
their designation as well. However, more recent systems are often
organized differently, focusing less on environmental aspects and
trying to implement a more holistic perspective. Comparisons
with the German DGNB system (German Council of Sustainable
Buildings), released in 2009, have been performed by different
authors, such as Draeger (2010) and Szitar and Grecea (2011). Un-
til now, BREEAM and LEED have been the most important
international assessment systems, and despite its late creation,
DGNB is becoming increasingly relevant. Furthermore, several
new systems have been created in different countries, with an
emphasis on buildings (Barbosa et al. 2011; Lupíšek et al.
2011; Szitar and Grecea 2011).
In 2008, specific building rating systems have achieved market
maturity in 10 countries (Graubner et al. 2009). Since all systems
are working with predefined weighting factors, these have to be
determined a priori by the institution developing the system (work-
ing with scientists and politicians). This is a simplified approach,
which is appropriate to ensure a practical application by consultants
and decision makers. With the current state-of-the-art, several
qualitative criteria must be used to guarantee a holistic assessment.
Fig. 2. Timeline of the development of sustainability and important sustainability-related developments in civil engineering
© ASCE 04014004-3
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
In many fields, the necessary quantification methods are not avail-
able or actually still under development. Furthermore, the reduction
of information by aggregation in a single score is an additional
drawback. Moreover, the definition of the criteria and weighting
factors is often very subjective and sometimes influenced by differ-
ent political administrative bodies (Rametsteiner et al. 2011). The
grade of influence by different interest groups (such as politicians,
construction industry, manufacturers of materials, etc.) on the pro-
cess of creating an assessment system is highly dependent on the
country. The importance of individual aspects can vary depending
on the culture, economy, and tradition of the specific country. As a
result, it must be emphasized that sustainability assessment systems
should be seen as contemporary tools, often associated with a
country-related weighting scheme. Therefore, systems should be
reviewed and improved constantly.
Efforts to establish an international standardization basis and to
harmonize existing approaches began in 2002 with the founding of
the International Sustainability Working Committee ISO/TC 59/SC
17 “Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works” and
the European Committee CEN/TC 350 “Sustainability of Construc-
tion Works” reports. Standards at the product, component, and
building levels are expected to be created by these committees.
Only one work group of the ISO/TC 59/SC 17 committee is dealing
with the development of indicators for the specific field of infra-
structures. Within the next two years, only two standards dealing
with infrastructures are expected to be released: ISO 15392, “Sus-
tainability in Building construction—General Principles,” and ISO/
TS 21929-2, “Framework Indicators for Infrastructures.” On the
contrary, approximately five standards at the international level
and eight at the European level are being prepared for buildings
(DIN 2012).
All activities concerning the development of assessment
systems, standardization activities, and political initiatives high-
light the systematically increased importance of sustainability
in the building industry since 1990. An overview of the mile-
stones of discussions and actions related to sustainability is given
in Fig. 2.
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Table 1. Proposals for Assessment Systems Designed for Civil Engineering Works
Name, year
Research project, 1997
Research project, 2005
CEEQUAL, since 2003
Envision, official release
in 2012
ISO/TC 59/ SC 17/ WG 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Description Application Reference
Fogib (Forschergruppe Ingenieurbauwerke—Interdisciplinary Infrastructures with a Fogib (1997)
Research Group for infrastructures), different criteria focus on bridges
for a holistic assessment
Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects (SUSAIP) Infrastructures, Ugwu et al. (2006a, b)
projects aims at supporting designers and consultants in the particularly bridges
decision-making process in the construction period
Only existing assessment scheme working in the market Civil engineering projects CEEQUAL (2010)
(England); comparable structure like BREEAM
Sustainable infrastructure rating system (United States), Infrastructure ISI (2011)
founded by ACEC, APWA, and ASCE
International Working Group dealing with the formulation Infrastructures, Draft document of

of a set of indicators, no proposals for an aggregation no constraints ISO/TS 21929-2 (2013)

Sustainability Approaches for Infrastructures
Very few integral approaches specifically designed for the sustain-
ability assessment of infrastructures are available compared to
those for building construction. Nevertheless, there are a large num-
ber of studies dealing with individual parts of the sustainability as-
sessment. These are very important as preliminary investigations
for the development of assessment methods and tools. However,
they do not deal directly with the design of assessment systems
and will not be considered within the scope of the following analy-
sis. A first overview of the topic was given by Yao et al. (2011) and
Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López (2010). In addition,
some studies have been published that are dealing with special
types of infrastructures, such as Muench et al. (2011) for roads,
Zinke and Ummenhofer (2011) for bridges, and Beck (1996) for
wastewater infrastructure.
Other studies were more general and their results can be applied
to various kinds of infrastructure systems. Among these, only the
English tool CEEQUAL (originally titled as “Civil Engineering
Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme”) has been
actively used in the market until now (CEEQUAL 2010). In July
2011, public discussion about a new American system named En-
vision started [Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) 2011].
It was developed on the basis of CEEQUAL and some additional
documents, such as the Project Sustainability Management Guide-
lines (FIDIC 2004). In addition to the existing approaches, an
Australian assessment system on the basis of CEEQUAL was an-
nounced at the beginning of 2012. Table 1 provides a comparative
overview of the existing approaches.
Comparing these systems, some similarities can be found
among them. Unlike building assessment systems, they are not pri-
marily aimed to create an overall rating. Indeed, most of them try to
support decision making within the planning period and help cli-
ents, consultants, contractors, and public authorities navigate the
design and construction process toward reaching a sustainable sol-
ution. As a result, the existing British and American sustainability
assessment systems can be described also as decision support sys-
tems with a focus on sustainability. The major problem that all
these systems share, though, is lack of quantification in the consid-
ered criteria. In fact, the assessment methods are based partly on
yes/no questions and textual descriptions of possible categories
to which the investigated project has to be assigned.
In summary, sustainability assessment in the construction sector
has become increasingly important since the year 1990. It also goes
along with the global development of sustainability, which sup-
ported life-cycle thinking; with the model of the three sustainability
dimensions; and with the importance of holistic analysis. Most
activities can be found in the building sector. However, fewer
approaches are available for infrastructures. A new generation of
standards is currently addressing sustainability aspects; indicators
for buildings and construction works are being developed. But as
previously mentioned, just a few activities dealing with infrastruc-
tures can be found.
Historical Development of the Concept of Resilience
Even though the concept of resilience is still considered novel and
under development, its very first definition is almost 40 years old,
introduced in the 1970s. Conceptual and analytical definitions of
resilience have followed two separate paths since then, which
seemed to be diverging at a certain point. For this reason, these
types of definitions are addressed separately in the following
subsections.
Conceptual Definitions of Resilience
Several conceptual definitions of resilience have been proposed and
discussed in the literature. According to the comprehensive list col-
lected by Zhou et al. (2010), the first definition of resilience dates
back to 1973. Holling (1973) studied resilience in ecological sys-
tems, and his definition focused only on one aspect: namely, resil-
ience can be measured by the magnitude of disturbance that a
system can tolerate and still persist. The first seed of the definition
of resilience that is currently the most popular was proposed several
years later by Timmerman (1981): in synthesis, resilience is the
ability of human communities to withstand external shocks or per-
turbations to their infrastructure and to recover from such pertur-
bations. This definition introduces two paramount aspects. First,
when dealing with civil engineering, resilience is a property of
communities rather than structures or infrastructures. Second, resil-
ience is not only about being able to withstand a certain disturb-
ance, but also about having resources and means for a prompt,
efficient, and effective recovery. These two aspects (i.e., resilience
is a property of a community, and resilience involves the recovery
process) are clearly bonded. For example, the ability of a bridge to
withstand an unusual external shock depends almost exclusively on
its structural characteristics, but the recovery process is affected
heavily by the technological, economic, and political conditions
of the community interested in restoring the bridge. Moreover,
the impact of the bridge damage and service condition in terms of
traffic disruption and user costs, as well as the socioeconomic ben-
efits of a prompt recovery, are necessarily measured at the regional
community level. The importance of the recovery is stressed further
by Pimm (1984), who states that resilience is “how fast the vari-
ables return towards their equilibrium following a perturbation.”
Along the decades, several authors have proposed other concep-
tual definitions (see Zhou et al. 2010). Two general trends can yet

© ASCE 04014004-4 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Aspects of resilience considered in the definition by Bruneau et al. (2003)
be observed overall. The first is that the aspects of (1) resistance to
an unusual external shock (often referred as “robustness”) and
(2) ability to recover quickly (often called “rapidity”) have become
a constant of almost all definitions. The second trend is the expan-
sion of the definition by adding many other aspects. Starting from a
single aspect considered in the first definition (Holling 1973) and
two aspects combined in the second definition (Timmerman 1981),
Bruneau et al. (2003) provided a comprehensive description of
resilience that accounts for at least 11 different aspects (see Fig. 3).
For the case of urban communities and infrastructure, resilience has
four dimensions: (1) technical, which includes all the aspects as-
sociated with the construction and the other technological aspects;
(2) organizational, which deals with the management plan, main-
tenance, and response to emergencies; (3) social, which involves
the impact on the society and its mitigation; and (4) economic,
which addresses indirect and direct costs associated with the reduc-
tion of functionality of the infrastructure and its rehabilitation.
Resilience is also characterized by four properties: (1) robustness
is the ability to withstand a given extreme event and still deliver a
service, often measured by the residual functionality level after the
occurrence of the event; (2) rapidity is the speed with which a struc-
ture recovers from such an event to reach a high functionality level;
(3) redundancy is the extent to which elements and components of
the investigated system are substitutable; and (4) resourcefulness is
the capacity to make the appropriate budget available, identify
problems, establish priorities, and mobilize resources after an ex-
treme event. Robustness and rapidity are sometimes called the
“goals” of resilience, while redundancy and resourcefulness are
the “means” to achieve resilience.
Finally, there are the three results (or outcomes) of resilience. A
resilient system is (1) more reliable, since it has a lower probability
of reaching limit states. In fact, the so-called robustness guarantees
that even in case of extreme events, the extent of damage and the
reduction of functionality are small. Indeed, this can be achieved
only if the reliability with respect to service and ultimate limit states
is very high. Moreover, resilience is associated with (2) fast recov-
ery. As already mentioned, the rapidity of functionality restoration
during a disaster is a paramount characteristic of resilient systems.
Finally, resilience implies (3) low socioeconomic consequences.
© ASCE 04014004-5
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
In fact, the reduced probability of significant service level reduction
and fast recovery contributes to the reduction of the impact of ex-
treme events on the society. This in turn also yields a reduction of
the risk associated with extreme events.
Other conceptual definitions of resilience have been proposed
after 2003, specifically applying to lifelines (Chang and Shinozuka
2004; Rose and Liao 2005; Çağnan et al. 2006; Xu et al. 2007),
distributed infrastructure systems (Miles and Chang 2006; Bruneau
et al. 2007), and many other systems (Rose 2004). All these
definitions have common roots and traits, but each of them empha-
sizes different aspects, particularly those that are relevant for the
considered application. However, the definition by Bruneau et al.
(2003) remains the most popular among researchers.
Analytical Definitions of Resilience
The broad group of authors that provided the most comprehensive
conceptual definition of resilience (Bruneau et al. 2003) introduced
also the so called “resilience triangle.” This idea is the root of an
entire family of analytical definitions of resilience. The resilience
triangle is used to describe a loss of resilience rather than resilience
itself. Fig. 4 shows a graphical interpretation of the resilience tri-
angle. The quantification of resilience is strictly connected to the
quantification of functionality (the vertical axis) in time. Fig. 4
shows that after the occurrence of an extreme event at time t0 , the
investigated system (e.g., a bridge or a transportation network) re-
ceives interventions and repair actions that restore the functionality.
Assuming that the total functionality is restored at time tr , the resil-
ience triangle is the shaded region above the linear approximation
of the functionality recovery path. The three edges of the resilience
triangle are particularly meaningful. One leg measures the quantity
(1–“robustness”), which expresses the loss of functionality due to
the extreme event. The second leg is the total recovery time. Its
value also can be expressed in terms of rapidity, which is the aver-
age slope of the recovery path:
1 − “robustness”
tr − t0 ¼ ð1Þ
“rapidity”
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 (1 – “robustness”) / “rapidity”
100%

Resilience
triangle
75%

Functionality [ Q(t)]

1 –“robustness”
Arctan (Rapidity)
50%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Approximate recovery
path
25%
“robustness”

Real recovery
path

0%
t0 tr
Time (t)

Fig. 4. Resilience triangle (shaded area); at t ¼ t0 the external shock occurs, and at t ¼ tr the recovery is complete

Finally, the hypotenuse is the linear approximation of the function-
ality recovery path. The area of the resilience triangle approximates
the loss of resilience due to the extreme event. A more accurate
assessment that accounts for the actual shape of the recovery path
is (Bruneau et al. 2003)
Z the concepts of resilience and functionality; and it has been used in
tr
RL ¼ ½100 − QðtÞ
dt
t0
where RL is the loss of resilience experienced by the system, t0 is
the time instant when the extreme event occurs, tr is the time when
the functionality of the infrastructure is fully restored, Q is the
percentage “functionality” (or “quality,” or “serviceability”) of the
system, and t is time. The area above the recovery curve in Fig. 4
represents the resilience loss RL in Eq. (2). The definition in Eq. (2)
has the important merit of connecting analytically for the first time
several subsequent articles (Bruneau and Reinhorn 2006, 2007;
ð2Þ
Bruneau 2006).
Several analytical definitions of resilience (e.g., Cimellaro et al.
2006, 2010b; Bocchini and Frangopol 2013) originated from
Eq. (2). Bocchini and Frangopol (2011) provided a critical

th
100%

75%
Functionality [Q(t)]

50%
1

25%

0%
t0 tr t0+th
Time (t)

Fig. 5. Resilience loss RL as computed by Eq. (2) and resilience index R according to Eq. (3); the numerator of Eq. (3) is the area underneath the
recovery curve, and the denominator is the entire shaded area (width ¼ th , height ¼ 1)

© ASCE 04014004-6 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 overview and discussion of this family of analytical definitions. Two
research groups proposed independently the latest definition of this
family (Cimellaro et al. 2010a; Bocchini and Frangopol 2011):
R t0 þth
t0 QðtÞdt
R¼
th
where R is the resilience index and th is the time horizon investigated
by the analysis. Fig. 5 provides a graphical interpretation of Eq. (3).
The numerator of Eq. (3) represents the area underneath the recovery
path QðtÞ; the denominator represents the value of resilience if the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Comparing Resilience and Sustainability
Table 2 provides a schematic overview of similarities and differen-
ces between sustainability and resilience. The comparison is
organized into 11 categories, and the possibility of conflation is
ð3Þ evaluated. In the following discussion, this table is commented
in detail.
An analysis of the terminology and definitions of both concepts
shows that the two common definitions were developed completely
independently. While the common definition of sustainability
focuses on future developments in regular conditions, resilience
refers to the capabilities of a community reacting to an abnormal
impact. Here, no match can be found. However, some similarities

event did not occur or had no effects on functional-

ity (i.e., 100% · th ¼ th ).
Eq. (3) has the merit of combining all the dimensions, proper-
ties, and results of resilience in a single scalar metric defined over
the interval [0,1]. Compared to the current state-of-the-art in terms
of sustainability assessment systems for infrastructures, where
quantitative indicators are still pursued, this is a very valuable
achievement. However, it does not seem appropriate to blend all
the different characteristics that determine a resilient infrastructure
into a single index. For this reason, other approaches that combine
multiple aspects without blending them completely are still under
investigation, such as multi-limit-state probabilistic resilience
(Chang and Shinozuka 2004), perceived resilience (Zobel 2011),
and multicriteria optimization (Bocchini and Frangopol 2011,
2012).
are recognizable when analyzing keywords that are often used for
descriptions in papers. Both concepts address a holistic view and
deal with the assessment of an infrastructure system. On the other
hand, sustainability is more related to an environmental orientation
and the reduction of impacts on the environment, while resilience
deals with extreme events and disaster management. Overall, some
good matchings can be identified, although the keywords show
different emphases.
As an important category to use for comparison, the different
dimensions or pillars used in both concepts can be identified. Some
interesting similarities can be found here. Both resilience and sus-
tainability use social and economic categories as a basis for the
assessment. In addition, technical and organizational dimensions
are addressed by the concept of resilience. These are also important

Table 2. Similarities and Differences among Sustainability and Resilience

Categories
Common definition
Keywords often used for
description in papers
Dimensions/pillars
Target
Measuring labels/medals
Quantification
Spatial scale
Important instruments/
calculation methods in
science
Important instruments/
calculation methods in
practice
Current relevance in
science for infrastructure
assessment
Current relevance in
practice for
infrastructure
assessment
Note: þþ = perfect matching; þ = good matching; o = no significant matching.
Sustainability
Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs (Brundtland 1987)
Holistic, green, life cycle, life-cycle assessment,
life-cycle costing, social costing, sustainable
development, indicators, rating
Dimensions: economic, ecological, social
Strategies: efficiency, sufficiency, consistency
Reduction of impacts and resource consumption
in the three dimensions, inter- and
intra-generational fairness
Labels: Platinum, gold, silver, certified,
quantitative measures are constantly developed
Mostly based on indices summarizing different
quantitative and qualitative indicators; result
is a score
Most advanced on building level, activities on
network level seldom included
LCA, LCC, external costs, multicriteria decision
making, energy modeling, building information
modeling
Decision supporting assessment schemes, mostly
based on checklists compared with a reference
structure
Interest growing since 2005, extremely
forthcoming because of several research projects
started in the last two years
Medium relevance for newly built structures;
several new systems recognizable that will
increase the relevance within the next five years
Work for the implementation in national and
international standards underway
Resilience Matching
Resilience is the ability of human communities to o
withstand external shocks or perturbations to their
infrastructure and to recover from such
perturbations (Timmerman 1981)
Recovery, extreme events, disaster management, þ
functionality, infrastructure, lifelines, networks,
communities
Dimensions: technical, organizational, social, þþ
economic Means: redundancy, resourcefulness
Goals: robustness, rapidity Results: higher þ
reliability, fast recovery, lower risk
A medal-based system is used in practice, but þ
quantitative measures are becoming more popular
among researchers
Often quantified by the index in Eq. (3) o
(Cimellaro et al. 2010a; Bocchini and Frangopol
2011)
Mainly community and network level (but also o=þ
individual structure level)
LCC, user cost analysis, multicriteria decision þþ
making, extreme events simulation
Classification of critical infrastructure in three þ
levels Prioritization of interventions based on
previous experience
Interest growing since 2000, very significant þþ
momentum in the last three years; very topical
these days
Approach very different from science; some þþ
associations are promoting the use of resilience
criteria in the building codes, but not even a
common vocabulary has been established

© ASCE 04014004-7 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 for sustainability, but they are normally not referred to as a “dimen-
sion.” Instead, many indicators dealing with technical and organi-
zational aspects exist. This is caused by the different usage of terms
in both concepts. A comparison of Figs. 1 and 3 can help to clarify
the different usage. In contrast, ecology is an important dimension
for sustainability and the leading idea on which most existing as-
sessment systems are based. In the concept of resilience, ecological
aspects are classified indirectly by resourcefulness and lower con-
sequences. They are described as a property and a result of resil-
ience, respectively. Altogether, several parallels can be found when
comparing the different dimensions. Though, sustainability and
resilience use differently organized schemes and a slightly different
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
terminology.
The targets of the two concepts do not match at first glance.
While sustainability aims to reduce impacts and resources and,
more generally, to satisfy the needs of today’s generation without
living at the expense of future generations, resilience aims to
achieve the robustness and rapid recovery of systems. It can be real-
ized that the goal of resilience is more specific. Fig. 4 illustrates
these two goals descriptively. However, there is a more abstract
goal of resilience. From the point of view of decision makers,
authorities, and communities, robustness and rapidity of systems
are aimed, in turn, at reducing social and economic impacts.
The emphasis here can depend on the owner of the infrastructure:
if the owner is public, it is interested in the impacts on the society,
whereas if it is private, it is usually interested only in the aspects for
which it is directly accountable. But this can apply to sustainability
as well. Hence, a good match can be identified here.
Furthermore, both concepts developed a similar possibility to
communicate the assessment results easily to the public and the
parties concerned. Therefore, the use of symbolic labels (e.g., gold,
silver, and bronze) and descriptive overviews has been developed
as a simple communication tool and visualization method [see
Berardi (2012) for sustainability and Poland (2011) for resilience].
Owners of buildings like to show the achievements represented by a
label. On the other hand, it is not useful and neat to assign several
different labels to a structure, such as a sustainability label, a resil-
ience label, an energy efficiency label, and an architectural award.
Instead, decision makers should focus on creating a structure with
an optimal performance according to different, partially conflicting
objectives. Thus, labels can be described as a communication tool,
but not as a primary aim for sustainability and resilience assess-
ment, even if they already exist in both the sustainability and resil-
ience markets.
Another recurrent issue is the quantification of the two con-
cepts. Sustainability assessment systems often claim to provide
an objective, evidence-based decision basis. In fact, a large number
of drawings, calculations, management concepts, material lists,
contracts, and other elements have to be prepared and searched
for during the assessment procedure. However, most indicators
used for the sustainability assessment of infrastructures are just de-
scribing the possible response categories qualitatively. One reason
is the lack of quantification methods for the various subcriteria, and
another is the effort to carry out a detailed and holistic assessment.
These days, the sustainability assessment of infrastructures is still
in its infancy, and an easy-to-use system is necessary to create
acceptance among the users. On the other hand, resilience has been
dealing with qualitative descriptions since the beginning and quan-
titative approaches are most popular. Because of the different ways
to incorporate quantitative indicators and criteria, there is no
significant matching among the two concepts in the category of
quantification.
Regarding the spatial scale of resilience, the assessment is
performed mainly at the community and network levels.
© ASCE 04014004-8
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
An application at the level of an individual structure is possible
but not customary. In contrast, the sustainability assessment is usu-
ally performed at the building level for construction work. But even
for sustainability, especially for infrastructure systems, interactions
between the building itself and the surrounding environment be-
come increasingly important. As a result, sustainability assessment
started at a small spatial scale and is expanding, while resilience is
applied mainly at a larger spatial scale. For instance, in some coun-
tries (e.g., Germany), the impact of transport investments are quan-
tified at the network level by national investment plans. In
summary, both concepts are very likely to provide possibilities
for assessing systems and structures at large as well as at small scale
in the near future, depending on the goal of the assessment.
The instruments and calculation methods used for the assess-
ment are quite similar. For scientific calculations, both concepts
use life-cycle costs (LCCs), external costs, user costs, and multi-
criteria decision making for the analysis. The method of calculating
external costs can be applied to sustainability assessment and in-
corporates user costs, but also it incorporates effects like accidents,
noise, and air pollution. It must be emphasized that the concept of
external costing is much more common for assessing transport ac-
tivities than for infrastructure sustainability assessments at present.
Differences can be found in the methods for life-cycle assessment
(LCA), which involves sustainability, and extreme event simula-
tion, which involves resilience. In the common practice, checklist-
based schemes are applied to both systems. In this case, a textual
description delivers possible assessment levels, and the experts
have to classify the infrastructure according to the given categories.
Due to the basically similar procedure, a good parallel can be
determined for this item.
Finally, very good compliance can be found for the relevance in
science and practice. The interest in the development of sustain-
ability and resilience concepts started to grow between 2000 and
2005, and in the past three years an increasing number of projects
and papers have dealt with the assessment of infrastructures. Until
now, the significance of resilience and sustainability for practical
applications is low on average, but the number of people and
institutions pushing toward practical usage shows a strongly in-
creasing trend.
Some preliminary attempts to combine both concepts can be
found in the literature (Zinke et al. 2012a). For instance, Turner
(2010) discusses the two concepts in general and describes some
interesting approaches, with a focus on vulnerability analyses.
Since no conflation is delivered, this paper is more conceptual. De-
spite the fact that they were primarily meant for sustainability as-
sessment, the existing British CEEQUAL (2010) and American
Envision (ISI 2011) sustainability assessment schemes for infra-
structures also cover aspects associated with resilience to some ex-
tent. Different publications deal with sustainability assessment that
covers the possible risks associated with the location of a structure
and climate change, even though no further hazard-related conse-
quences are addressed (Larsen et al. 2011; NRC 2009). When the
term “resilience” is used there, mainly the robustness of a structure
to climate change and increasing negative climate effects is meant.
Therefore, from the perspective of sustainability, it can be con-
cluded that issues covering resilience are only partially considered.
On the other hand, the idea of incorporating the probability of oc-
currence of natural and anthropogenic hazards can be seen as a first
step in the right direction. Since the experts who develop sustain-
ability assessment systems are usually not specialists in risk assess-
ment, they decided to incorporate a first simple criterion. This
idea needs to be extended for structures exposed to hazards and
being an important part of the regional system. It has to be further
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 expanded because assessing the capacity and resilience of a system
is different from just assessing the possible risks.
The idea of incorporating sustainability aspects in hazard/
resilience analyses is promising as well. For instance, Ghosh et al.
(2011) present an approach that incorporates embodied energy in
the assessment of bridges exposed to hazards. Embodied energy, or
life-cycle energy assessment (LCEA), is an alternative concept to
the more comprehensive life-cycle analysis. Here, the conventional
procedure to calculate life-cycle costs for damages caused by haz-
ards is extended. Only one aspect of sustainability is addressed, but
it moves toward the development of a holistic assessment system
and connects resilience and sustainability. Also, Rose (2011) incor-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
porates a few sustainability aspects in the concept of posthazard
rehabilitation measures. This connection is necessary because
building a resilient structure does not necessarily mean creating
a sustainable structure. In the 2013 Report Card on America’s Infra-
structure, the two terms are named together as one of three key
solutions to raising the infrastructure condition grades. So the
two concepts are part of a single essential strategy, even if the
Report Card addresses them separately (ASCE 2013). It can be
concluded that the community of scholars dealing with sustainable
communities and those dealing with risk and resilience started to
look at each other.
Unified Approach
The previous sections of this paper described the idea and the cur-
rent status of resilience and sustainability. Based on this informa-
tion, the fundamental nature of both concepts can be identified.
Infrastructure sustainability assessment analyzes all predictable
and regular impacts of the considered infrastructure on the commu-
nity (i.e., people, environment, and economy) during its service
life. The assessment is usually performed in the planning period
of a project and normally carried out with the help of predefined
assessment systems and the entire project team. The defined assess-
ment indicators measure the projected performance during the
design, construction, operation, and removal period in three
Fig. 6. Impacts of the infrastructure on the community, as addressed by resilience and sustainability; resilience focuses on concentrated large impacts
associated with extreme events (low probability of occurrence, high consequences), and sustainability focuses on small impacts, which are almost
certain and distributed over the entire life cycle
© ASCE 04014004-9
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
dimensions: ecology, economy, and society. On the other hand,
resilience aims to analyze the impact of the infrastructure due to
extreme events and the ability of the entire community to react
effectively under these circumstances. The assessment is based on
quantification methods normally applied by structural engineers.
Both concepts consider the entire life cycle of the infrastructure,
and both estimate the impact of the infrastructure on the society, but
focus on events of different extents, as Fig. 6 shows. While sustain-
ability addresses impacts that are distributed over the life cycle and
will almost certainly occur (e.g., annual costs of maintenance based
on typical predefined degradation curves), resilience emphasizes
the impact of the infrastructure damage, failure, and recovery when
subject to hazards with a low probability of occurrence and poten-
tially high consequences. These latter impacts are rare, and they
are likely never to occur during the infrastructure service life. How-
ever, due to their magnitude, if one of them occurs, it is likely to over-
whelm the cumulative life-cycle impact that sustainability addresses.
These two concepts are both trying to support decision makers
in designing structures or infrastructure systems. Here, the chal-
lenge arises: namely, the infrastructure should be resilient and sus-
tainable, but it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of any
decision with respect to impacts as different as those considered
by resilience analyses and sustainability assessments. The first step
toward the achievement of this goal is an acknowledgment that
these two metrics will measure the major objectives of the future
infrastructure systems. The second step is the use of a rigorous,
quantitative, and unified approach that combines resilience and sus-
tainability. This approach has to assess the impact associated with
various events so that they can be compared. The well-established
framework used for risk analysis appears to be the most suitable
candidate (Puppe 1991). The various events are weighted by their
probability of occurrence:
X X
I¼ Pe · I e þ Pe · I e ð4Þ
e∈Er e∈Es
where I is the expected life-cycle impact of the infrastructure on the
community (typically measured in monetary units); Er and Es are
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 90' 90' 180'

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Analyzed bridge types: (a) girder bridge with midspan support; (b) bridge designed as a frame bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. (a) Perspective view of a typical frame bridge; (b) section of the detail steel girder–abutment

the domains of events usually addressed by resilience (i.e., extreme both qualities, but in some cases, the same decision could lead
events) and sustainability (e.g., construction, normal operations, to an enhancement of resilience and a worsening of sustainability,
scheduled maintenance, deconstruction), respectively; Pe is the or vice versa.
probability of occurrence of event e; and I e is the estimated impact As an example, short steel viaducts that cross highways with up
on the community of event e (typically measured in monetary to six lanes are analyzed. They can be built with or without a mid
units). For comparative studies, and if the monetarization of all the span support (see Fig. 7). The decision on whether to include this
impacts is not possible or appropriate, the various terms of the sum- support can affect both resilience and sustainability significantly. In
mations can be normalized using one design and management sol- this example, the layout without the midspan support has moment-
ution as reference. In this case, the results will be nondimensional. resistant joints connecting the deck to the abutments (see Fig. 8).
Eq. (4) has a conceptual fashion, but it also can be used to compare Therefore, the entire structure can be seen as a portal frame.
the relative importance of “ordinary” conditions and “extraordi- Instead, when the midspan support is present, the lateral joints
nary” scenarios along the life of the service. The development are usually simple-supports for the deck and do not transfer
of multi-hazard approaches seems to push designers and adminis- moments.
trators in a similar direction (Alampalli and Ettouney 2007; To perform a rough sustainability and resilience quantification,
Mujumdar 2007). In this way, the aspects associated with sustain- data have been obtained from the National Bridge Inventory
ability and resilience assessment are considered simultaneously and (FHWA 2009), two state departments of transportation (California
in a process of mutual interaction. It also should be noted that Dept. of Transportation (CalDOT) 2010; FDOT 2011), steel and
Eq. (4) can be used at the scale of the individual bridge, as well concrete bridge design handbooks (Branco and Brito 2004; NSBA
as at the regional scale. In fact, the impacts (environmental, eco- 2006a, b), the American Association of State Highway and Trans-
nomic, logistic, etc.) of bridges can and should be assessed at portation Officials (AASHTO) manual (AASHTO 2003), and pa-
the scale of the transportation network. In this way, the benefits pers in the field of external costs (Zinke et al. 2010; Zinke and
to the circulation yield by the construction of the bridge, as well as Ummenhofer 2010). Tables 3–5 show the collected data.
the utility losses due to its (partial) closure, can be estimated better. For the sustainability analysis, the methods of life-cycle costing
As already mentioned, infrastructure sustainability assessments (NCHRP 2003), life-cycle assessment (Gervásio 2010), and
typically are performed at the scale of the individual bridge. But
when techniques for the sustainability assessment at the network
scale will be available, Eq. (4) will still hold, just by updating ap- Table 3. Input Data Associated with Construction and Disposal Periods
propriately the way that I e is computed and expanding Er and Es Attribute Girder bridge Frame bridge
to all the events associated with any bridge of the network. Bridge deck area 2
502 m (5,400 sq ft) 502 m2 (5,400 sq ft)
Estimate unit costs 1; 615 $=m2 1; 884 $=m2
(150 $/sq ft) (175 $/sq ft)
Example: Layout of a Short Viaduct Estimate construction cost $810,000 $918,000
Estimate construction time 14 weeks 9 weeks
As already mentioned, resilience and sustainability are two qual- Estimate unit removal cost 323 $=m2 377 $=m2
ities of the infrastructure that should be pursued simultaneously (30 $/sq ft) (35 $/sq ft)
when decisions are made regarding the initial design, maintenance, Estimate removal cost $162,000 $189,000
and management of infrastructure systems in general and bridges Discount rate 3% 3%
in particular. Usually, better choices lead to an improvement of Note: The values are not discounted.

© ASCE 04014004-10 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 Table 4. Input Data Associated with Operation Period
Maintenance type Estimated cost Interval Duration Obstruction Affected road
Annual maintenancea $4,000 1 year N/A No obstruction None
Waterproofing concrete overlay deck 323 $=m2 (30 $/sq ft) 30 years 30 days, complete closure Bypass Overpass
Portland cement concrete overlay 161 $=m2 (15 $/sq ft) 20 years 40 days, 0.25 h during rush hour per vehicle Traffic jam Underpass
Steel coating system 71 $=m2 (6.6 $/sq ft) 20 years 20 days, 0.25 h during rush hour per vehicle Traffic jam Underpass
Expansion joint $50,000 20 years 20 days, complete closure Bypass Overpass
Bearings $15,000 30 years 30 days, 0.1 h during rush hour per vehicle Traffic jam Underpass
a
Sealing of small cracks, deck cleaning, inspections.

external cost calculation (Maibach et al. 2008; van Essen et al. 0.1 h. The number of vehicles affected during rush hour is shown in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2011) are used to assess the impacts on the dimensions of economy,
ecology, and society. These methods allow a quantitative calcula-
tion of impacts over the life cycle. The assessment is assumed to be
performed in an early design stage because changes to the funda-
mental layout of the bridge are still feasible at that time. It is also
assumed that both alternative structural layouts would be part of the
same management process. As a consequence, sustainability as-
pects addressing issues like project management, integration of par-
ties affected, and compliance of regulations are the same for both
bridges and will not be incorporated into this comparative analysis.
Instead, the focus will be on the structure itself and its interactions
with the surrounding community and environment.
The calculations presented are suitable to represent a sustainabil-
ity analysis because the most important impacts for the assessment
of bridges in an early design stage are considered. Depending on
the aims of the assessment, additional indicators can be incorpo-
rated, especially into the social dimension. Possible noise impacts,
modified accident rates dependent on the specific location of the
bridge, visual impacts, and barrier effects are just a few examples.
An overview of such indicators can be found in Zinke et al. (2012b).
The calculations of the external costs include user costs and
monetized effects on nonroad-users and third parties. The system
boundaries are defined by the streets affected directly by the bridge;
the potential redistribution of the traffic on alternative routes is not
considered. It is assumed that a complete new bridge is erected, and
that during erection, only the underpass is affected by traffic jams.
For the sake of clarity, the loss of time of off-peak traffic resulting
from speed limitations is not considered in the calculations. The
external costs during erection can be computed as
Cexternal;erection ¼ f½Vehiclesrush hour;car
Table 5. To calculate the user costs, the overall delay time has to be
multiplied by the estimated time costs, which are also given in
Table 5. The same procedure can be used to compute operation
and environmental costs. The impacts arising from closure of the
overpass (application of waterproofing concrete on the overlay
deck and replacement of expansion joints) are the result of the
additional time, operation expenses, and environmental impacts
necessary for the required detour of 8.0 km (5 mi) [see Eq. (8)].
Fig. 9 shows the results of the LCC and external cost calcula-
tions, and it can be seen that the construction costs of the frame
bridge are higher. Due to the lower maintenance costs during the
life cycle, the discounted total costs (net present value) are nearly
the same as for the girder bridge. The external costs are character-
ized by a completely different progression. At the beginning of the
life cycle, the shorter construction time of the frame bridge leads to
less obstruction of the traffic on the existing underpass. During the
life cycle, advantages arise because of the missing bearings and
expansion joints. As a result, the closure of the overpass is pre-
vented. Additionally, the missing central pillar leads to a reduction
of traffic jams on the underpass during the realization of mainte-
nance measures. Overall, the girder bridge creates external costs
that are about 39% higher than the ones of the frame bridge.
For the life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the environmental im-
pacts, only the most relevant masses (i.e., steel, reinforcement,
and concrete and corrosion protection of the superstructure and
substructure, including foundation) are considered. Materials for
railings, safety barriers, and auxiliary materials are not incorporated
into the calculations. For the life-cycle assessment of construction
products, the impact categories global warming potential (GWP),
ozone depletion potential (ODP), photochemical ozone creation

× ðcosttime;car þ costop;car þ costenv;car Þ

Table 5. Input Data for the Calculation of External Costs
þ ½Vehiclesrush hour;truck
Attribute Cars Trucks
× ðcosttime;truck þ costop;truck þ costenv;truck Þ
g Length of overpass detour 8.0 km (5 mi) 8.0 km (5 mi)
× timeerection period weekdays × timedelay Length of underpass detour 16.1 km (10 mi) 16.1 km (10 mi)
Average speed on overpass 72.4 km/h 72.4 km/h (45 mph)
ð5Þ (45 mph)
ADT underpass 61,600 cars 8,400 trucks
In Eq. (5), Vehiclesrush hour;car indicates the number of cars daily Vehicles in underpass during 9,000 cars=day 1,200 trucks=day
affected by traffic jams on the underpass; costtime;car is the hourly rush hour
time costs for cars; costop;car is the operation costs per hour for cars; Delay time for erection during 0.25 h 0.25 h
rush hour
costenv;car is the environmental costs for cars; timeerection period weekdays
ADT overpass 5,280 cars 720 trucks
is the number of weekdays needed for the erection; and timedelay is Estimate time cost 23 $=h 27 $=h
the time in hours that vehicles are obstructed by traffic jams Estimate operation cost 0.12 $=km 0.56 $=km
every day. due to bypass (0.20 $/mile) (0.90 $/mile)
The same computations have to be performed for the service Estimate operation cost due to 1.10 $=h 6.20 $=h
stage. The duration and level of obstruction for each maintenance traffic jam
measure are shown in Table 4. For instance, a replacement of the Estimate environmental cost rate 0.15 $=h 5.90 $=h
bearings takes place every 30 years. During the construction period Note: Accidental costs, noise, climate change and impacts on landscape are
of 30 days, every vehicle passing the bridge in rush hour is delayed not incorporated in this analysis.

© ASCE 04014004-11 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Results of the calculations of (a) life-cycle costs and (b) external costs within a life cycle of 100 years; the life-cycle costs are dependent on the
maintenance actions described in Table 4, and the lower external costs in (b) during construction are the result of the reduced construction time and
reduced obstruction during maintenance of the frame bridge

potential (POCP), acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication
potential (EP), as well as nonrenewable primary energy (NPE)
and total primary energy (TPE) use, are accounted for (CEN
2012). Categories like risks for the local environment and con-
sumption of drinking water and waste water can be added. As a
basis for the phase of the characterization in the course of the
life-cycle assessment the database oekobau.dat is used (BMVBS
2011). Since it is not the aim of this paper to deliver a complete
set of benchmarks for the analyzed structures, the results of two
impact categories are presented in Fig. 10.
Here, the GWP and the TPE are shown for the different stages of
the life cycle. It can be seen that on average, the frame bridge gen-
erates 20% and 35% higher impacts than the girder bridge in the
construction stage for GWP and TPE, respectively. The gap re-
mains similar even when the positive impacts due to recycling
of the steel girders are incorporated into the calculations. During
maintenance and deconstruction, the impacts of both alternatives
are similar in scale. These impacts have been estimated using
the benchmarks provided by Lünser (1998).
For the overall assessment of the sustainability of the two
structures, a weighting of the single aspects has to be performed,
including life-cycle costs, external costs, and the results of the life-
cycle assessment. This is a difficult task, as stated previously. For
the chosen example, because of the great advantages in the field of
external costs for the frame bridge, the disadvantages in the field of
ecological impacts are compensated. The overall decision on which
bridge shall be built depends on the emphasis of the deci-
sion maker.
For the resilience assessment, the case of a seismic event is con-
sidered. Different seismic events and other hazard sources can be
considered as well. The bridge is assumed to be located in the area
of Santa Barbara, California, and to be built in 2012 according to
the current seismic building codes. For this area, USGS (2008) pro-
vides the seismic hazard maps with 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years, which means a return period of 2,475 years, and a
3.96% probability of exceedance over the life cycle of the bridge
(assumed to be 100 years). Based on its location, the assumption to
be building on stiff soil and the structural characteristics of the
two layouts, it is possible to perform a complete seismic fragility
analysis for both layouts. For brevity, the detailed computations
associated with such analysis are omitted herein; they follow the
procedure presented by Mander (1999). The results are provided
in Table 6. The best estimate damage associated with each damage
state can be expressed as a ratio r, where 0% means no damage and
100% means complete damage. For the intermediate states, slight
damage means a 3% structural loss, moderate damage means an 8%
structural loss, and extensive damage means a 25% structural loss
(ATC 1985). Therefore, combining the results of the fragility analy-
sis with the construction costs of each bridge, the expected direct
costs are computed as

Fig. 10. Results of the calculations of the life-cycle assessment for the two bridges, displayed for the two impact categories (a) global warming
potential (GWP) and (b) total primary energy (TPE); the recycling potential visualizes credits that arise at the end of the life cycle by recycling the
steel components

© ASCE 04014004-12 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 Table 6. Results of the Seismic Fragility Analysis for an Earthquake with a 2,475-Year Return Period
Probabilitiy of no Probabilitiy of slight
Bridge layout damage (%) damage (%)
Girder bridge 57.5 26.5
Frame bridge 50.0 37.9
Note: The percentages in this table are the probabilitiy of being in a certain state.
X
5 90.9%, versus 86.1% for the girder bridge) and in terms of func-
Csdir ¼ Ps · Cc · Pd · Dd
d¼1
where Csdir is the expected direct cost associated with the investi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
gated seismic event, Ps is the probability of occurrence of the
investigated seismic event over the life cycle of the bridge
(i.e., 3.96%, as already mentioned); Cc is the construction cost
of the bridge (whether girder bridge or frame bridge); the subscript
d runs over the five considered damage states; Pd is the probability
of being in damage state d as computed by the fragility analysis;
and Dd is the damage ratio associated with damage state d. Using
Eq. (6) for the two investigated bridge layouts, the expected direct
costs are $1,940 for the girder bridge and $1,740 for the frame
bridge.
For each of the damage states in Table 6, functionality recovery
functions in terms of traffic flow capacity have been assessed
based on a thorough survey among experts (ATC 1985). These
recovery functions have been estimated for any generic bridge.
Therefore, for this example, they have been linearly scaled so that
for each of the two layouts, the time of complete functionality
restoration after collapse equals 1.5 times the construction time,
considering the phases of debris removal and reconstruction
(21 weeks for the girder bridge and 13.5 weeks for the frame
bridge). Combining the probability of being in each of the five
damage states Pd with the traffic flow functionality recovery func-
tion Qd ðtÞ, it is possible to estimate the expected functionality
recovery path QðtÞ:
X
5 ctime trucks is the cost of time for trucks (27 $=h); and
QðtÞ ¼ Pd · Qd ðtÞ
d¼1
where the subscript d runs over the five considered damage states
(i.e., no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, major damage,
and complete collapse). Fig. 11 shows the evolution over 180 days
after the seismic event of the expected value of the functionality
for the two investigated bridge layouts. The frame bridge without
the central support is superior in terms of seismic resistance (the
expected value of the functionality immediately after the event is
Fig. 11. Functionality recovery for the two bridges; a seismic event
with a 2,475-year return period is assumed to occur at t ¼ 0
© ASCE
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Probabilitiy of moderate Probabilitiy of extensive Probabilitiy of total
damage (%) damage (%) collapse (%)
6.7 6.1 3.2
5.1 5.0 2.0
ð6Þ tionality recovery (complete recovery is expected to be achieved
after 96 days, versus 148 days for the girder bridge). The frame
bridge has higher resilience (98.78%) than the girder bridge
(97.30%), as computed by Eq. (3). This difference can seem to be
relatively small, but its impact in terms of expected indirect
costs is very significant. In fact, the indirect costs due to the struc-
tural failure of the bridge can be assessed by considering the
detour of the vehicles that cannot use the overpass and the crossed
highway:
cind ¼ ðADToverpass cars · loverpass þ ADThw cars · lhw Þ
· ðs · ctime cars þ cdistance cars Þ þ ðADToverpass trucks
· loverpass þ ADThw trucks · lhw Þ · ðs · ctime trucks þ cdistance trucks Þ
ð8Þ
where cind is the indirect daily cost due to structural failure (bridge
closure); ADToverpass cars is the numbers of cars per day on the
overpass (5,280 cars=day); loverpass is the additional length of
the detour for the overpass (5 mi); ADThw cars is the daily car flow
on the crossed highway (61,600 cars=day); lhw is the additional
length of the detour for the highway segment (10 mi); s is the
average traffic speed on the detour (30 mph); ctime cars is the cost
of time for cars (23 $=h), cdistance cars is the cost per mile covered
by cars (0.20 $=mi); ADToverpass trucks is the numbers of trucks per
day on the overpass (720 trucks=day); ADThw trucks is the daily
truck flow on the crossed highway (8,400 trucks=day),
ð7Þ cdistance trucks is the cost per mile covered by trucks (0.90 $=mi).
The result is a total indirect cost cind ¼ 779,000 $=day. Combin-
ing this result with the recovery curves, the expected economic
impact of the out-of-service state of the bridge can be assessed:
Z t
r
Csind ¼ Ps · ½1 − QðtÞ
· cind · dt ð9Þ
t¼0
where Csind is the total expected indirect costs due to the seismic
event, Ps is the probability of occurrence of the investigated seis-
mic event over the life cycle of the bridge (i.e., 3.96%, as already
mentioned), tr is the expected time of complete functionality re-
covery, and cind is the indirect daily cost due to structural failure.
Eq. (9) yields $153,000 for the girder bridge and $67,700 for the
frame bridge. Therefore, the total (direct and indirect) expected
costs associated with the investigated seismic event with a rela-
tively high probability of occurrence is $155,000 for the girder
bridge and $69,400 for the frame bridge. These impacts are rel-
evant, especially considering that these bridges have been as-
sumed to be designed according to the best seismic standards
and that only one earthquake has been considered. It is straight-
forward to conclude that the economic impact associated with all
the possible hazards (e.g., other earthquakes, floods, hurricanes,
explosions, and impacts), especially for older bridges that do not
match the best structural standards, is very significant and must be
included in any life-cycle cost analysis. Indeed, this analysis has
been repeated for all seismic scenarios, using the data on the
04014004-13 J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Table 7. Impacts of the Two Bridge Layouts Computed by the Various Analyses
Sustainability
LCA
LCC GWP TPE
Bridge layout Million $ kg CO2-Eq. MJ
Girder 1.24 5.9 · 105 7.1 · 105
Frame 1.26 5.4 · 106 7.4 · 106
Note: The values obtained by the sustainability analysis have not been scaled by their probabilities, whereas the values computed by the resilience analysis are
“expected values” (i.e., weighted by the probability of occurrence of the various seismic scenarios). The recycling potential of steel has not been considered in
the LCA results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
probability of having any level of ground motions at the location
of the bridge (using the spectral acceleration as intensity measure),
as provided by USGS (2002). The results of all seismic scenarios
have been combined, and the total expected impact associated
with seismic resilience is $3.25 million for the girder bridge
and $1.85 million for the frame bridge.
Table 7 shows the results of all the analyses performed for the
two bridge layouts. Eq. (4) can be used to combine the results of
sustainability and seismic resilience, at least for the monetary val-
ues. In Table 7, the values obtained by the sustainability analysis
have not been scaled by their probabilities. It is assumed that for
the impacts of LCC and LCA, the probability of occurrence is
Pe ¼ 90% because these values are almost certain. For the external
costs (i.e., “social impact analysis”) the uncertainty is larger and Pe
is assumed to be equal to 80%. Then, all the monetary impacts have
been combined in Eq. (4) and the results are $11.6 million for the
girder bridge and $8.2 million for the frame bridge. These values
confirm that the frame bridge is preferable overall and has an ex-
pected lower impact on the community. However, the frame bridge
has a higher environmental impact, in terms of GWP and TPE.
This type of impacts are typically not accounted for by resilience
analyses, but a further development of the proposed approach also
can lead to the assessment of nonmonetary impacts in the case of
extreme events.
In this numerical example, the expected impacts associated
with the sustainability analysis are larger than those associated with
the resilience analysis. Even though this is not always true, it is
expected that this applies to the majority of new bridges, which
are designed with the most advanced structural standards. In fact,
these bridges have very low probabilities of structural failure
and the expected impact of extreme events over the life cycle is
relatively low. On the contrary, for decisions about the retrofit/
replacement of older infrastructure systems, the impact of extreme
events can be much more relevant, and resilience is likely to drive
the entire analysis of impacts.
Conclusions
The concepts of resilience and sustainability have been discussed
and compared. The application of these concepts to the design and
management of infrastructure systems in general, and to bridges in
particular, has been investigated. Even though this paper is a first
conceptual attempt to provide a unified perspective, several conclu-
sions can be drawn:
• Resilience and sustainability are two paramount complementary
attributes of the infrastructure. While sustainability addresses
the time-continuous impacts on the economy, society, and en-
vironment that the infrastructure certainly will distribute over
its entire service life, resilience focuses on the large impact that
the service failure of the infrastructure can have in the case
© ASCE
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Resilience
Social Direct impact Indirect impact Total impact
Million $ $ Million $ Million $
9.00 38,800 3.21 3.25
6.50 41,000 1.81 1.85
of extreme events. Only the combination of both concepts pro-
vides a truly comprehensive assessment of the quality of the
infrastructure.
• In some cases, the pursuit of resilience can be in conflict with the
pursuit of sustainability. In such scenarios, a complete analysis
of all the possible outcomes of each decision is of utmost im-
portance for decision makers. Both resilience and sustainability
are deemed necessary for the infrastructure of our society and
any technical and political decision should aim at achieving the
best possible balance, with minimum compromise.
• The developments of resilience and sustainability in civil engi-
neering are slowly converging. Whereas resilience focused
on infrastructure and communities since the beginning, sustain-
ability originally was applied mostly to buildings and products.
However, a few institutions around the globe recently have
been working on infrastructure sustainability assessment sys-
tems. It is becoming clear that for infrastructure components
(e.g., bridges, roads, and lifelines) sustainability also should
be assessed considering a broad regional scale that accounts
for entire transportation networks and communities, as is cus-
tomary for resilience analyses. Moreover, in infrastructure sus-
tainability assessment systems, the idea of incorporating risks
can be found. These approaches can be considered as a first
interface between the domain of hazards investigated by resili-
ence and sustainability.
• One of the biggest challenges for the assessment of both sus-
tainability and resilience is the collection of the required data
and the computation of truly quantitative metrics. The field of
resilience appears more advanced in terms of quantitative ana-
lyses and indicators for infrastructures. Sustainability assess-
ment systems have promoted a culture of more thorough data
collection and management. Also in this sense, cooperation
among the two fields and their experts is likely to lead to mutual
exchanges and significant benefits.
• Finally, resilience, sustainability, and their combination should
be analyzed with a probabilistic perspective. In fact, both resi-
lience and sustainability measure the consequences of the deci-
sion associated with the infrastructure. Sustainability focuses
on almost certain consequences that are distributed over the life
cycle and can be predicted with good approximation. Resilience
considers large consequences associated with events with a
small probability of occurrence. In this light, strong similarities
with the concept of “risk” appear evident. An extension of the
risk theory paradigm for infrastructure systems can lead to a
solid and systematic unification of resilience and sustainability.
Acknowledgments
The support from (a) the National Science Foundation through
Grant CMS-0639428; (b) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
04014004-14 J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Department of Community and Economic Development, through
the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance (PITA);
(c) the U.S. Federal Highway Administration Cooperative Agree-
ment Award DTFH61-07-H-00040; (d) the German Federal
Ministry of Economics and Technology through Grant P 843;
and (e) the Karlsruhe House of Young Scientists is gratefully
acknowledged.
The opinions and conclusions presented in this paper are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor-
ing organizations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Alampalli, S., and Ettouney, M. (2007). “On application of theory of
multi-hazards to bridge design, analysis, and monitoring.” Symp. on
Emerging Developments in Multi-Hazard Engineering, ASCE-
MCEER, New York.
American Association of State Highway, and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (2003). A manual of user benefit analysis for highways,
2nd Ed., American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1985). “Earthquake damage evalu-
ation data for California.” Technical Rep., Applied Technology Council,
ATC-13, Redwood City, CA.
ASCE. (2013). “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.” 〈http://www
.infrastructurereportcard.org〉 (May 15, 2013).
Barbosa, J. A., Mateus, R., and Bragança, L. (2011). “Development of a
sustainability assessment tool for office buildings.” Sustainability of
constructions: Towards a better built environment, L. Bragança, et al.,
eds., Gutenberg Press Ltd., Tarxien, Malta, 205–214.
Beck, M. (1996). “Wastewater infrastructure: Challenges for the sustainable
city in the New Millennium.” Habitat Intl., 20(3), 405–420.
Berardi, U. (2012). “Sustainability assessment in the construction sector:
Rating systems and rated buildings.” Sustain. Dev., 20, 411–424.
BMVBS. (2011). “Material database oekobau.dat.” BMVBS Federal Min-
istry of Transport, Building, and Urban Development, 〈http://www
.nachhaltigesbauen.de/oekobaudat/〉 (Aug. 10, 2011).
Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M. (2011). “Resilience-driven disaster
management of civil infrastructure.” Computational methods in
structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, M. Papadrakakis,
M. Fragiadakis, and V. Plevris, eds., Keynote paper, Institute of Struc-
tural Analysis and Antiseismic Research, School of Civil Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), 1–11.
Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M. (2012). “Restoration of bridge networks
after an earthquake: multi-criteria intervention optimization.” Earthq.
Spectra, 28(2), 427–455.
Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M. (2013). “Optimal resilience- and
cost-based post-disaster intervention prioritization for bridges along a
highway segment.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000201, 1–13.
Branco, F. A., and Brito, J. D. (2004). Handbook of concrete bridge
management, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Brundtland-report, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Bruneau, M., et al. (2003). “A framework to quantitatively assess and en-
hance the seismic resilience of communities.” Earthq. Spectra, 19(4),
733–752.
Bruneau, M. (2006). “Enhancing the resilience of communities against ex-
treme events from an earthquake engineering perspective.” J. Secur.
Educ., 1(4), 159–167.
Bruneau, M., et al. (2007). “White paper on the SDR grand challenges for
disaster reduction.” Technical Rep., Multidisciplinary Center for Earth-
quake Engineering Research, Univ. at Buffalo, State Univ. of New York,
Buffalo, NY.
Bruneau, M., and Reinhorn, A. (2007). “Exploring the concept of seismic
resilience for acute care facilities.” Earthq. Spectra, 23(1), 41–62.
© ASCE 04014004-15
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Bruneau, M., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2006). “Overview of the resilience
concept.” Proc. 8th National Conf. Earthquake Engineering, Earth-
quake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, CA.
Çağnan, Z., Davidson, R. A., and Guikema, S. D. (2006). “Post-earthquake
restoration planning for Los Angeles electric power.” Earthq. Spectra,
22(3), 589–608.
California Dept. of Transportation (CalDOT). (2010). 2010 traffic volumes
on the California State Highway System, California Dept. of Transpor-
tation, Sacramento, CA.
CEEQUAL. (2010). “Scheme description and assessment process hand-
book.” Technical Rep. Version 4.1 for Projects, The Assessment and
Awards Scheme for Improving Sustainability in Civil Engineering
and the Public Realm, London.
CEN. (2012). “En 15804: Sustainability of construction works—
Environmental product declarations—Core rules for the product
category of construction products.” CEN European Center for Stand-
ardization, Brussels.
Chang, S., and Shinozuka, M. (2004). “Measuring improvements in the
disaster resilience of communities.” Earthq. Spectra, 20(3), 739–755.
Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M. (2006). “Quantifi-
cation of seismic resilience.” Proc. 8th National Conf. Earthquake En-
gineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland,
CA.
Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M. (2010a). “Framework
for analytical quantification of disaster resilience.” Eng. Struct., 32(11),
3639–3649.
Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M. (2010b). “Seismic
resilience of a hospital system.” Struct. Infra. Eng., 6(1), 127–144.
DIN. (2012). “Valid standards issued by NA 005-01-31 AA.” DIN German
Institute for Standardization, 〈http://www.nabau.din.de〉 (Jan. 5, 2012).
Draeger, S. (2010). “Vergleich des Systems des Deutschen Gütesiegels
Nachhaltiges Bauen mit internationalen Systemen.” Technical Rep.
Aktenzeichen SF—10.08.17.7-09.15, im Auftrag des Bundesministe-
riums für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Berlin.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2009). “National bridge
inventory.” Federal Highway Administration, 〈http://www.fhwa.dot
.gov/bridge/nbi.htm〉 (Jan. 13, 2011).
Fernández-Sánchez, G., and Rodríguez-López, F. (2010). “A method-
ology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project
management—Application to infrastructure projects in Spain.” Ecol.
Ind., 10(6), 1193–1201.
Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT). (2011). “Transportation cost re-
port: Bridge costs—New construction.” Florida Dept. of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL, 〈http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs〉 (Jul.
10, 2011).
Fogib. (1997). “Ingenieurbauten—Wege zu einer ganzheitlichen Bewer-
tung, Band 1–3, Abschlussbericht der DFG-Forschergruppe Ingenieur-
bauten.” Universität Stuttgart, Germany.
Gervásio, H. (2010). “Sustainable design and integral life-cycle analysis of
bridges.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Coimbra,
Portugal.
Ghosh, J., Tapia, C., and Padgett, J. E. (2011). “Life-cycle analysis of
embodied energy for aging bridges subject to seismic hazards.” Appli-
cations of statistics and probability in civil engineering, M. Faber,
J. Köhler, and K. Nishijima, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, 562–569.
Graubner, C.-A., Schneider, C., Schulte, C., and Mielecke, T. (2009).
“Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitszertifizierungssysteme für Gebäude im
Vergleich: ‘BREEAM’, ‘LEED’ und das ‘Deutsche Gütesiegel Nach-
haltiges Bauen’.” Bauingenieur, 84(8), 320–329.
Holling, C. S. (1973). “Resilience and stability of ecological systems.”
Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 4(1), 1–23.
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). (2011). “Draft of the envision
assessment system, version 1.0.” Institute for Sustainable Infrastruc-
ture, 〈http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/〉 (Jul. 10, 2011).
International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC). (2004). Project
Sustainability Management Guidelines, Fédération Internationale des
Ingénieurs-Conseils, Geneve (in French).
ISO. (2013). “Draft of ISO/TS 21929-2: Sustainability in buildings and
civil engineering works—Sustainability indicators. Part 2: Framework
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 for the development of indicators for civil engineering works.” ISO,
Geneva.
Larsen, L., et al. (2011). Green building and climate resilience: Under-
standing impacts and preparing for changing conditions, Univ. of
Michigan and U.S. Green Building Council, Ann Arbor, MI and
Washington, DC.
Lee, W. (2012). “Benchmarking energy use of building environmental
assessment schemes.” Energy Build., 45(2), 326–334.
Lünser, H. (1998). Ökobilanzen im Brückenbau: Eine umweltbezogene,
ganzheitliche Bewertung, Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland.
Lupíšek, A., Vonka, M., and Hájek, P. (2011). “Czech assessment system
SBToolsCZ.” Sustainability of constructions: Towards a better-built
environment, L. Bragança, et al., eds., Gutenberg Press Ltd., Tarxien,
Malta, 221–224.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF on 11/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Maibach, M., et al. (2008). “Handbook on estimation of external costs
in the transport sector: Internalisation measures and policies for all
external cost of transport (impact).” Technical Rep. Pub. number:
07.4288.52, CE Delft, Delft.
Mander, J. B. (1999). “Fragility curve development for assessing the seis-
mic vulnerability of highway bridges.” Technical Rep., Multidiscipli-
nary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), Univ.
at Buffalo, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Rander, J., and Behrens, W. W. (1972).
The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the
predicament of mankind, Universe Books, New York.
Miles, S. B., and Chang, S. E. (2006). “Modeling community recovery
from earthquakes.” Earthq. Spectra, 22(2), 439–458.
Muench, S., et al. (2011). “Greenroads manual.” Technical Rep. Version
1.5, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Mujumdar, V. (2007). “A need for risk-consistent approach to multi-hazard
engineering.” Symp. Emerg. Dev. Multi-Hazard Eng., ASCE-MCEER,
New York.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (2003).
Bridge life-cycle cost analysis—National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Rep. 483, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Sustainable critical infrastruc-
ture systems—A framework for meeting 21st-century imperatives,
National Academies Press, National Research Council, Washington,
DC.
National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA). (2006a). Steel bridge design hand-
book: Corrosion protection of steel bridges, National Steel Bridge
Alliance, Division of the American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago.
National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA). (2006b). Steel bridge design hand-
book: Design example 2A: Two-span continious straight composite
I-girder, National Steel Bridge Alliance, Division of the American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
Otto, S. (2007). Bedeutung und Verwendung der Begriffe nachhaltige
Entwicklung und Nachhaltigkeit: Eine empirische Studie, Dissertation,
Jacobs Univ. Bremen, Jacobs Center on Lifelong Learning and Institu-
tional Development, Germany.
Pepper, D. (2005). Modern environmentalism: An introduction, Routledge,
London.
Pimm, S. (1984). “The complexity and stability of ecosystems.” Nature,
307(5949), 321–326.
Poland, C. D. (2011). Building disaster-resilient communities, Fazlur R.
Khan Distinguished Lecture Series, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA,
〈http://www.lehigh.edu/~infrk/frkarchive2011.html〉 (Apr. 8, 2011).
Puppe, C. (1991). Distorted probabilities and choice under risk, Lecture
notes in economics and mathematical systems, Springer, Germany.
Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., and Frederiksen, P. (2011).
“Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotia-
tion?” Ecol. Ind., 11(1), 61–70.
Rose, A. (2004). “Defining and measuring economic resilience to disas-
ters.” Disast. Prev. Manag., 13(4), 307–314.
Rose, A. (2011). “Resilience and sustainability in the face of disasters.”
Environ. Inno. Soc. Trans., 1(1), 96–100.
© ASCE 04014004-16
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Rose, A., and Liao, S. Y. (2005). “Modeling regional economic resilience to
disasters: A computable general equilibrium analysis of water service
disruptions.” J. Reg. Sci., 45(1), 75–112.
Szitar, M., and Grecea, D. (2011). “Sustainable building assessment tools
and the quality of the built environment.” Sustainability of construc-
tions: Towards a better-built environment, L. Bragança, et al., eds.,
Gutenberg Press Ltd., Tarxien, Malta, 155–162.
Timmerman, P. (1981). “Vulnerability. Resilience and the collapse of
society: A review of models and possible climatic applications.” Envi-
ronmental monograph, Institute for Environmental Studies, Univ. of
Toronto, Canada, 1.
Turner, B., II (2010). “Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralle-
ling approaches for sustainability science?” Glob. Environ. Change,
20(4), 570–576.
Ugwu, O., Kumaraswamy, M., Wong, A., and Ng, S. (2006a). “Sustainabil-
ity appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development
of indicators and computational methods.” Automat. Const., 15(2),
239–251.
Ugwu, O., Kumaraswamy, M., Wong, A., and Ng, S. (2006b). “Sustain-
ability appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 2: A case
study in bridge design.” Automat. Const., 15(2), 229–238.
United Nations Conference on Environment, and Development (UNCED).
(1993). Agenda 21: Programme of action for sustainable development,
United Nations Dept. of Public Information, New York.
United Nations (UN). (1998). “Kyoto protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.” United Nations, 〈http://
unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf〉 (Jan. 4, 2012).
United Nations (UN). (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, United Nations, Johannesburg, South Africa.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2002). “Earthquake ground motion tool.”
U.S. Geological Survey, 〈http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/design
maps/javacalc.php〉 (Aug. 4, 2012).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2008). “U.S. Geological Survey national
seismic hazard maps.” U.S. Geological Survey, 〈http://earthquake.usgs
.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/maps/〉 (Dec. 18, 2011).
van Essen, H., et al. (2011). “External costs of transport in Europe: Update
study for 2008.” Technical Rep. Publication code: 11.4215.50, CE
Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
Xu, N., Guikema, S. D., Davidson, R. A., Nozick, L. K., Çağnan, Z., and
Vaziri, K. (2007). “Optimizing scheduling of post-earthquake electric
power restoration tasks.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(2), 265–284.
Yao, H., Shen, L., Tan, Y., and Hao, J. (2011). “Simulating the impacts of
policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure
projects.” Automat. Const., 20(8), 1060–1069.
Zhou, H., Wang, J., Wan, J., and Jia, H. (2010). “Resilience to natural
hazards: a geographic perspective.” Natural Hazards, 53(1), 21–41.
Zinke, T., Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D. M., and Ummenhofer, T. (2012a).
“Combining resilience and sustainability in infrastructure projects.”
Proc. 3rd Intl. Symp. Life-Cycle, Civil Eng., Vienna, Austria, October
3–6, 2012, A. Strauss, D. M. Frangopol, and K. Bergmeister, eds.,
Taylor & Francis, London, 2450–2457.
Zinke, T., Diel, R., Mensinger, M., and Ummenhofer, T. (2010). “Nachhal-
tigkeitsbewertung von Brückenbauwerken.” Stahlbau, 79(6), 448–455.
Zinke, T., and Ummenhofer, T. (2010). “The relevance of whole life costs
for infrastructure buildings.” Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. Bridge Main. Safety
Manage., D. Frangopol, R. Sause, and C. S. Kusko, eds., Taylor &
Francis, Philadelphia, London; extended abstract p. 691, full text
on DVD.
Zinke, T., and Ummenhofer, T. (2011). “Sustainable assessment of bridges:
Relevance of external costs.” Proc. 6th Eur. Conf. Steel Comp.
Struct., L. Dunai, M. Iványi, K. Jármai, N. Kovás, and L. G. Vigh,
eds., ECCS, Brussels, 1953–1958.
Zinke, T., Ummenhofer, T., Pfaffinger, M., and Mensinger, M. (2012b).
“The social dimension of bridge sustainability assessment impacts
on users and the public.” Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Bridge Main. Safety Man-
age., July 8–12, 2012, Stresa, Italy, F. Biondini and D. M. Frangopol,
eds., CRC Press, London, Extended abstract p. 365, full text on DVD.
Zobel, C. W. (2011). “Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining disaster
resilience.” Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 394–403.
J. Infrastruct. Syst.