Resilience and Sustainability in Urban Infrastructure

Moses Adondua Abah¹ , Adeoye Ademola Hope² , Micheal Abimbola Oladosu¹ , Ochuele Dominic¹

¹ResearchHub Nexus Institute, Nigeria

²Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

Corresponding Author Email: m.abah@fuwukari.edu.ng

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51470/eSL.2025.6.4.45

Abstract

Keywords

Download this article as:

Introduction

Urbanization is reshaping demographic and infrastructure dynamics on a global scale. The United Nations (2022) projects that nearly 68% of the world’s population will reside in cities by 2050, translating to over two billion additional urban residents. This rapid growth has positioned cities as central engines of economic development while simultaneously creating pressure on transport, housing, energy, water, and sanitation systems [1]. Urban areas consume more than two-thirds of global energy and generate over 70% of greenhouse-gas emissions, highlighting their dual role as both drivers of climate change and sites for innovative sustainability interventions [2, 3]. The magnitude of this transformation underscores the urgency of ensuring that urban infrastructure systems are both resilient to shocks and sustainable in the long term.

The vulnerabilities of urban infrastructure differ across contexts. In high-income countries, aging systems such as deteriorating bridges, water pipelines, and energy grids require costly rehabilitation, while in low- and middle-income regions, infrastructure provision often fails to keep pace with population growth [4]. Informal settlements, now home to nearly one billion people, often lack basic services and are disproportionately exposed to hazards such as flooding and landslides [5]. The global infrastructure investment gap compounds these challenges: estimates suggest $94 trillion will be needed by 2040 to meet projected demand, with trillions more required to align with climate and sustainability targets [6, 7]. Without significant interventions, these pressures will deepen urban inequality and compromise long-term development.

Climate change further intensifies risks by increasing the frequency and severity of extreme events that disrupt infrastructure performance. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [8] documents how heat waves, sea-level rise, storm surges, and heavy precipitation events threaten transport, energy, and water systems worldwide. Infrastructure designed under outdated climate assumptions, such as stormwater drains and coastal defenses, is increasingly inadequate, resulting in service disruptions and accelerated asset degradation [9]. These impacts disproportionately burden marginalized populations with limited adaptive capacity, creating equity and justice concerns [10]. The intersection of climate risks and infrastructure deficits highlights the urgency of adopting approaches that address both immediate shocks and long-term vulnerabilities.

To address these challenges, resilience and sustainability have emerged as guiding paradigms in infrastructure planning. While resilience emphasizes adaptability and robustness in the face of disruptions, sustainability stresses long-term viability. Scholars argue that these two paradigms must be pursued together: infrastructure that is resilient but unsustainable risks perpetuating environmental harm, while sustainable systems that lack resilience may collapse under acute stress [11]. Global governance frameworks increasingly promote integrated approaches that align resilience with sustainability. The Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), foreground infrastructure as central to sustainable urban futures [12]. Similarly, the Paris Agreement emphasizes climate-resilient pathways and low-carbon infrastructure.  Municipal initiatives, such as the Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience Framework and the Global Covenant of Mayors, provide tools for embedding resilience and sustainability into city planning [13, 14]. Despite persistent barriers such as policy fragmentation, financing gaps, and governance challenges, integrating resilience and sustainability into infrastructure systems represents a critical pathway toward equitable, climate-adaptive, and future-ready cities.

The scope of this review is to synthesize contemporary knowledge on resilience and sustainability within urban infrastructure systems, with a particular focus on their conceptual underpinnings, drivers, dimensions, strategies, and future directions. While substantial literature has addressed resilience and sustainability separately, fewer studies explicitly examine their intersection, particularly in relation to civil engineering and urban planning. This review therefore, seeks to bridge disciplinary divides by examining how resilience and sustainability can be jointly operationalized to inform both theory and practice. Geographically, the review adopts a global perspective, drawing on experiences from the Global North, where challenges of aging infrastructure and decarbonization dominate—, and the Global South, where rapid urbanization, service deficits, and climate vulnerability are most acute. The analysis spans multiple infrastructure domains, including transport, energy, water, waste management, and post-disaster recovery systems, highlighting how integrated approaches can enhance robustness, equity, and long-term viability. By critically reviewing conceptual foundations, identifying key drivers such as climate change, technological innovation, and governance pressures, and assessing emerging strategies like nature-based solutions, digital technologies, and circular economy models, this article provides a comprehensive framework for advancing resilient and sustainable urban infrastructure. Ultimately, the purpose is to consolidate diverse insights into a coherent body of knowledge that informs research, policy, and practice, and also to identify persistent barriers and propose pathways for future innovation and governance. In doing so, the review aims to guide decision-makers in designing infrastructure systems that are climate-adaptive, inclusive, and aligned with long-term sustainability objectives.

Conceptual Foundations

Urban infrastructure systems are increasingly analyzed through the dual lenses of resilience and sustainability, two paradigms that, while distinct, share important complementarities. Clarifying their conceptual foundations is essential for framing research, policy, and practice. Resilience in urban infrastructure refers to the capacity of physical, social, and institutional systems to anticipate, withstand, adapt to, and recover from disruptive events while maintaining essential functions [4]. Originally rooted in ecology and disaster risk reduction, the concept has evolved to encompass urban contexts, emphasizing robustness, redundancy, flexibility, and adaptive capacity [5]. For infrastructure specifically, resilience implies not only protection against shocks such as floods, earthquakes, or cyberattacks but also the ability to adapt dynamically to long-term stresses, including demographic change, technological shifts, and resource scarcity [6].

Sustainability in infrastructure systems, by contrast, emphasizes long-term viability, ensuring that present needs are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs [8]. In practice, sustainability in urban infrastructure incorporates environmental performance (e.g., reduced emissions, energy, and water efficiency), social equity (e.g., universal service access), and economic efficiency (e.g., life-cycle costing and financing models) [9]. Unlike resilience, which focuses on the capacity to deal with shocks, sustainability underscores the minimization of systemic risks over time by aligning infrastructure development with ecological and societal thresholds [10].

Interlinkages between resilience and sustainability are increasingly emphasized in the literature. While resilience is often framed as a short- to medium-term property and sustainability as a long-term goal, they reinforce one another in practice. Resilient infrastructure systems that are not sustainable may provide short-term security yet exacerbate long-term environmental degradation or social inequity. Conversely, sustainable systems that lack resilience may collapse under acute shocks, undermining their long-term benefits [11]. Integrated frameworks that align resilience with sustainability are therefore essential, allowing infrastructure to function as both a buffer against immediate hazards and a foundation for climate-adaptive, equitable urban development. This integrated approach has been supported by international frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (particularly SDG 9, SDG 11, and SDG 13) and by city-level initiatives including the 100 Resilient Cities program [12].

In summary, resilience and sustainability represent complementary paradigms in urban infrastructure planning and management. By embedding resilience into sustainability frameworks, and vice versa, policymakers and planners can create infrastructure systems that are robust against shocks while advancing long-term ecological balance, social inclusion, and economic efficiency.

Drivers of Change in Urban Infrastructure

Urban infrastructure systems are not static; they evolve under the influence of multiple global, regional, and local forces. Understanding the drivers of change is crucial for anticipating risks, identifying opportunities, and shaping adaptive strategies. Four interrelated drivers are especially significant in shaping contemporary debates on resilience and sustainability: climate change and extreme events, rapid urbanization and population growth, technological innovation, and policy and governance pressures. These forces interact in complex ways, often amplifying vulnerabilities while simultaneously creating opportunities for transformation.

Climate Change and Extreme Events

Climate change represents one of the most profound stressors on urban infrastructure systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights that cities are increasingly exposed to hazards such as heatwaves, flooding, droughts, and sea-level rise, which threaten transport, energy, water, and housing systems. For instance, extreme rainfall events frequently overwhelm stormwater drainage systems, leading to urban flooding and disruption of mobility and services [17]. Rising sea levels pose risks to coastal megacities, including Jakarta, Miami, and Lagos, where inundation threatens ports, residential areas, and industrial hubs [18]. In addition, heat stress reduces the efficiency of electricity transmission and raises demand for cooling, stressing already fragile power grids. Without adaptive strategies, climate change will significantly shorten infrastructure lifespans and impose rising economic and social costs.

Rapid Urbanization and Population Growth

Demographic pressures are a second major driver of infrastructure change. The United Nations (2022) projects that by 2050 nearly 68% of the global population will live in cities, with most growth concentrated in Asia and Africa. This expansion places immense strain on urban systems, from housing and mobility to water and waste management [19]. Many cities in the Global South face “infrastructure deficits,” where basic services are unable to keep pace with population growth, resulting in informal settlements with limited access to clean water, sanitation, and electricity [20]. Conversely, in the Global North, the challenge is often the rehabilitation of aging infrastructure built decades earlier, now reaching the end of its lifecycle [21]. Both contexts highlight the urgent need for strategies that integrate resilience with long-term sustainability to accommodate urban growth equitably and efficiently.

Technological Innovation

Technological change is reshaping how infrastructure is designed, managed, and operated. Emerging tools such as the Internet of Things (IoT), digital twins, and artificial intelligence (AI) enable real-time monitoring, predictive maintenance, and scenario modeling, improving resilience and efficiency [20]. Smart grids and decentralized renewable energy systems enhance flexibility and reduce dependency on centralized, vulnerable infrastructure [21]. Similarly, nature-based and hybrid infrastructure solutions are increasingly supported by advanced modeling and materials science, enabling safe-to-fail rather than fail-safe designs [22]. However, unequal access to digital technologies raises concerns about inclusivity, highlighting the need for governance frameworks that ensure benefits are equitably distributed [23].

Policy and Governance Pressures

Institutional and governance frameworks significantly shape infrastructure trajectories. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasizes infrastructure as a cornerstone of multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 9, SDG 11, and SDG 13), requiring coordinated approaches that integrate resilience and sustainability [24]. Similarly, the Paris Agreement underscores infrastructure transitions as essential for both mitigation and adaptation. Yet governance challenges persist: fragmented institutions, short political cycles, and inadequate fiscal frameworks often hinder long-term planning [25]. Municipal governments, particularly in low- and middle-income contexts, frequently lack access to affordable financing or capacity to manage complex resilience and sustainability metrics [26]. At the same time, global initiatives such as the Global Covenant of Mayors are advancing collaborative governance and knowledge sharing, demonstrating the potential for cross-scale alignment [27].

Dimensions of Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructure

Urban infrastructure resilience and sustainability are multidimensional concepts that extend beyond engineering robustness to encompass ecological, social, economic, and technological systems. A multidimensional approach is crucial because infrastructure is embedded in complex urban metabolisms, where interdependencies mean that failures in one dimension can cascade across others [32]. Recent scholarship stresses that resilience without sustainability risks creating short-term fixes that undermine long-term viability, while sustainability without resilience risks collapse when confronted with shocks [33. 34]. Four primary dimensions, environmental, social, economic, and technological, provide an analytical framework for understanding how infrastructure systems can simultaneously adapt to shocks, promote equity, and support long-term urban development.

Environmental Dimension

The environmental dimension emphasizes energy efficiency, water security, and sustainable waste management. Energy systems must shift from centralized, fossil fuel–dependent grids toward decentralized renewable microgrids that enhance resilience to outages while lowering carbon emissions [35]. Water infrastructure increasingly incorporates “sponge city” approaches that integrate green and gray infrastructure for flood control and groundwater recharge [36]. Waste management systems are also adopting circular economy models to minimize environmental footprints, reduce landfill dependency, and recover resources [37]. These measures underscore that resilient and sustainable infrastructure is inseparable from environmental stewardship.

Social Dimension

The social dimension centers on inclusivity, equity, and community resilience. Infrastructure systems that exclude marginalized populations exacerbate vulnerabilities and undermine resilience. The UN-Habitat (2022) highlights that equitable access to housing, mobility, and public services is essential to resilience in rapidly urbanizing regions. Community engagement enhances adaptive capacity, as local knowledge and participatory governance often improve disaster preparedness and response [38]. Infrastructure resilience is therefore not only a technical issue but also a matter of social justice and empowerment.

Economic Dimension

Economic sustainability is concerned with financing models, cost-effectiveness, and life-cycle assessments. Traditional cost-benefit analyses are increasingly complemented by resilience dividends, which account for avoided losses and co-benefits such as improved health and productivity [39]. Innovative financing mechanisms, including green bonds and public-private partnerships, are mobilizing capital for resilient infrastructure [40]. Life-cycle costing approaches also ensure that projects consider long-term maintenance and adaptation costs, preventing underinvestment in resilience [1].

Technological Dimension

The technological dimension reflects the growing role of digital innovation in resilient and sustainable infrastructure. Smart infrastructure systems leverage Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, artificial intelligence (AI), and digital twins for predictive maintenance, real-time monitoring, and scenario planning [2]. Such technologies enhance flexibility, reduce downtime, and optimize resource use, thereby linking resilience and sustainability goals. However, unequal digital access raises concerns of technological exclusion, underscoring the need for governance frameworks that prioritize inclusivity [3].

Strategies and Approaches

Resilient and sustainable infrastructure requires not only conceptual clarity and multidimensional assessment but also practical strategies that translate theory into action. Given the pressures of climate change, rapid urbanization, and technological disruption, cities must adopt innovative approaches that enable infrastructure systems to withstand shocks while ensuring long-term ecological and social sustainability [7]. This section highlights four key strategies that have emerged in research and practice: nature-based solutions and green infrastructure, smart city technologies and digital infrastructure, integrated planning and adaptive management, and circular economy approaches to infrastructure design and maintenance.

Nature-Based Solutions and Green Infrastructure

Nature-based solutions (NbS) harness ecosystems and natural processes to enhance urban resilience while delivering co-benefits such as biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and improved livability. Green roofs, permeable pavements, and urban wetlands reduce flood risks by enhancing stormwater absorption, while urban forests improve air quality and mitigate heat island effects [8]. The “sponge city” program in China is a prominent example, integrating NbS into flood management and urban design [9]. NbS are increasingly recognized as cost-effective alternatives or complements to traditional gray infrastructure, aligning resilience with sustainability [10].

Integrated Planning and Adaptive Management

Infrastructure planning increasingly emphasizes integrated, cross-sectoral approaches that align land use, transportation, energy, and water management. Adaptive management, characterized by iterative learning and flexibility, enables infrastructure systems to adjust under uncertainty and evolving risks. For instance, coastal cities are adopting adaptive pathways approaches that combine short-term actions with long-term contingency plans under sea-level rise scenarios. Integrating resilience into planning processes also requires governance structures that coordinate across scales, local, regional, and national, and foster collaboration between public and private actors [11].

Circular Economy in Infrastructure Design and Maintenance

Circular economy principles are increasingly applied to infrastructure, aiming to extend asset lifespans, minimize waste, and promote resource efficiency. Practices include material reuse, modular construction, and closed-loop systems for water and energy [12]. For example, modular bridge components allow for repair and upgrading without full replacement, reducing life-cycle costs and emissions. Circular approaches align closely with sustainability goals while also enhancing resilience by reducing dependence on finite resources and vulnerable supply chains [13].

Case Studies and Best Practices

Case studies provide concrete evidence of how resilience and sustainability strategies are being implemented in diverse urban contexts. They illustrate successes, highlight limitations, and offer transferable lessons for other cities. By examining resilient transport systems, sustainable energy grids, urban water management models, and post-disaster recovery frameworks, it becomes clear that adaptive, context-specific approaches can significantly enhance infrastructure resilience and sustainability.

Resilient Transport Systems

Transport systems are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather and urbanization pressures. Copenhagen, Denmark, has integrated climate adaptation into transport infrastructure by combining flood-resistant roadways with cycling networks, reducing emissions while enhancing resilience. In Japan, after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, transport recovery strategies emphasized redundancy in rail and road networks, enabling faster restoration of mobility [18]. These cases demonstrate the importance of redundancy, multimodality, and integration with green infrastructure in transport resilience.

Sustainable Energy Grids and Microgrids

Decentralized microgrids powered by renewable energy enhance both resilience and sustainability. In California, community microgrids have been developed to provide backup power during wildfires and grid outages, reducing dependence on centralized infrastructure [19]. Similarly, Bangladesh’s solar home system program has delivered energy access to millions while improving resilience to cyclones and grid disruptions [20]. These examples highlight how distributed renewable systems can simultaneously support sustainability goals and provide adaptive capacity during crises.

Urban Water Management

Water management is increasingly challenged by climate change and rapid urbanization. China’s “sponge city” initiative demonstrates how nature-based solutions, including wetlands, permeable pavements, and retention ponds, can reduce flood risks while replenishing groundwater [21]. In Rotterdam, the Netherlands, multifunctional water plazas store stormwater while serving as recreational spaces during dry periods, illustrating how design innovation can provide social and ecological co-benefits. Such cases show that integrating green infrastructure into urban water systems supports both resilience and sustainability.

Post-disaster Infrastructure Recovery Models

Japan’s recovery after the 1995 Kobe earthquake and the 2011 Tōhoku disaster has become a global benchmark for post-disaster infrastructure resilience. Reconstruction prioritized not only rebuilding but also incorporating stricter seismic standards and community-based preparedness [22]. In Christchurch, New Zealand, after the 2010–2011 earthquakes, recovery included re-planning urban land use to avoid high-risk zones and integrating resilience into building codes [23]. These cases illustrate how disasters can serve as catalysts for embedding resilience and sustainability in long-term planning.

Challenges and Barriers

Despite growing awareness and numerous pilot initiatives, the translation of resilience and sustainability objectives into mainstream urban infrastructure practice remains constrained by a set of persistent, interrelated barriers. First, institutional and policy fragmentation undermines integrated planning and coordinated action. Infrastructure sectors (water, energy, transport, waste, telecommunications) are frequently governed by separate agencies with distinct mandates, budgets, planning cycles, and regulatory frameworks, producing stove-piped decisions that fail to capture cross-sectoral interdependencies [24]. This fragmentation is compounded by misalignment across scales of governance: national policies and funding instruments often do not translate into clear local responsibilities or capacities for implementation [25]. As a consequence, promising cross-cutting interventions such as nature-based stormwater systems that require coordination between public works, parks, and drainage authorities are delayed or implemented suboptimally because no single entity bears responsibility for the integrated outcome [26].

Second, financing and investment gaps severely limit cities’ ability to pursue resilient and sustainable infrastructure at scale. Global estimates indicate a substantial infrastructure financing shortfall: meeting projected urban infrastructure needs and climate adaptation requirements will demand trillions of dollars in additional capital over the coming decades [27]. Conventional project appraisal and financing models often emphasize short-term returns and underweight long-term resilience dividends and ecosystem co-benefits, deterring private capital from investing in projects with significant public-good characteristics [28]. Moreover, many municipalities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, face limited fiscal space, constrained creditworthiness, and high perceived project risk, making it difficult to access affordable long-term finance without blended instruments or concessional support [29].

Third, technical limitations and capacity deficits impede the effective design, implementation, and maintenance of resilient and sustainable infrastructure. Many existing assets were built to historical design standards and climate assumptions, and upgrading them requires not only capital but advanced technical skills, data, and modelling capabilities that are unevenly distributed across cities [30]. Robust resilience planning depends on high-quality hazard and asset data, interoperable information systems, and tools for scenario analysis (e.g., digital twins, probabilistic risk models); in many contexts, these are incomplete or absent, constraining evidence-based decision making [31]. In addition, routine maintenance is frequently neglected due to short budgeting cycles and weak asset management practices, which erodes infrastructure performance and resilience over time [32].

Fourth, social and governance constraints shape not only the uptake of technical solutions but their equity and legitimacy. Infrastructure decisions that do not engage affected communities can exacerbate social exclusion and distrust, leading to resistance or underuse of interventions [33]. Vulnerable populations low-income households, informal settlement residents, and migrant workers, typically have less voice in planning processes and bear disproportionate exposure to hazards, yet resilience investments have often failed to prioritize or reach these groups [34]. Corruption, short political horizons, and fragmented stakeholder incentives further complicate long-term planning; political cycles that favor visible, short-term projects over less visible maintenance and adaptation measures can produce an underinvestment in the very capabilities needed for resilience [35].

These barriers are not independent; they interact and create reinforcing feedbacks that perpetuate vulnerability. For example, fragmented governance can impede the development of bankable projects, discouraging investors and perpetuating funding shortfalls; lack of finance inhibits capacity building and data systems, worsening technical limitations; and weak community engagement can lead to socially regressive outcomes that undermine political support for long-term measures. Overcoming these constraints, therefore requires an integrated agenda: aligning policy and regulatory frameworks across sectors and scales, deploying blended finance and guarantees to mobilize private capital, investing in technical capacity and interoperable data platforms, strengthening routine asset management, and institutionalizing inclusive, participatory governance mechanisms. Recent policy initiatives such as resilience screening in multilateral lending, green bond markets, and metropolitan-level planning authorities offer pathways to address these challenges, but scaling them equitably and sustainably remains a central research and practice frontier [36].

Future Directions

The future of resilient and sustainable urban infrastructure lies in leveraging innovation, governance integration, and adaptive frameworks to address the escalating challenges of climate change, rapid urbanization, and resource constraints. Emerging technologies present powerful opportunities for transformation. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are increasingly applied in predictive maintenance, disaster forecasting, and optimization of energy and transport systems [29]. Blockchain technologies offer transparency and accountability in infrastructure financing and supply chains, while digital twins and advanced simulation tools enable real-time monitoring of urban assets, enhancing adaptive capacity [30]. These innovations, however, require significant investments in digital literacy, data infrastructure, and cyber-resilience to avoid new vulnerabilities [31].

Equally critical are multi-scale and cross-sectoral governance frameworks that overcome the fragmentation highlighted in earlier sections. Aligning local, regional, and national governance structures, as well as integrating infrastructure planning across water, energy, transport, and land use, will be essential to achieve systemic resilience [32]. Collaborative governance models where governments, private investors, civil society, and communities co-design solutions are likely to improve legitimacy, inclusivity, and efficiency [33]. The integration of resilience metrics with sustainability indicators is another key direction. While resilience emphasizes adaptive capacity and robustness under stress, sustainability prioritizes long-term resource stewardship; linking the two through standardized indicators will enable more coherent planning, investment, and monitoring [34].

Finally, future infrastructure systems must align with global climate objectives, particularly net-zero commitments and climate-adaptive development pathways. This involves scaling up nature-based solutions, low-carbon technologies, and circular economy models that reduce emissions while enhancing resilience [35]. Urban infrastructure will need to be designed not only to withstand shocks and stresses but also to contribute actively to mitigation, adaptation, and social equity. Achieving this vision will require bridging the financing gap through innovative instruments such as green bonds, climate funds, and blended finance and building technical and institutional capacities across diverse urban contexts [36]. By embracing technological, governance, and financial innovations in tandem, cities can move toward infrastructure systems that are climate-resilient, sustainable, and inclusive.

Conclusion

This review has shown that resilience and sustainability are inseparable pillars of future-ready urban infrastructure. Resilience focuses on the capacity to withstand shocks and adapt to disruptions, while sustainability ensures that infrastructure development supports long-term environmental stewardship and social equity. Together, they provide a framework for cities to address the challenges of climate change, rapid urbanization, and resource constraints. Key strategies, including nature-based solutions, smart technologies, integrated planning, and circular economy practices, demonstrate practical pathways toward resilient and sustainable systems.

However, progress remains hindered by fragmented governance, financing gaps, and limited technical and institutional capacity. Overcoming these barriers requires coordinated policy, innovative funding mechanisms, and inclusive planning that prioritizes vulnerable communities. Ultimately, resilient and sustainable urban infrastructure is not just a technical goal but a societal necessity. Cities that align infrastructure planning with resilience and sustainability objectives will be better equipped to protect human well-being, foster economic stability, and advance global climate and development goals.

Acknowledgement

We thank all the researchers who contributed to the success of this research work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Funding

No funding was received for this research work.

References

1. Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning. 100(4); 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021
2. Aldrich, D. P. and Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist. 59(2); 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299
3. Bandeiras, F., Pinheiro, E., Gomes, M., Coelho, P. and Fernandes, J. (2020). Review of the cooperation and operation of microgrid clusters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 133; 110311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110311
4. Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D. M., Ummenhofer, T. and Zinke T. (2013). Resilience and Sustainability of Civil Infrastructure: Toward a Unified Approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 20 (2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000
5. Butlin, J. (1989). Our common future. By World commission on environment and development. (London, Oxford University Press, 1987, pp.383 £5.95.). Journal of International Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/JID.3380010208
6. Chan, F. K. S., Griffiths, J. A., Higgitt, D., Xu, S., Zhu, F., Tang, Y. T., Xu, Y. and Thorne, C. R. (2018). “Sponge city” in China—A breakthrough of planning and flood risk management in the urban context. Land Use Policy. 76; 772–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.005
7. Deren, L., Wenbo, Y. and  Shao, Z. (2021). Smart city based on digital twins. Computational Urban Science. 1(1):4. DOI:10.1007/s43762-021-00005-y
8. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/completing-the-picture
9. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., … Folke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability. 2(4); 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1
10. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society. 21(4); 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444
11. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P. and Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production. 143; 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
12. Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy. (2021). The 2021 Global Covenant of Mayors impact report. https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21-1109-GCoM-2021-Annual-Report-optimized.
13. Global Infrastructure Hub. (2023). Infrastructure monitor 2023. https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/5416/infrastructure-monitor-report-2023.
14. Hallegatte, S.,  Rentschler, M. J. and  Rozenberg, J. (2019). Lifelines : The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity. Sustainable Infrastructure Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. 2.  http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/111181560974989791
15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Cities, settlements and key infrastructure (Chapter 6). In H.-O. Pörtner et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter06.
16. Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., … Bonn, A. (2017). Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society. 21(2); 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09320-220239
17. Kays, H. M. and Sadri, A. M. (2022). Towards unifying resilience and sustainability for transportation infrastructure systems: Conceptual framework, critical indicators, and research needs. Sustainability. 10.48550/arXiv.2208.10039.
18. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P. and Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 147; 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
19. Min, S., Zacharia, Z. G. and Smith, C. D. (2019). Defining supply chain management: In the past, present, and future. Journal of Business Logistics. 40(1); 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12201
20. Mondal, A. H., Kamp, L. M. and Pachova, N. I. (2010). Drivers, barriers, and strategies for implementation of renewable energy technologies in rural areas of Bangladesh—An innovation system analysis. Energy Policy. 38(8):4626-463. 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.018.
21. Nakanishi, H., Black, J. and Matsuo, K. (2014). Disaster resilience in transportation: Japan earthquake and tsunami 2011. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment. 5(4). DOI:10.1108/IJDRBE-12-2012-0039
22. Olazabal, M., Chelleri, L., Waters, J. J., and Kunath, A. 2012. Urban resilience: towards an integrated  approach. Paper  presented at  1st International  Conference on  Urban Sustainability  & Resilience, London, UK, ISSN 2051-1361
23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). OECD principles on urban policy. https://www.oecd.org/about/programmes/oecd-principles-on-urban-policy.htm
24. Paton, D., Mamula-Seadon, L. and Selway, K. L. (2013). Community resilience in Christchurch: Adaptive responses and capacities during earthquake recovery (GNS Science Report 2013/37). GNS Science. https://www.gns.cri.nz/static/pubs/2013/SR%202013-037.
25. Rana, M.,  Uddin, M.,  Sarkar, R.,  Shafiullah, G.M., Huadong, M. and  Atef, M. (2022). A review on hybrid photovoltaic – Battery energy storage system: Current status, challenges, and future directions. Journal of Energy Storage. 51; 104597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.104597.
26. Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Nadja & Berry, Pam & Breil, Margaretha & Nita, Mihai Razvan & Geneletti, Davide & Calfapietra, Carlo (2017). “A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas,” Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier. 77;15-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
27. Rezende, O. M., Miranda, F. M., Haddad, A. N. and Miguez, M. G. (2019). A framework to evaluate urban flood resilience of design alternatives for flood defence considering future adverse scenarios. Water. 11(7); 1485. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071485
28. Rockefeller Foundation and Arup. (2014). City resilience framework. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/100RC-City-Resilience-Framework.
29. Rodin, J. (2014) The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong. Public Affairs, New York.
30. Science for Environment Policy (2015) Indicators for sustainable cities. In-depth Report 12. SCU, UWE: Bristol. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/index_en.htm. Reprinted with permission from the Science for Environment Policy.
31. Sharifi, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological Indicators. 69(1); 629-647. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023.
32. Singh, R., Akram, S. V., Gehlot, A., Buddhi, D., Priyadarshi, N. and Twala, B. (2022). Energy System 4.0: Digitalization of the energy sector with inclination towards sustainability. Sensors. 22(17);6619. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176619
33. Sovacool, B. K., Griffiths, S., Kim, J. and Bazilian, M. (2021). “Climate change and industrial F-gases: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options for reducing synthetic greenhouse gas emissions”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier. 141(C). 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110759
34. UN-Habitat. (2022). World cities report 2022: Envisaging the future of cities. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/06/wcr_2022.
35. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2022). World population prospects 2022: Summary of results. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.
36. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
37. World Bank (2024). Infrastructure. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/infrastructure
38. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
39. Zakeri, B., (2024). Digitalization for Resilient and Sustainable Energy Systems. Energies. 17(21); 5434. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17215434
40.  Zeng, X. and  Yu, Y.(2022). Urban Resilience for Urban Sustainability: Concepts, Dimensions, and Perspectives.  Sustainability. 14(5); 2481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052481