Time spent observing an image
Number of words used to describe an image
Psychometric Scales Utilized to Assess Visual Arts Programming (All domains were evaluated using Likert Scales)
Domain | Psychometric Scale | Means Assessed | Visual Arts-based Studies Utilizing Scale(s) |
---|---|---|---|
Modified Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale (TFA) | A 7-item questionnaire that measures an individual’s comfort (or discomfort) with ambiguity. | Klugman et al. 2011 Klugman et al. 2014 Gowda et al. 2018 Strohbehn et al. 2020 | |
Best Intentions Questionnaire (BIQ) | A 24-item questionnaire test that assesses how physician biases may affect patient care. | Gowda et al. 2018 | |
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) | A 22-item questionnaire that measures three components of burnout in health professional populations: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low sense of personal accomplishment. | Orr et al. 2019 | |
Communication Skills Attitudes Scale (CSAS) | A 26-item questionnaire that assesses student perceptions towards learning communication skills. | Klugman et al. 2011 Klugman et al. 2014 | |
The Compassion Scale Inter-reactivity Index (IRI) Jefferson Scale of Empathy Reading the Mind in the Eyes | A 24-item questionnaire that measures compassionate responses through three conflicting domains: kindness-versus-indifferences, common humanity-versus-separation, and mindfulness-versus-disengagement. A 28-item questionnaire that measures affective empathy (empathic concern, personal distress) and cognitive empathy (perspective taking, fantasy). A 20-item questionnaire that measures cognitive and affective components of empathy in health professional populations. Theory of the Mind inspired scale designed to gauge an individual’s ability to intuit the emotional state of others through pairing an image of someone’s eyes with their internal emotional state. | Zazulak et al. 2015 – IRI scale Zazulak et al. 2017 – IRI scale, Compassion Scale Gurwin et al. 2017 – Reading the Mind in the Eyes Strohbehn et al. 2020 – JSPE | |
Short Grit Scale (GRIT-S) | An 8-item questionnaire that measures two components of grit: perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. | Strohbehn et al. 2020 | |
The Five-Facet Mindfulness Scale The Groningen Reflection Ability Scale (GRAS) The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) | A 39-tem questionnaire that assesses five domains of mindfulness: description, self-expression, acts of self-awareness, non-judgment of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience. A 23-item questionnaire that measures reflective ability along three domains: self-reflection, empathic reflection, and reflective communication. A 15-item questionnaire that assesses dispositional mindfulness, which is the ability to be aware of and pay attention to the present moment. | Zazulak et al. 2017 – Five Facet Mindfulness Scale Gowda et al. 2018 – GRAS Strohbehn et al 2020 – MAAS |
Observation and physical diagnosis.
Observation skill is the most frequently assessed quantitative domain in the visual arts and medical education literature ( Table 1 ) [ 3 , 25 , 26 , 28–33 ]. Such exploration is logical in that the practice of clinical medicine typically involves practitioners carefully observing patients’ bodies. However, as there are no established scales for measuring the accuracy of clinical observation, observation is typically assessed with de novo designed quantitative metrics. These scales often quantify multiple measurements including the number of distinct observations, the number of words used to describe clinical and artistic images, the amount of time spent analyzing an image, or the number of clinically or artistically relevant observations. However, such scales often involve a fair amount of inherent individual judgment – what, precisely, is a clinically or artistically relevant observation? Heterogeneity between quantitative observation skill metrics has limited inter-study comparison.
The Budner Tolerance for Ambiguity (TFA) scale was designed in 1962 and later modified in 1993 for a medical audience by Gail Geller, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health[ 6 ]. The 7-item questionnaire is graded on a Likert Scale and measures an individual’s comfort (or discomfort) with ambiguity. Example statements include, ‘It really disturbs me when I am unable to follow another person’s train of thought’ and ‘A good task is one in which what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear.’[ 6 ]
The TFA scale is included in the AAMC Matriculating Student Questionnaire and Graduation Questionnaire administered to all incoming and graduating medical students in the USA[ 8 ]. Intolerance for ambiguity has been found to be associated with increased psychological distress and reduced clinical performance [ 6 , 8 , 37 , 38 ]. Given the importance of working comfortably in what can often be a fluid and ambiguous clinical world, and considering the ambiguity intrinsic to many works of visual art, the TFA scale has been utilized in several visual art and medical education studies [ 24 , 27 , 31 , 32 ].
The Best Intentions Questionnaire (BIQ) was designed in 2010 for healthcare trainees by Anne Gill, a Doctor of Nursing in the Department of Pediatrics at Baylor[ 39 ]. The 24-item questionnaire is scored on several Likert Scales and assesses an individual’s understanding of their own biases. The first set of statements explores a participant’s perception of how their biases may impact clinical decision making with statements such as ‘physicians can have biases about patients about which they are unaware.’[ 39 ] The second half of the questionnaire probes if individuals believe they can learn to become aware of, manage, and eliminate their own biases. Lastly, participants are asked about their ability to recognize their own emotional state in addition to the emotional state of others. One visual arts and medical education study has used the BIQ metric[ 27 ].
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was developed in 1981 by University of California Berkley psychologist Christina Maslach to measure burnout in a variety of professional groups[ 40 ]. The 22-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert Scale and evaluates three domains of burnout: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and sense of personal accomplishment (PA). Responders indicate the frequency they agree with statements such as ‘I feel emotionally drained from my work’ and ‘I don’t really care what happens to some patients.’[ 40 ] By this scale, an individual is suffering from symptoms of burnout if they exhibit a high EE score or a high DP score; an individual may also be suffering from burnout if they exhibit a high EE score plus either a high DP score or a low PA score The prevalence of burnout in the medical population exceeds 67% and it is associated with impaired clinical decision making, malpractice, professionalism lapses, and adverse personal outcomes including substance use and depression [ 41 ] The MBI is recognized by the National Academy of Medicine as one of the most frequently used scale to measure burnout[ 42 ]. One 2019 visual arts study utilized the MBI scale to study the effects of an arts intervention on internal medicine residents[ 34 ].
Communication skills and attitude test.
The Communication Skills and Attitude Test (CSAS) was developed in 2002 by UK psychiatrist Charlotte Rees for measuring medical students’ attitudes towards learning communication skills[ 43 ]. The 26-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert Scale and is predicated on the belief that to be an effective healthcare practitioner, effective communication and an openness to improve one’s communication skills are paramount. Example statements include, ‘In order to be a good doctor I must have good communication skills’ and ‘I find it hard to admit to having some problems with my communication skills.’[ 43 ] The CSAS has been utilized in two visual art and medical education studies [ 31 , 32 ].
The compassion scale.
The Compassion Scale (CS) was developed in 2011 by psychologist Elizabeth Pommier at the University of Texas at Austin to measure an individual’s understanding of and response to the suffering of others [ 44 , 45 ]. The 24-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert scale. It builds upon psychologist and co-creator Kristin Neff’s model of self-compassion and measures compassionate responses through three conflicting domains: kindness-versus-indifference, common humanity-versus-separation, and mindfulness-versus-disengagement[ 44 ].
Kindness is defined as concern for those who are suffering linked with a desire to console. It is assessed using statements such as ‘If I see someone going through a difficult time, I try to be caring towards that person.’[ 44 ] Its antithesis, indifference , is assessed using statements such as ‘I don’t concern myself with other people’s problems.’[ 44 ] Common humanity is broadly defined as one’s ability to recognize that all humans suffer and simultaneously feel a sense of connection to those who are suffering. It is assessed using statements such as ‘Despite my differences with others, I know that everyone feels pain just like me.’[ 44 ] Its antithesis, separation , attempts to capture isolation through statements such as ‘I can’t really connect with other people when they’re suffering.’[ 44 ] Mindfulness is defined as ‘balanced awareness that neither avoids nor gets lost in others pain’ coupled with a desire to make oneself aware of the other’s suffering[ 44 ]. Its antithesis, disengagement , is an obliviousness to suffering coupled with a lack of desire to offer consolation. Disengagement is measured with statements such as ‘I try to avoid people who are experiencing a lot of pain.’ [ 44 , 45 ] The scale has been utilized in one visual arts and medical education study[ 36 ].
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) was developed in 1980 by psychologist Mark Davis at Eckerd College to measure cognitive and affective empathy [ 46 , 47 ]. The 28-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert Scale and measures empathy along four distinct subdomains. Cognitive empathy is assessed by examining perspective-taking and fantasy. The perspective-taking statements measure an individual’s ability to assume the psychological point of view of others while the fantasy statements examine an individual’s ability to imagine themselves as agents in fictional narratives. Affective empathy is assessed by examining empathic concern and personal distress. Empathic concern statements evaluate an individual’s ability to feel sympathy towards someone who is suffering, while the personal distress statements evaluate an individual’s emotional distress that results from witnessing suffering. A shortened version of the IRI has been included in the AAMC Matriculating Student Questionnaire and the Graduating Questionnaire. The IRI has been used in two visual arts-based studies [ 35 , 36 ].
The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) was developed in 2007 by Mohammadreza Hojat, a research professor of psychiatry at Jefferson Medical College, to measure cognitive and affective empathy[ 48 ]. The 20-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert Scale and it assesses three components of empathy: perspective taking, compassionate care, and the ‘ability to stand in patients’ shoes.’[ 48 ] The scale is available in 56 different languages and includes modifications for medical students, health professionals, and health professional students. Example statements in the medical student version include, ‘patients feel better when their physicians understand their feelings.’[ 7 ] This scale has been utilized in one visual arts and medical education study[ 24 ].
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes test was designed in 1997 by psychologist Simon-Baron Cohen at Cambridge University in the UK to study emotional recognition in patients with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism [ 49–51 ]. The test is based upon Theory of Mind psychology, which ‘is the ability to recognize the thinking or feelings of others in order to predict their behaviors and act accordingly.’[ 51 ] The test asks individuals to match an emotion with images of peoples’ eyes. It is grouped with empathy because the recognition of others’ emotional state is the first step in acting empathetically. Jaclyn Gurwin, an ophthalmologist at the University of Pennsylvania, explored students’ emotional recognition abilities as a secondary outcome with the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test in a visual arts intervention designed to improve first year medical students’ ability to describe retinal and periorbital pathology[ 28 ].
The Short Grit Scale (Grit-S) was created in 2009 by Angela Duckworth, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, to measure grit, which is the innate desire to pursue and achieve long-term goals regardless of external positive reinforcement[ 52 ]. The 8-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert scale and evaluates grit along two domains: ‘consistency of interest’ and ‘perseverance of effort.’[ 52 ] Consistency of interest is assessed using statements such as ‘I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest.’[ 52 ] Perseverance of effort is assessed with statements such as ‘I finish whatever I begin.’[ 52 ] This grit scale has been used in one visual arts and medical education study[ 24 ].
The five-facet mindfulness scale.
The Five-Facet Mindfulness Scale was designed in 2006 by University of Kentucky psychologist Ruth Baier to assess mindfulness[ 53 ]. The 39-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert Scale and evaluates five distinct domains: observing, describing/self-expression, acting with awareness, non-judgment of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience[ 53 ]. Observing is assessed using statements such as ‘I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts and behavior.’[ 53 ] Description and self-expression are assessed using statements such as ‘I can usually describe how I feel at the moment in considerable detail.’[ 53 ] Acts of self-awareness are assessed using statements such as ‘when I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted.’[ 53 ] The non-judgment of inner experience is assessed using statements such as ‘I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions’[ 53 ] Lastly, non-reactivity to inner experience is assessed with statements such as ‘I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them.’[ 53 ] The scale was utilized in one visual arts and medical education study[ 36 ].
The Groningen Reflective Ability Scale (GRAS) was developed in 2009 at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands by Leo Aukes, a researcher at the Center for Research and Innovation of Medical Education, and Joris Slaets, a physician and Professor of Geriatrics[ 54 ]. The 23-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert Scale and measures a medical professional’s reflective ability. Predicated on the belief that reflection is required for maintenance of professional competence and personal wellbeing, the questionnaire evaluates three domains: self-reflection, empathic reflection, and reflective communication.
Self-reflection statements explore an individual’s ability to engage in ‘introspection, exploration, understanding, and appraisal of experiences.’[ 54 ] Empathic reflection statements examine the ability to intuit others’ experiences. Reflective communication statements assess one’s openness for feedback and one’s willingness to accept accountability for their actions. The GRAS was utilized in one visual art and medical education study[ 27 ].
The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) was developed in 2003 by University of Rochester psychologists Richard Ryan and Kirk Brown to assesses dispositional mindfulness, which is the ability to be aware of and pay attention to the present moment[ 55 ]. Brown and Ryan reinforce that mindfulness is a measure of consciousness distinct from other forms of mental processing, such as cognition or emotion. Consciousness, and by extension mindfulness, requires an awareness of the inner and outer environment coupled with a focused attention of one’s conscious mind. The 15-item questionnaire is scored on a Likert Scale and it includes statements such as ‘I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfort until they really grab my attention.’[ 55 ] The MAAS was used in a visual arts and medicine study of third year medical students[ 24 ].
We surveyed studies of visual art programming and identified several de-novo quantitative scales used to assess observation skill and twelve psychometric scales used to assess a variety of domains: tolerance for ambiguity, bias, burnout, communication, empathy, grit, and mindfulness/reflection ( Table 1 , Table 2 ). Some psychometric scales originated in the general psychology literature while others were developed specifically for clinical care and education. Some scales, such as the Jefferson Scale for Empathy and Geller’s modified Tolerance for Ambiguity scale have been widely adopted; others, such as the Best Intentions Questionnaire and Reading the Mind in the Eyes test, have gained little traction. The variability of scales used to assess the impact of visual art programming reflects, in part, a lack of consensus regarding how best to measure the utility of visual art interventions for medical trainees. It may also reflect a limited awareness of the universe of available tools with which to evaluate such programming. We hope that this narrative review will make educators planning to evaluate the impacts of visual arts programming aware of the broader universe of analytic tools in order that they can choose the most appropriate one.
Most clinicians and healthcare educators would agree that these metrics attempt to measure domains relevant to medical practice. But many published educational studies do not evidence a clear congruence between their curricular design and the metrics chosen to measure their outcome. It often seems that these scales are indiscriminately incorporated into studies based on ease of administration and interpretation, rather than being carefully selected to match targeted curricular interventions. This practice may also occur, in part, because of a belief that most visual art-based methodologies equally address all the aforementioned domains [ 12 , 13 , 15 ]. This imprecision has limited our ability to understand the effects of visual arts programming.
Prior to selecting any psychometric tool, study designers should first explore the strengths and weakness of that tool. Consider the psychometric scales used to measure cognitive empathy. In recent years, researchers have attempted to demonstrate quantitatively that empathy changes, and in many cases declines, throughout medical training [ 7 , 9–11 ]. But some argue that the measurement scales used to assess empathy may be flawed given the lack of an agreed-upon operational definition of empathy, the lack of inter-instrument reliability, and, perhaps most important, their reliance on student (or physician) self-assessment [ 56–61 ]. Given that ‘the preponderance of evidence suggests that physicians have a limited ability to self-assess,’ would it not be more valuable to evaluate empathy through a third-party assessment of clinical encounters with patients (either real or standardized)? [ 60–62 ] All of the psychometric scales cited in this review also require individuals to internally judge their agreement (or disagreement) with various statements related to ambiguity, bias, burnout, compassion, communication, and grit. Educators wishing to evaluate novel visual arts programming using psychometric measurement should take this locus of measurement into account before selecting one of these psychometric scales.
How, then, might one use this toolkit? First, educators should attempt to align psychometric scales or quantitative observation metrics with specific educational goals. These goals could include one (or more) of the learning objectives outlined in the AAMC-endorsed Prism model: Mastering Skills, Perspective Taking, Personal Insight, and Social Advocacy[ 20 ]. For example, an educator who wants to address the ‘Personal Insight’ domain using a targeted visual arts-based intervention may wish to use the psychometric scales that assess tolerance of ambiguity (modified TFA), burnout (MBI), empathy (JSE, IRI), and mindfulness (MAAS). Other psychometric scales not yet utilized in the visual arts and medical education literature may also be useful. For example, those endorsed by the National Academy of Medicine may be especially useful to measure burnout and healthcare professional well-being. 42
Second, educators should be aware of the pitfalls of psychometric measurement based on learner self-assessment. Educators may want to pair psychometric measurement with additional data (e.g., qualitative interview, third-party assessment) to evaluate novel curricula more holistically. Finally, educators should consider using these psychometric tools for long-term, longitudinal analysis. While pre-test/post-test measurements may be helpful to gauge the short-term impacts of a visual arts-based curriculum, long-term outcomes related to burnout, professionalism, healthcare worker wellbeing, patient-level outcomes, and other underexplored domains among visual arts programming participants will likely provide much more meaningful data[ 23 ]. Carefully matching curricular methodology with psychometric scales, third party assessment, and qualitative data, when accompanied with long term follow-up and reassessment, will build a more cohesive body of medical humanities literature that promotes inter-institution scalability of visual arts programming.
Novel visual arts and humanities pedagogies may need to be formally evaluated to gain recognition and approval. The NASEM report when coupled with the AAMC monograph and Prism model can support efforts to integrate and disseminate the visual arts into medical education curricula nationwide. This narrative review of measurement scales provides educators with a toolkit of resources to design and evaluate visual arts and medical education initiatives.
John David Ike received support for this publication from the VA Office of Academic Affiliations through the VA National Clinician Scholars Program and the University of Michigan Department of Medicine. The contents do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Government.
This work was supported by the Office of Academic Affiliations, Department of Veterans Affairs
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Table of contents
Art has been a significant aspect of human civilization for centuries. From the earliest cave paintings to modern-day installations, art has served as a means of expression and communication. The study of art encompasses a broad range of disciplines, including art history, aesthetics, philosophy, sociology, and psychology. As such, the best controversial research paper topics within the field of art can be explored. This article aims to provide a comprehensive list of 250+ art topics covering various aspects of the discipline, including famous artists and artworks, art movements, theories and concepts, and social and political influences. These topics intend to inspire students and researchers before even choosing their favorite paper writing service and delving deeper into the complex world of art.
Art has always been a recurring topic of debate, with different interpretations and perspectives on what it represents and its hidden meanings. From discussions on censorship and freedom of expression to art’s political implications, explore other possibilities in art.
Even the most skilled professionals need help developing fresh inspiration for art-related topics and finding research paper writing help . With this list, we want to inspire writers to explore new horizons, from unconventional art mediums to unusual artists.
Need help with a research project in art? Get your paper written by a professional writer Get Help Reviews.io 4.9/5
Art has always been polarizing, sparking debates on various issues. Whether you’re an art student or an enthusiast, you’ll find excellent history research paper topics on this list.
Historically male dominance in art has resulted in a limited representation of women. Few female artists are recognized for their contributions, bringing discussions on gendered roles in modern art to the forefront. Check out some fine arts research paper topics.
Technology has opened up several possibilities, from digital media and virtual reality installations to 3D printing, computer-generated imagery, or even an essay writing service . Look at some of the most interesting art topics that explore this relationship.
From abstract Expressionism to Pop Art, contemporary artists have explored many creative avenues, resulting in thought-provoking works that challenge traditional notions of art. Check out some ideas for those who want to buy research papers about different epochs in Modern Art.
The art of early civilizations is a testament to these societies’ creativity and cultural significance. Check out the best art topics for those interested in Ancient Rome, Mayan Culture, and African art.
Each culture has unique artistic expressions that reflect its history and social norms. By delving into the art of various cultures, we can gain insights into how art shapes and reflects human experiences and choose exciting art history research topics.
Greek art is a rich and fascinating field of study that offers endless possibilities. Here is a list of art research paper topics exploring Greek artists’ diverse and complex world.
Byzantine art illustrates the social context of that time, focusing on religious themes and having a close relationship between art and theology. Explore some of the most notable examples of Byzantine art, including mosaics and frescoes.
Medieval art is characterized by intricate designs, elaborate ornamentation, and religious symbolism, reflecting the time’s beliefs. In writing a research paper on Medieval art history, choosing the right topic allows an in-depth exploration of various aspects of this period.
The Renaissance Era was a period of profound cultural rebirth that had a lasting impact on the development of Western art. New growing ideas started a revolution in paintings and sculptures that saw the emergence of new techniques and forms of expression.
The Baroque era is known for its dramatic and ornate style, intricate ornamentation, and bold colours. In the following topics, we will explore some research paper key concepts related to the Baroque era.
Impressionism is an art movement that emphasizes capturing the transient effects of light and colour in the natural world. By exploring the following art research paper topics, we will gain a deeper understanding of the significance of impressionism and its ongoing legacy.
Romanticism is an interesting topic characterized by a fascination with emotion, nature, and the individual. By examining the art nuances of Romanticism, we can better understand the cultural and historical context in which these works were created and appreciate its enduring influence.
The Mannerist period followed the High Renaissance and preceded the Baroque era. Its highlights include the works of artists such as Michelangelo and Tintoretto, who created some of the era’s most beautiful and thought-provoking pieces.
Post-impressionism was a reaction against the limitations of impressionism. They sought to expand the boundaries of art by exploring new techniques, emphasizing individual expression, and infusing their works with symbolic meaning.
Surrealism sought to challenge the rationality and logic of Western thought, emphasizing the power of the unconscious mind. Surrealist artists sought to create works that blurred the lines between reality and fantasy.
Cubism is an art movement where Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque revolutionized traditional forms of representation by breaking down objects into geometric shapes. Here are some ideas of themes for your next art research paper regarding Cubism.
The Avant-garde art movement pushed art boundaries, experimenting with new techniques, materials, and subject matter. In these topics, college students can explore the critical characteristics of this art style.
Expressionist artists sought to convey intense emotions through their works, rejecting traditional forms of representation in favour of abstraction and distortion. This list will explore the critical characteristics of Expressionism, examining its cultural and historical context.
The Dadaist era was famous for its irreverent humour and rejection of logic and reason. By reviewing the Dadaist age, we can better understand how art can be used as a social and political critique.
Pop Art is a visual arts movement that appropriated popular cultural imagery and techniques, challenging traditional fine art concepts. With their lasting influence, these art epochs are exciting topics for research papers for college students.
The Mexican Revolution was a significant political change in Mexico. Revolutionary art emerged as a powerful tool for propaganda and expressed the hopes and aspirations of the Mexican people. These themes exemplify some of the most interesting paintings to write about.
Generate Citations APA MLA Chicago IEEE AMA Turabian ASA APSA Bluebook CSE Website Book Journal article Newspaper article Book section or chapter Article Encyclopedia article Magazine article Citetions
Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
npj Natural Hazards volume 1 , Article number: 25 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
1 Altmetric
Metrics details
Infrastructure resilience plays an important role in mitigating the negative impacts of natural hazards by ensuring the continued accessibility and availability of resources. Increasingly, equity is recognized as essential for infrastructure resilience. Yet, after about a decade of research on equity in infrastructure resilience, what is missing is a systematic overview of the state of the art and a research agenda across different infrastructures and hazards. To address this gap, this paper presents a systematic review of equity literature on infrastructure resilience in relation to natural hazard events. In our systematic review of 99 studies, we followed an 8-dimensional assessment framework that recognizes 4 equity definitions including distributional-demographic, distributional-spatial, procedural, and capacity equity. Significant findings show that (1) the majority of studies found were located in the US, (2) interest in equity in infrastructure resilience has been exponentially rising, (3) most data collection methods used descriptive and open-data, particularly with none of the non-US studies using human mobility data, (4) limited quantitative studies used non-linear analysis such as agent-based modeling and gravity networks, (5) distributional equity is mostly studied through disruptions in power, water, and transportation caused by flooding and tropical cyclones, and (6) other equity aspects, such as procedural equity, remain understudied. We propose that future research directions could quantify the social costs of infrastructure resilience and advocate a better integration of equity into resilience decision-making. This study fills a critical gap in how equity considerations can be integrated into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards, providing a comprehensive overview of the field and developing future research directions to enhance societal outcomes during and after disasters. As such, this paper is meant to inform and inspire researchers, engineers, and community leaders to understand the equity implications of their work and to embed equity at the heart of infrastructure resilience plans.
Introduction.
Infrastructures are the backbones of our societies, connecting people to essential resources and services. At the same time, infrastructure systems such as power, water, and transportation play a pivotal role in determining whether a natural hazard event escalates into a disaster 1 . Driven by the combination of accelerating climate hazards and increasing vulnerability, a 2022 Reuters report indicated that natural hazards caused infrastructure and building losses between $732 and $845 billion dollars internationally 2 . In another report by the World Bank (2019), the direct damage to power and transportation systems had an estimated cost of $18 billion annually 3 . Not only do infrastructure disruptions result in economic losses but they also lead to health issues and a decline in quality of life 4 . Since infrastructure systems secure the accessibility and availability of water, health, and electricity, among other critical services, disruptions of infrastructure exacerbate disasters. For example, the Nepal earthquake (2015) caused the collapse of 262 micro-hydropower plants and 104 hospitals, which further weakened the community’s ability to recover from the hazardous event 5 . Hurricane Maria (2017) in Puerto Rico led to year-long power disruptions which contributed to the 2975 estimated human fatalities 6 . Therefore, infrastructure resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in research, policy, and practice.
The National Infrastructure Advisory Council defined infrastructure resilience as the ability of infrastructure systems, to absorb, adapt, or recover from disruptive events such as natural hazards 7 , 8 . From an engineering viewpoint, infrastructure resilience ensures no significant degradation or loss of system performance in case of a shock (robustness), establishes multiple access channels to infrastructure services (redundancy), effectively mobilizes resources and adapts to new conditions (resourcefulness), and accomplishes these goals in a timely manner (rapidity) 9 . From these origins, infrastructure resilience has evolved to include the complex interactions of technology, policy, social, and governance structures 10 . The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction discusses the need to use transdisciplinary and systemic methods to guide infrastructure resilience 11 . In their Principles of Resilient Infrastructure report, the principles of infrastructure resilience are to develop understanding and insights (continual learning), prepare for current and future hazards (proactively protected), positively work with the natural environment (environmentally integrated), develop participation across all levels of society (socially engaged), share information and expertise for coordinated benefits (shared responsibility), and address changing needs in infrastructure operations (adaptively transforming) 12 .
Based on the argument of Schlor et al. 13 that “social equity is essential for an urban resilience concept,” we also argue that equity in infrastructure resilience will not only benefit vulnerable populations but also lead to more resilient communities. Equity, in a broad sense, refers to the impartial distribution and just accessibility of resources, opportunities, and outcomes, which strive for fairness regardless of location and social group 14 , 15 . Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures that everyone in the community, regardless of their demographic background, geographic location, level of community status, and internal capabilities, have access to and benefits from infrastructure services. It would also address the limitations of infrastructure resilience, which brings short-term benefits to a specific group of people but ultimately results in long-term disaster impacts 16 . A failure to recognize equity in infrastructure resilience could exacerbate the disaster impact and lock in recovery processes, which in turn, reduces future resilience and leads to a vicious cycle 17 .
Even though infrastructure resilience has important equity impacts, the traditional definition of infrastructure resilience is antithetical to equity. Socially vulnerable populations (such as lower income, minority, indigenous, or rural populations) have traditionally been excluded from the development, maintenance, and planning of infrastructure resilience 18 . For instance, resilience strategies do not conventionally consider the unique needs and vulnerabilities of different communities, leading to inadequate one-size-fits-all solutions 19 . Conventional approaches to restoring infrastructure after hazard events are based on the number of outages, the number of affected customers, and extent of damage within an area, depending on the company preferences, and rarely prioritize the inherent vulnerability of affected individuals and areas 20 . Thereby, those who are most dependent on infrastructure systems may also be most affected by their outages. Several reports, such as National Institute of Standards and Technology 21 , United Nations Office for Project Services 11 , United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure 22 , and the Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure 23 have recognized the importance of considering vulnerable populations in infrastructure resilience.
Furthermore, infrastructure resilience efforts often require significant investment at individual, community, and societal levels 24 . For instance, lower income households may not be able to afford power generators or water tanks to replace system losses 25 , 26 , which means they are more dependent on public infrastructure systems. Wealthier communities may receive more funding and resources for resilience projects due to better political representation and economic importance 27 . Improvements in infrastructure can also lead to gentrification and displacement, as an area perceived with increased safety may raise property values and push out underrepresented residents 28 . Infrastructure resilience may not be properly communicated or usable for all members of the community 29 . Research has also shown an association between vulnerable groups facing more intense losses and longer restoration periods of infrastructure disruptions due to planning biases, inadequate maintenance, and governance structures 18 . Due to the limited tools that translate equity considerations, infrastructure managers, owners, and operators are unlikely to recognize inequities in service provision 20 . Finally, resilience planning can prioritize rapid recovery which may not allow for sufficient time to address the underlying social inequities. This form of resilience planning overlooks the range of systematic disparities evident in infrastructure planning, management, operations, and maintenance in normal times and hazardous conditions 18 .
The field of equity in infrastructure resilience has sparked increasing interest over the last decade. First, researchers have distinguished equal and equitable treatment for infrastructure resilience. As stated by Kim and Sutley 30 , equality creates equivalence at the beginning of a process whereas equity seeks equivalence at the end. Second, the term has been interpreted through other social-economic concepts such as social justice 16 , sustainability 31 , vulnerability 32 , welfare 33 , 34 , and environmental justice 35 . Third, equitable infrastructure is frequently associated with pre-existing inequities such as demographic features 36 , 37 , spatial clusters 38 , 39 , 40 , and political processes 41 . Fourth, studies have proposed frameworks to analyze the relationship of equity in infrastructure resilience 42 , 43 , adapted quantitative and qualitative approaches 44 , 45 , and created decision-making tools for equity in infrastructure resilience 31 , 46 .
Despite a decade of increasing interest in integrating equity into infrastructure resilience, the research gap is to systematically evaluate collective research progress and fundamental knowledge. To address this gap, this paper presents a comprehensive systematic literature review of equity-related literature in the field of infrastructure resilience during natural hazards. The aim is to provide a thorough overview of the current state of art by synthesizing the growing body of literature of equitable thinking and academic research in infrastructure resilience. From there, we aim to identify gaps and establish a research agenda. This review focuses on the intersection of natural hazard events, infrastructure resilience, and equity to answer three overarching research questions. As such, this research is important because it explores the critical but often neglected integration of equity into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards. It provides a comprehensive overview and identifies future research opportunities to improve societal outcomes during and after disasters.
What are the prevailing concepts, foci, methods, and theories in assessing the inequities of infrastructure services in association with natural hazard events?
What are the similarities and differences in studying pathways of equity in infrastructure resilience?
What are the current gaps of knowledge and future challenges of studying equity in infrastructure resilience?
To answer the research questions, the authors reviewed 99 studies and developed an 8-dimensional assessment framework to understand in which contexts and via which methods equity is studied. To differentiate between different equity conceptualizations, the review distinguishes four definitions of equity: distributional-demographic (D), distributional-spatial (S), procedural (P), and capacity (C). In our study, “pathways” explores the formation, examination, and application of equity within an 8-dimensional framework. Following Meerow’s framework of resilience to what and of what? 47 , we then analyze for which infrastructures and hazards equity is studied. Infrastructures include power, water, transportation, communication, health, food, sanitation, stormwater, emergency, and general if a specific infrastructure is not mentioned. Green infrastructure, social infrastructure, building structures, and industrial structures were excluded. The hazards studied include flood, tropical cyclone, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, pandemic, and general if there is no specific hazard.
The in-depth decadal review aims to bring insights into what aspects are fully known, partially understood, or completely missing in the conversation involving equity, infrastructure resilience, and disasters. The review will advance the academic understanding of equity in infrastructure resilience by highlighting understudied areas, recognizing the newest methodologies, and advising future research directions. Building on fundamental knowledge can influence practical applications. Engineers and utility managers can use these findings to better understand potential gaps in the current approaches and practices that may lead to inequitable outcomes. Community leaders and advocates could also leverage such evidence-based insights for advocacy and bring attention to equity concerns in infrastructure resilience policies and guidelines.
To establish links across the resilience fields, this section embeds infrastructure resilience into the broader resilience debate including general systems resilience, ecological resilience, social resilience, physical infrastructure resilience, and equity in infrastructure resilience. From the variety of literature in different disciplines, we focus on the definitions of resilience and draw out the applicability to infrastructure systems.
Resilience has initially been explored in ecological systems. Holling 48 defines resilience as the ability of ecosystems to absorb changes and maintain their core functionality. This perspective recognizes that ecosystems do not necessarily return to a single equilibrium state, but can exist in multiple steady states, each with distinct thresholds and tipping points. Building on these concepts, Carpenter et al. 49 assesses the capacity of socioecological systems to withstand disturbances without transitioning to alternative states. The research compares resilience properties in lake districts and rangelands such as the dependence on slow-changing variables, self-organization capabilities, and adaptive capacity. These concepts enrich our understanding of infrastructure resilience by acknowledging the complex interdependencies between natural and built systems. It also points out the different temporal rhythms across fast-paced behavioral and slow-paced ecological and infrastructural change 50 .
Social resilience brings the human and behavioral dimension to the foreground. Aldrich and Meyer focuses on the concept of social capital in defining community resilience by emphasizing the role of social networks and relationships to enhance a community’s ability to withstand and recover from disasters 51 . Aldrich and Meyer argues that social infrastructure is as important as physical infrastructure in disaster resilience. Particularly, the depth and quality of social networks can provide crucial support in times of crisis, facilitate information sharing, expedite resource allocation, and coordinate recovery efforts. Resilience, in this context, is defined as the enhancement and utilization of its social infrastructure through social capital. It revolves around the collective capacity of communities to manage stressors and return to normalcy post-disaster through cooperative efforts.
Since community resilience relies on collaborative networks, which in turn are driven by accessibility, community and social resilience are intricately linked to functioning infrastructures 52 . To understand the relationships, we first examine the systems of systems approach thinking. Vitae Systems of Systems aims to holistically resolve complex environmental and societal challenges 53 . It emphasizes strategic, adaptive, and interconnected solutions crucial for long-term system resilience. Individual systems, each with their capabilities and purposes, are connected in ways such that they can achieve together what they cannot achieve alone. Additionally, Okada 54 also shows how the Vitae Systems of Systems can detect fundamental areas of concern and hotspots of vulnerability. It highlights principles of survivability (live through), vitality (live lively), and conviviality (live together) to build system capacity in the overall community. In the context of infrastructure resilience, these approaches bring context to the development of systems and their interdependencies, rather than focusing on the resilience of individual components in isolation.
Expanding on the notion of social and community resilience, Hay’s applies key concepts of being adaptable and capable of maintaining critical functionalities during disruptions to infrastructure 55 . This perspective introduces the concept of “safe-to-fail” systems, which suggests that planning for resilience should anticipate and accommodate the potential for system failures in a way that minimizes overall disruption and aids quick recovery.
As such, the literature agrees that social, infrastructural, and environmental systems handle unexpected disturbances and continue to provide essential services. While Aldrich’s contribution lies in underscoring the importance of social ties and community networks, Hay expands this into the realm of physical systems by considering access to facilities. Infrastructure systems traditionally adapt and change slowly, driven by rigid physical structures, high construction costs, and planning regulations. In contrast, behavioral patterns are relatively fast-changing, even though close social connections and trust also take time to build. Yet, infrastructures form the backbone that enables—or disrupts—social ties. By adopting resilience principles that enable adaptation across infrastructure and social systems, better preparedness, response, and recovery can be achieved.
Given the dynamic, complex nature of resilience, infrastructure resilience, by extension, should not just be considered through the effective engineering of the built environment. Rather, infrastructure resilience must be considered as an integral part of the multi-layered resilience landscape. Crucial questions that link infrastructure to the broader resilience debate include: How will it be used and by whom? How are infrastructure resilience decisions taken, and whose voices are prioritized? These critical questions necessitate the integration of equity perspectives into the infrastructure resilience discourse.
Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures all community members have equitable access to essential services and infrastructure. In her commentary paper, Cutter 56 examines disaster resilience and vulnerability, challenging the prevalent ambiguity in the definitions of resilience. The paper poses two fundamental questions of “resilience to what?” and “resilience to whom?” . Later, Meerow and Newell 47 expanded on these questions in the context of urban resilience, “for whom, what, where, and why?” . They also stress the need for “resilience politics,” which include understanding of how power dynamics shape resilience policies, creating winners and losers 47 .
In a nutshell, resilience strategies must proactively address systemic inequities. This can also be framed around the concept of Rawls’ Theory of Justice principles, such as equal basic rights and fair equality of opportunity 57 , 58 . Rawls advocates for structuring social and economic inequalities to benefit the least advantaged members of society. In the context of infrastructure resilience, the theory would ensure vulnerable communities, such as lower-income households, have priority in infrastructure restoration. Incorporating Walker’s Theory of Abundant Access, this could also mean prioritizing those most dependent on public transit. Access to public transit, especially in lower-income brackets, allows for greater freedom of movement and connection to other essential facilities in the community like water, food, and health 59 , 60 . At the same time, Casali et al. 61 show that access to infrastructures alone is not sufficient for urban resilience to emerge. Such perspectives integrate physical and social elements of a community to equitably distribute infrastructure resilience benefits. Table 1 summarizes the selected definitions of resilience.
Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures that individuals have the same opportunity and access to infrastructure services regardless of differing demographics, spatial regions, involvement in the community, and internal capacity. Equity is a multifaceted concept that requires precise definitions to thoroughly assess and address it within the scope of infrastructure resilience. Based on the literature, our systematic literature review proposes four definitions of equity for infrastructure resilience: distributional-demographic (D), distributional-spatial (S), procedural (P), and capacity (C). Distributional-demographic (D) equity represents accessibility to and functionality of infrastructure services considering the vulnerability of demographic groups 62 . Distributional-spatial (S) equity focuses on the equitable distribution of infrastructure services to all spatial regions 63 . Procedural (P) equity refers to inclusive participation and transparent planning with stakeholders and community members 31 . Capacity equity (C) connect the supporting infrastructure to the hierarchy of needs which recognizes the specific capacities of households 64 .
Distributional-demographic (D) addresses the systemic inequities in communities to ensure those of differing demographic status have equitable access to infrastructure services 37 . The purpose is to equitably distribute the burdens and benefits of services by reducing disparity for the most disadvantaged populations 42 . These groups may need greater support due to greater hardship to infrastructure losses, greater dependency on essential services, and disproportionate losses to infrastructure 43 , 65 , 66 . In addition, they may have differing abilities and need to mitigate service losses 33 . Our research bases distributional-demographic on age for young children and elderly, employment, education, ethnicity, people with disabilities, gender, income, tenure of residence, marginalized populations based on additional demographic characteristics, intergenerational, and general-social inequities 67 .
Distributional-spatial (S) recognizes that the operation and optimizations of the systems may leave certain areas in isolation 68 , 69 , 70 . For example, an equitable access to essential services (EAE) approach to spatial planning can identify these service deserts 46 . Urban and rural dynamics may also influence infrastructure inequities. Rural areas have deficient funding sources compared to urban areas 17 while urban areas may have greater vulnerability due to the interconnectedness of systems 71 . Our research labels distributional-spatial as spatial and urban-rural. Spatial involves spatial areas of extreme vulnerability through spatial regression models, spatial inequity hotspots, and specific mentions of vulnerable areas. Urban-rural references the struggles of urban-rural areas.
Procedural (P) equity ensures the inclusion of everyone in the decision-making process from the collection of data to the influence of policies. According to Rivera 72 , inequities in the disaster recovery and reconstruction process originate from procedural vulnerabilities associated with historical and ongoing power relations. The validity of local cultural identities is often overlooked in the participation process of designing infrastructure 73 . Governments and institutions may have excluded certain groups from the conversation to understand, plan, manage, and diminish risk in infrastructure 74 . As argued by Liévanos and Horne 20 , such utilitarian bureaucratic decision rules can limit the recognition of unequal services and the development of corrective actions. These biases can be present in governmental policies, maintenance orders, building codes, and distribution of funding 30 . Our research labels procedural equity as stakeholder input and stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder input goes beyond collecting responses from interviews and surveys. Rather, researchers will ask for specific feedback and validation on final research deliverables like models, results, and spatial maps, but they are not included in the research planning process. Stakeholder engagement are instances where participants took an active role in the research deliverables to change elements of their community.
Capacity (C) equity is the ability of individuals, groups, and communities to counteract or mitigate the effect of infrastructure loss. As mentioned by Parsons, et al. 75 , equity can be enhanced through a network of adaptive capacities at the household or community level. These adaptive capacities are viewed as an integral part of community resilience 76 . Regarding infrastructure, households can prepare for infrastructure losses and have service substitutes such as power generators or water storage tanks 77 , 78 . It may also include the household’s ability to tolerate disruptions and the ability to perceive risk to infrastructure losses 66 . However, capacity can be limited by people’s social connections, social standing, and access to financial resources and personal capital 79 . Our research categorizes capacity equity as adaptations, access, and susceptibility. Adaptations include preparedness strategies before a disaster as well as coping strategies during and after the disaster. Access includes a quantifiable metric in reaching critical resources which may include but is not limited to vehicles, public transportation, or walking. Susceptibility involves a household internal household capability such as tolerance, suffering, unhappiness, and willingness-to-pay models. Although an important aspect of capability, the research did not include social capital since it is outside the scope of research.
Our systematic literature review used the Covidence software 80 , which is a production tool to make the process of conducting systematic reviews more efficient and streamlined 80 . As a web-based platform, it supports the collaborative management of uploaded journal references and processes journals through 4-step screening and analysis including title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality assessment. The software also follows the guidelines of PRIMSA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis), which provides a clear, transparent way for researchers to document their findings 81 . PRIMSA includes a 27-item checklist and 4-phase flow diagram of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Figure 1 summarizes the PRIMSA method we followed during our review process by showing the search criteria and final selected articles at each stage, including identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.
The figure shows the 4-step screening process of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion as well as the specific search criteria for each step. From the initial 2991 articles, 99 articles were selected.
The search covered Web of Science and Science Direct due to their comprehensive coverage and interdisciplinary sources. To cover a broad set of possible disasters and infrastructures, our search focused on the key areas of equity (“equit- OR fair- OR justice- OR and access-“), infrastructure (“AND infrastructure system- OR service-”), and disasters (“ AND hazard- OR, cris- OR, disaster- OR”). We limited our search to journal articles published in engineering, social sciences, and interdisciplinary journals during January 2010 to March 2023. Excluding duplicates, the combined results of the search engines resulted in 2991 articles.
The articles were screened on their title and abstract. These had to explicitly mention both an infrastructure system (water, transportation, communication, etc.) and natural hazards (tropical cyclone, earthquake, etc.) The specific criteria for infrastructure and natural hazard is found in the 8-dimension framework. This initial screening process yielded 398 articles for full-text review.
The articles were examined based on the extent of discussion in infrastructure, natural hazard, and equity dimension. Insufficient equity discussion means that the paper did not fall within the distributional-demographic, distributional-spatial, procedural, or capacity forms of equity (98). Studies were also excluded for not directly including equity analysis in the infrastructure system (19). Limited infrastructure focus means that the article may have focused on infrastructure outside the scope of the manuscript such as industrial, green, building, or social infrastructure (74). Limited disaster focus means that the article did not connect to the direct or indirect impacts of disasters on infrastructure systems (45). Wrong study design included literature reviews, opinion pieces, policy papers, and unable to access (56). This stage yielded 99 final articles.
To analyze the 99 articles, we designed an 8-dimensional assessment framework (see Fig. 2 ) to analyze the literature. In Fig. 2 , the visualization focuses on equity, infrastructure, and natural hazards since these are the 3 main dimensions of the systematic literature review. The icons on the bottom are the remaining 5 dimensions which add more analysis and context to the first 3 dimensions. Here, we refer to research question 1: what are the prevailing concepts, foci, methods, and theories, in assessing the inequities of disrupted infrastructure services? The framework distinguished the concepts (equity dimensions, infrastructure system, and natural hazard event), foci (geographical scale, geographic location, temporal scale), methods (nature of study and data collection), and theories (theoretical perspective) (Fig. 2 ). The following details each subquestion:
Equity dimensions, infrastructure type, and hazard event type are the main 3 dimensions while geographical location, geographic scale, temporal, nature of the study, and theoretical perspectives are the remaining 5 dimensions which add more information and context.
How is equity conceptualized and measured? First, we label equity into 4 definitions (DPSC). Second, it summarizes the equity conclusions.
Which infrastructure services were most and least commonly studied? This category is divided into power, water, transportation, communication, health, food, sanitation, stormwater, emergency, and general if a specific infrastructure is not mentioned. Studies can include more than one infrastructure service. Green infrastructure, social infrastructure, building structures, and industrial structures were excluded.
Which hazard events are most or least frequently studied? This category includes flood, tropical cyclone, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, pandemic, and general if there is no specific hazard. To clarify, tropical cyclones include hurricanes and typhoons while extreme temperatures are coldwaves and heatwaves. It determines which studies are specific to hazards and which can be applied to universal events.
Which countries have studied equity the most and least? This category is at the country scale such as the United States, Netherlands, China, and Australia, among others.
What geographic unit of scale has been studied to represent equity? Smaller scales of study can reveal greater insights at the household level while larger scales of study can reveal comparative differences between regional communities. It ranges from individual, local, regional, and country as well as project. To clarify, ‘individual’ can include survey respondents, households, and stakeholder experts; ‘local’ is census block groups, census tracts, and ZIP codes equivalent scales; ‘regional’ is counties, municipalities, and cities equivalent; ‘project’ refers to studies that focused on specific infrastructure/ construction projects.
When did themes and priority of equity first emerge? This category determines when equity in infrastructure research is published and whether these trends are increasing, decreasing, or constant.
How is data for equity being collected and processed? This category analyzed data types used including conceptual, descriptive, open-data, location-intelligence, and simulation data. To clarify, conceptual refers to purely conceptual frameworks or hypothetical datasets; descriptive refers to surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or field observations performed by the researcher; open-data refers to any open-data source that is easily and freely attainable such as census and flood data; location-intelligence refers to social media, human mobility, satellite and aerial images, visit data, and GIS layers; and finally, simulation data can be developed through simulation models like numerical software, Monte-Carlo, or percolation methods. Second, the data can be processed through quantitative or qualitative methods. Quantitative methods may include correlation, principal component analysis, and spatial regression while qualitative methods may include validation, thematic coding, participatory rural appraisal, and citizen science. We focused on analysis explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. For example, it can be assumed that studies of linear regression discussed correlation analysis and other descriptive statistics in their data processing.
Which theoretical frameworks have been created and used to evaluate equity? This category summarizes the reasoning behind the theoretical frameworks which may have informal or formal names such as a service-gap model, well-being approach, and capability approach.
Based on the 8-dimensional assessment framework, the research first examines the spatiotemporal patterns as well as data and methods to evaluate equity. Then, it investigates the definitions of equity to the intersections with infrastructure and hazards. It concludes with a discussion of theoretical frameworks. We use the term “pathways” to identify how equity is constructed, analyzed, and used in relation to the 8-dimensional framework. For instance, the connection between equity and infrastructure is considered a pathway. By defining specific “pathways,” we are essentially mapping out the routes through which equity interacts with various dimensions of a framework, such as infrastructure. The following analysis directly addresses research question 1 (prevailing concepts, focuses, methods, and theories, in assessing the inequities of disrupted infrastructure services) and research question 2 (similar and different pathways of equity). Supplementary Figures 1A – 12A provide additional context to the research findings and can be found in the Supplementary Information .
Overall, there is an increasing number of publications about equity in infrastructure management (Fig. 3 ). A slight decrease observed in 2021 could be because of the focus on COVID-19 research. Spatially, by far the most studies focus on the US (69), followed by India (3), Ghana (3), and Bangladesh (3) (Fig. 5 ). This surprising distribution seems to contradict the intuition that equity and fairness in infrastructure resilience are certainly global phenonmena. Besides the exact phrasing of the search term, this result can be explained by the focus of this review on the intersection of infrastructure resilience and inequity. For infrastructure resilience, prominent reports, such as the CDRI’s 2023 Global Infrastructure Resilience Report 82 still fail to address it. Even though research has called for increasing consideration of equity and distributive justice in infrastructure and risk assessment, inequity is still all too often viewed as a social and economic risk 83 . At the same time, persistent imbalances in terms of data availability have been shown to shift research interest to the US, especially for data intense studies on urban infrastructures 84 . Finally, efforts to mainstream of equity and fairness across all infrastructures as a part of major transitions may explain why equity discussion is less pronounced in the context of crises. For instance, in Europe, according to the EU climate act (Article 9(1)) 85 , all sectors need to be enabled and empowered to make the transition to a climate-resilient society fair and equitable .
The bar graph shows an overall increasing from 2011 to 2023 in publications about equity in infrastructure resilience during natural hazard events. The pie chart shows that countries in the global north with United States (US), England, Australia, Germany, Taiwan, Norway, South Korea, and Japan and global south with Bangladesh, India, Ghana, Mexico, Mozambique, Brazil, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Nepal, Zimbabwe, Central Asia, and South Africa.
Our Sankey diagram (Fig. 4 ) sketches the distribution of data collection pathways which connects quantitative-qualitative data to data type to scale. Most studies start from quantitative data (120) with fewer using mixed (34) or qualitative (18) data. Quantitative studies use descriptive (58), open-data (50) location-intelligence (36), simulation (19), and conceptual (9). The most prominent spatial scale was local (66) which consisted of census tract, census block group, zip code, and equivalent spatial scale of analysis. This was followed by individual or household scale (64) which largely stems from descriptive data of interviews, surveys, and field observations. Within the context of infrastructure, equity, and hazards, non-US studies did not use human mobility data, a specific type of location-intelligence data. This could be due to limitations in data availability and different security restrictions to these researchers such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 86 . Increasingly, the application of location-intelligence data was used to supplement the understanding of service disruptions. For example, satellite information 87 , telemetry-based data 37 , and human mobility data 88 were used to evaluate the equitable restoration of power systems and access to critical facilities. Social media quantified public emotions to disruptions 89 , 90 .
The Sankey diagram shows the flow from studies containing quantitative, qualitative, or quantitative–qualitative data to the specific type of data of descriptive, open-data, location-intelligence, simulation, and conceptual to spatial scale of data of local, individual, regional, country, and project.
As shown in Fig. 5 , there are distinct quantitative and qualitative methods to interpret equity. Most quantitative methods were focused on descriptive analysis and linear models which can assume simple relationships within equity dimensions. Simple relationships would assume that dependent variables have a straightforward relationship with independent variables. Regarding quantitative analysis, descriptive statistics were correlation (12), chi-square (6), and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (5) means. Spatial analysis included geographic information system (GIS) (15), Moran’s-I spatial autocorrelation (6), and spatial-regression (5). Variables were also grouped together through principal component analysis (PCA) (9) and Index-Weighting (9). Logit models (13) and Monte-Carlo simulations (7) were used to analyze data. Thus, more complex models are needed to uncover the underlying mechanisms associated with equity in infrastructure. In analyzing quantitative data, most research has focused on using descriptive statistics, linear models, and Moran’s I statistic which have been effective in pinpointing areas with heightened physical and social vulnerability 25 , 91 , 92 .
The quantitative pie chart has geographic information system (GIS), logit model, correlation, index-weighting, principal component analysis (PCA), monte-carlo simulation, chi-square, Moran’s- I spatial autocorrelation, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and spatial regression. The qualitative pie chart has validation, thematic coding, citizen science, sentiment analysis, conceptual analysis, participatory rural appraisal, document analysis, participatory assessment, photovoice, and ethnographic.
However, there has been a less frequent yet insightful use of advanced techniques like machine learning, agent-based modeling, and simulation. For example, Esmalian, et al. 66 employed agent-based modeling to explore how social demographic characteristics impact responses to power outages during Hurricane Harvey. In a similar vein, Baeza, et al. 93 utilized agent-based modeling to evaluate the trade-offs among three distinct infrastructure investment policies: prioritizing high-social-pressure neighborhoods, creating new access in under-served areas, and refurbishing aged infrastructure. Simulation models have been instrumental in understanding access to critical services like water 43 , health care 92 , and transportation 33 . Beyond these practical models, conceptual studies have also contributed innovative methods. Notably, Clark, et al. 94 proposed gravity-weighted models, and Kim and Sutley 30 explored the use of genetic algorithms to measure the accessibility to critical resources. These diverse methodologies indicate a growing sophistication in the field, embracing a range of analytical tools to address the complexities of infrastructure resilience.
Regarding qualitative analysis, the methods included thematic coding (7), validation of stakeholders (9), sentiment (4), citizen science (5), conceptual analysis (3) participatory rural appraisal (2), document analysis (2), participatory assessment (1), photovoice (1), and ethnographic (1). Qualitative methods were used to capture diverse angles of equity, offering a depth and context not provided by quantitative data alone. These methods are effective in understanding capacity equity, such as unexpected strategies and coping mechanisms that would go otherwise unnoticed 95 . Qualitative research can also capture the perspectives and voices of stakeholders through procedural equity. Interviews and focus groups can validate and enhance research frameworks 96 . Working collaboratively with stakeholders, as shown with Masterson et al. 97 can lead to positive community changes in updated planning policies. Qualitative methods can narratively convey the personal hardships of infrastructure losses 98 . This approach recognizes that infrastructure issues are not just technical problems but also deeply intertwined with social, economic, and cultural dimensions.
As shown in Fig. 6 , the frequency of type of equity was distributional-demographic (90), distributional-spatial (55), capacity (54), and procedural (16). It is notable to reflect on the intersections between the four definitions of equity. Between two linkages, the top three linkages between DC (20), DS (16), and DP (9), which all revealed a connection to distributional-demographic equity. There were comparatively fewer studies linking 3 dimensions except for DSC which had 25 connections. Only 3 studies had 4 connections.
Distributional-demographic had the highest number of studies and the greatest overlap with the remaining equity definitions of capacity, procedural, and distributional-spatial. Only 3 studies overlapped with the four equity definitions.
Distributional-demographic equity was the most studied equity definition. Table 2 shows how pathways of demographic equity relate to the different infrastructure systems and variables within distributional-demographic, including 728 unique pathways. As a reminder, pathways explore equity across an 8-dimensional framework. In this case, the distributional-demographic equity is connected to infrastructure, treating these connections as pathways Pathways with power (165), water (147), and transportation (112) were the most frequent while those with stormwater (23) and emergency (9) services were the least frequent. Referencing demographics, the most pathways were income (148), ethnicity (115), and age (122) while least studied were gender (63), employment (35), marginalized populations (5) and intergenerational (1). Note the abbreviations for Tables 2 and 3 are power (P), water (W), transportation (T), food (F), health (H), sanitation (ST), communication (C), stormwater (SW), emergency (E), and general (G). Regarding distributional-demographic, several research papers showed that lower income and minority households were most studied in comparison to the other demographic variables. Lower-income and minority households faced greater exposure, more hardship, and less tolerance to withstand power, water, transportation, and communication outages during Hurricane Harvey 99 . These findings were replicated in disasters such as Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, COVID-19 pandemic, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Hermine, respectively 65 , 91 , 100 , 101 . Several studies found that demographic vulnerabilities are interconnected and compounding, and often, distributional-demographic equity is a pre-existing inequality condition that is exacerbated by disaster impact 102 . For instance, Stough, et al. 98 identified that respondents with disabilities faced increased struggles due to a lack of resources to access proper healthcare and transportation after Hurricane Katrina. Women were often overburdened by infrastructure loss as they were expected to “pick up the pieces,” and substitute the missing service 103 , 104 . Fewer studies involved indigenous populations, young children, or considered future generations. Using citizen-science methods, Ahmed, et al. 105 studied the struggles and coping strategies of the Santal indigenous group to respond to water losses in drought conditions. Studies normally did not account for the direct infrastructure losses on children and instead concentrated on the impacts on their caretakers 106 ; however, this is likely due to restrictions surrounding research with children. Lee and Ellingwood 107 discussed how, “intergenerational discounting makes it possible to allocate costs and benefits more equitably between the current and future generations” (pg.51) A slight difference in discounting rate can lead to vastly different consequences and benefits for future generations. For example, the study found that insufficient investments in design and planning will only increase the cost and burden of infrastructure maintenance and replacement.
Distributional-spatial equity was the second most studied aspect, which includes spatial grouping and urban-rural designation, particularly given the rise of open-data and location-intelligence data with spatial information. Table 3 shows the pathways of spatial equity connected to different infrastructures and variables. In total, 109 unique pathways were found with spatial (83) and urban-rural (26) characteristics. Power (27), transportation (22), water (16), and health (15) systems were the most frequent pathways with stormwater (4), emergency (2), and communication (3) the least frequent. Urban-rural studies on communication and emergency services are entirely missing. Distributional-spatial equity studies, including spatial inequities and urban-rural dynamics, were often linked with distributional-demographic equity. For example, Logan and Guikema 46 defined “access rich” and “access poor” to measure different sociodemographic populations’ access to essential facilities. White populations had less distance to travel to open supermarkets and service stations in North Carolina 46 . Esmalian et al. 108 found that higher income areas had a lower number of stores in their areas, but they still had better access to grocery stores in Harris County, Texas. This could be because higher income areas live in residential areas, but they have the capability to travel further distances and visit more stores. Vulnerable communities could even be indirectly impacted by spatial spillover effects from neighboring areas 26 . Regarding urban-rural struggles, Pandey et al. 17 argued that inequities emerge when urban infrastructure growth lags with respect to the urban population while rural areas face infrastructure deficits. Rural municipalities had fewer resources, longer restoration times, and less institutional support to mitigate infrastructure losses 95 , 109 , 110 .
Capacity was the third most studied dimension and had 150 unique pathways to adaptations (54), access (43), and susceptibility (53). In connecting to infrastructure systems, power (29), water (27), transportation (25), and food (22) had the greatest number of pathways. There were interesting connections between different infrastructures and variables of capacity. Access was most connected to food (11), transportation (10), and health systems (10). Adaptations were most connected to water (15) and power (12) systems. This highlights how capacity equity is reflected differently to infrastructure losses. Capacity equity was often connected with distributional-equity since different sociodemographic groups have varying adaptations to infrastructure losses 78 . For example, Chakalian, et al. 106 found that white respondents were 2.5 more likely to own a power generator while Kohlitz et al. 95 found that poorer households could not afford rainwater harvesting systems. These behaviors may also include tolerating infrastructure disruptions 111 , cutting back on current resources 112 , or having an increased suffering 113 . The capabilities approach offers a valuable perspective on access to infrastructure services 94 . It recognizes the additional time and financial resources that certain groups may need to access the same level of services, especially if travel networks are disrupted 114 , 115 and travel time is extended 33 . In rural regions, women, children, and lower income households often reported traveling further distances for resources 105 , 116 . These disparities are often influenced by socioeconomic factors, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding on how different communities are affected by and respond to infrastructure losses. As such, building capacity is not just increasing the preparedness of households but also accommodating infrastructure systems to ensure equitable access, such as the optimization of facility locations 69 .
Procedural was the least studied equity definition with only 26 unique pathways, involving stakeholder input and stakeholder engagement. Pathways to communication and emergency systems were not available. The greatest number of pathways were water services to stakeholder input (7) and stormwater services to stakeholder engagement (4). Stakeholder input can assist researchers in validating and improving their research deliverables. This approach democratizes the decision-making process and enhances the quality and relevance of research and planning outcomes. For instance, the involvement of local experts and residents in Tanzania through a Delphi process led to the development of a more accurate and locally relevant social resilience measurement tool 117 . Stakeholder engagement, such as citizen science methods, can incorporate environmental justice communities into the planning process, educate engineers and scientists, and collect reliable data which can be actively incorporated back to the community 118 , 119 , 120 . Such participatory approaches, including citizen science, allow for a deeper understanding of community needs and challenges. In Houston, TX, the success of engaging high school students in assessing drainage infrastructure exemplified how community involvement can yield significant, practical data 119 . The data was approximately 74% accurate to trained inspectors, which were promising results for communities assessing their infrastructure resilience 119 . In a blend of research and practice, Masterson, et al. 97 illustrated the practical application of procedural equity. By interweaving equity in their policy planning, Rockport, TX planners added accessible services and upgrades to infrastructure for lower-income and racial-ethnic minority neighborhoods, directly benefiting underserved communities.
For the hazards, tropical cyclones (34.6%) and floods (30.8%) make up over half of the studied hazards (Supplementary Figure 2A ) while power (21.2%), water (19.2%), transportation (15.4%), and health (12.0%) were the most frequently studied infrastructure services (Supplementary Figure 3A ). A pathway is used to connect equity to different dimensions of the framework, in this case, equity to infrastructure to hazard (Fig. 7 ). When considering these pathways, distributional-demographic (270) had the most pathways followed by capacity (175), distributional-spatial (140), and procedural (28). The most common pathway across all infrastructure services was a tropical cyclone and flooding with distributional-demographic equity (Supplementary Figures 6A – 8A ). As shown in Fig. 7 , tropical cyclone (229) and flood (192) had the most pathways while extreme temperatures (20) and pandemic (14) had the least. Although pandemic is seemingly the least studied, it is important to note that most of these studies were post COVID-19. Power (120), transportation (107), and water (104) had the most pathways whereas sanitation (33), communication (27), stormwater (21), and emergency (14) had the least pathways. The figure shows specific gaps in the literature. Whereas the other three equity definitions had connections to each hazard event, procedural equity only had connections to tropical cyclone, flood, general, and drought. There were only pathways from health infrastructure to tropical cyclone, flood, general, earthquake, and pandemic. There were 106 pathways connecting equity to general hazards, which may suggest the need to look at the impacts of specific hazards to equity in infrastructure resilience.
The Sankey diagram shows the flow from the different types of equity, or equity definitions, of distributional-demographic (D), capacity (C), distributional-spatial (S), and procedural (P) to hazard of tropical cyclone, flood, general, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, and pandemic to infrastructure of power, transportation, water, health, food, communication, general, stormwater, emergency, and sanitation.
Regarding research question 2, this research aims to understand frameworks of equity in infrastructure resilience. As an exploration of the frameworks. we found common focus areas of adaptations, access, vulnerability, validation, and welfare economics (Table 4 ). The full list of frameworks can be found in the online database that was uploaded in DesignSafe Data Depot. Supplementary Information .
Household adaptations included the ability to prepare before a disaster as well as coping strategies during and after the disaster. Esmalian et al. 111 developed a service gap model based on survey data of residents affected by Hurricane Harvey. Lower-income households were less likely to own power generators, which could lead to an inability to withstand power outages 111 . To understand household adaptations, Abbou et al. 78 asked residents of Los Angeles, California about their experiences in electrical and water losses. The study showed that when compared to men, women used more candles and flashlights. People with higher education, regardless of gender, were more likely to use power generators. In a Pressure and Release model, Daramola et al. 112 examined the level of preparedness to natural hazards in Nigeria. The study found that rural residents tended to use rechargeable lamps while urban areas used generators, likely due to the limited availability of electricity systems. Approximately 73% of participants relied on chemist shops to cope with constrained access to health facilities.
Other frameworks focused on the accessibility to resources. Clark et al. 94 developed the social burden concept which uses resources, conversion factors, capabilities, and functioning into a travel cost method to access critical resources. In an integrated physical-social vulnerability model, Dong et al. 92 calculated disrupted access to hospitals in Harris County, Texas. Logan and Guikema 46 integrated spatial planning, diverse vulnerabilities, and community needs into EAE services. In the case study of Willimgton, North Carolina, they showed how lower-income households had fewer access to grocery stores. In a predictive recovery monitoring spatial model, Patrascu and Mostafavi 26 found that the percentage of Black and Asian subpopulations were significant features to predict recovery of population activity, or the visits to essential services in a community.
Several of the infrastructure resilience frameworks were grounded in social vulnerability assessments. For instance, Toland et al. 43 created a community vulnerability assessment based on an earthquake scenario that resulted in the need for emergency food and water resources. Using GIS, Oswald and Mohammed developed a transportation justice threshold index that integrated social vulnerability into transportation understanding 121 . In a Disruption Tolerance Index, Esmalian et al. 25 showed how demographic variables are connected with disproportionate losses in power and transportation losses.
Additional studies were based on stakeholder input and expert opinion. Atallah et al. 36 established an ABCD roadmap for health services which included acute life-saving services, basic institutional aspects for low-resource settings, community-driven health initiatives, and disease specific interventions. Health experts were instrumental in providing feedback for the ABCD roadmap. Another example is the development of the social resilience tool for water systems validated by experts and community residents by Sweya et al. 117 . To assess highway resilience, Hsieh and Feng had transportation experts score 9 factors including resident population, income, employment, connectivity, dependency ratio, distance to hospital, number of substitutive links, delay time in substitutions, and average degenerated level of services 122 .
Willingness-to-pay (WTP) models reveal varied household investments in infrastructure resilience. Wang et al. 123 showed a wide WTP range, from $15 to $50 for those unaffected by disruptions to $120–$775 for affected, politically liberal individuals. Islam et al. 124 found households with limited access to safe drinking water were more inclined to pay for resilient water infrastructure. Stock et al. 125 observed that higher-income households showed greater WTP for power and transportation resilience, likely due to more disposable income and expectations for service quality. These findings highlight the need to consider economic constraints in WTP studies to avoid misinterpreting lower income as lower willingness to invest. Indeed, if a study does not adequately account for a person’s economic constraints, the findings may incorrectly interpret a lower ability to pay as a lower willingness to pay.
In terms of policy evaluation for infrastructure resilience, studies like Ulak et al. 126 prioritized equitable power system recovery for different ethnic groups, favoring network renewal over increasing response crews. Baeza et al. 93 noted that infrastructure decisions are often swayed by political factors rather than technical criteria. Furthermore, Lee and Ellingwood 107 introduced a method for intergenerational discounting in civil infrastructure, suggesting more conservative designs for longer service lives to benefit future generations. These studies underscore the complex factors influencing infrastructure resilience policy, including equity, political influence, and long-term planning.
This systematic review is the first to explore how equity is incorporated into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards. By systematically analyzing the existing literature and identifying key gaps, the paper enhances our understanding of equity in this field and outlines clear directions for future research. This study is crucial for understanding the fundamental knowledge that brings social equity to the forefront of infrastructure resilience. Table 5 summarizes the primary findings of this systematic review of equity in infrastructure resilience literature, including what the studies are currently focusing on and the research gaps and limitations.
Our findings show a great diversity of frameworks and methods depending on the context, in which equity is applied (Table 5 ). Moreover, we identify a lack of integrative formal and analytical tools. Therefore, a clear and standard framework is needed to operationalize inequity across infrastructures and hazards; what is missing are analytical tools and approaches to integrate equity assessment into decision-making.
Referring to question 3, we will further explore the current gaps of knowledge and future challenges of studying equity in infrastructure resilience. In elaborating on the gaps identified in our review, we propose that the next era of research questions and objectives should be (1) monitoring equity performance with improved data, (2) weaving equity in computational models, and (3) integrating equity into decision-making tools. Through principles of innovation, accountability, and knowledge, such objectives would be guided by moving beyond distributional equity, recognizing understudied gaps of equity, and inclusion of all geographic regions, and by extension stakeholders (Fig. 8 ).
The figure demonstrates that previous research has focused on detecting and finding evidence of disparity in infrastructure resilience in hazard events. It supports that the next phase of research will monitor equity performance with improved data, weave equity in computational models, and integrate equity in decision making tools in order to move beyond social and spatial distributions, recognize understudied gaps of equity, and include all geographic regions.
The first research direction is the monitoring equity performance with improved data at more granular scales and greater representation of impacted communities. Increased data availability provides researchers, stakeholders, and community residents with more detailed and accurate assessment of infrastructure losses. Many studies have used reliable, yet inherently approximate data sources, for infrastructure service outages. These sources include human mobility, satellite, points-of-interest visitation, and telemetry-based data (such as refs. 69 , 100 ). Private companies are often reluctant to share utility and outage data with researchers 127 . Thus, we encourage the shift towards transparent and open datasets from utility companies in normal times and outage events. This aligns with open-data initiatives such as Open Infrastructure Outage Data Initiative Nationwide (ODIN) 128 , Invest in Open Infrastructure 129 , and Implementing Act on a list of High-Value Datasets 130 . Transparency in data fosters an environment of accountability and innovation to uphold equity standards in infrastructure resilience 131 . An essential aspect of this transparency involves acknowledging and addressing biases that may render certain groups ‘invisible’ within datasets. These digitally invisible populations may well be among the most vulnerable, such as unhoused people that may not have a digital footprint yet are very vulnerable to extreme weather 132 . Gender serves as a poignant example of such invisibility. Historical biases and societal norms often result in gender disparities being perpetuated in various facets of infrastructure design and resilience planning 133 . Women are frequently placed in roles of caregiving responsibilities, such as traveling to reach water (as shown in refs. 105 , 116 , 134 ) or concern over the well-being of family members (as shown in refs. 103 , 135 ), which have been overlooked or marginalized in infrastructure planning processes.
If instances of social disparities are uncovered, researchers and practitioners could collaboratively cultivate evidence-based recommendations to manage infrastructure resilience. At the same time, approaches for responsible data management need to be developed that protect privacy of individuals, especially marginalized and vulnerable groups 136 . There is a trade-off between proper representation of demographic groups and ensuring the privacy of individuals 45 , 67 . Despite this, very few studies call into question the fairness of the data collection in capturing the multifaceted aspects of equity 137 , or the potential risks to communities as described in the EU’s forthcoming Artificial Intelligence Act 138 .
By extension, addressing the problem of digitally invisible populations and possible bias, Gharaibeh et al. 120 also emphasizes that equitable data should represent all communities in the study area. Choices about data collection and storage can directly impact the management of public services, by extension the management of critical information 139 . For example, a significant problem with location-intelligence data collection is properly representing digitally invisible populations as these groups are often marginalized in the digital space leading to gaps in data 132 , 140 . Human mobility data, a specific type of location-intelligence data derived from cell phone pinpoint data, illustrates this issue. Vulnerable groups may not afford or have frequent access to cell phones, resulting in a skewed understanding of population movements 141 . However, other studies have shown that digital platforms can be empowering for marginalized populations to express sentiments of cultural identity and tragedies through active sharing and communication 142 . Ultimately, Hendricks et al. 118 recommend a “triangulation of data sources,” to integrate quantitative and qualitative data, which would mitigate potential data misrepresentation and take advantage of the online information. Moving ahead, approaches need to be developed for fair, privacy-preserving, and unbiased data collection that empowers especially vulnerable communities. At the same time, realizing that data gaps especially in infrastructure-poor regions may not be easy to address, we also follow Casali et al. 84 in calling for synthetic approaches and models that work on sparse data.
Few studies, such as refs. 45 , 66 , have created computational models to capture equity-infrastructure-hazards interactions, which are initial attempts to quantify both the social impacts and the physical performance of infrastructure. This is echoed in the work of Soden et al. 143 which found only ~28% of studies undertake a quantitative evaluation of differential impacts experienced in disasters. To enhance analytical and computational methods in supporting equitable decision-making, it is imperative for future studies to comprehensively integrate social dimensions of infrastructure resilience. Therefore, the next research direction is the intentional weaving of equity in computational models. Where the majority of studies used descriptive statistics and non-linear modeling, complex computational models—such as agent-based simulations—offer the advantage of capturing the nonlinear interactions of equity in infrastructure systems. These tools also allow decision-makers to gain insights into the emergence of complex patterns over time. These simulation models can then be combined with specific metrics that measure infrastructural or social implications. Metrics might include susceptibility curves 144 , social burden costs estimates 94 , or social resilience assessment 76 . Novel metrics for assessing adaptive strategies, human behaviors, and disproportionate impacts (such as 113 ) could also be further quantified through empirical deprivation costs for infrastructure losses 145 . These metrics also are a stepping-stone for formalizing and integrating equity into decision-making tools.
Another research direction is the integration of equity into decision-making tools. Key performance indicators and monitoring systems are essential for clarifying equity processes and outcomes and creating tangible tools for infrastructure planners, managers, engineers, and policy-makers. In particular, the literature discussed the potential for using equity in infrastructure resilience to direct infrastructure investments (such as refs. 93 , 126 , 146 ). Infrastructure resilience requires significant upfront investment and resource allocations, which generally favors wealthier communities. Communities may hold social, cultural, and environmental values that are not properly quantified in infrastructure resilience 147 . Since traditional standards of cost-benefit analyses used by infrastructure managers and operators primarily focus on monetary gains or losses, they would not favorably support significant investments to mitigate the human impacts of infrastructure losses on those most vulnerable 148 . This limitation also delays investments and leads to inaction in infrastructure resilience, resulting in unnecessary loss of services and social harm, potentially amplifying inequities, and furthering societal fragmentation. To bridge this gap, we propose to measure the social costs of infrastructure service disruptions as a way to determine the broad benefits of resilience investments 147 .
As the literature review found, several studies are following a welfare economics approach to quantify social costs associated with infrastructure losses such as the evaluation of policies (such as ref. 93 ) and willingness-to-pay models (such as ref. 125 ). Such economic functions are preliminary steps in quantifying equity as a cost measure; however, these models must avoid misinterpreting lower income as a lower willingness to invest. Lee and Ellingwood 107 proposed using intergenerational discounting rate; however, it is important to recognize the flexibility of options for future generations 149 . Teodoro et al. 149 points to the challenges of using (fixed) discount rates and advocate for a procedural justice-based approach that maximizes flexibility and adaptability. Further research is needed to quantify the social costs of infrastructure disruptions and integrate them into infrastructure resilience assessments, such as calculating the deprivation costs of service losses for vulnerable populations.
Our review shows that certain demographic groups such as indigenous populations, persons with disabilities, and intergenerational equity issues have not been sufficiently studied 150 . This aligns with the conclusions of Seyedrezaei et al. 151 , who found that the majority of studies about equity in the built-environment focused on lower-income and minority households. Indigenous populations face significant geographical, cultural, and linguistic barriers that make their experiences with disrupted infrastructure services distinct from those of the broader population 152 .
Even though intergenerational justice issues have increasingly sparked attention on the climate change discussion, intergenerational equity issues in infrastructure resilience assessments have received limited attention. We argue that intergenerational equity warrants special attention as infrastructure systems have long life cycles that span across multiple generations, and ultimately the decisions on the finance, restoration, and new construction will have a significant impact on the ability of future generations to withstand the impact of stronger climate hazard events. Non-action may lead to tremendous costs in the long run 149 . It is the responsibility of current research to understand the long-term effects of equity in infrastructure management to mitigate future losses and maintain the flexibility of future generations. As a means of procedural justice, these generations should have the space to make choices, instead of being locked in by today’s decisions. Future studies should develop methods to measure and integrate intergenerational inequity in infrastructure resilience assessments.
Given the specific search criteria and focus on equity, infrastructure, and natural hazard, we found a major geographic focus on the United States. Large portions of the global north and global south were not included in the analysis. This could be due to the search criteria of the literature review; however, it is important to recognize potential geographic areas that are isolated from the academic studies on infrastructure resilience. Different infrastructure challenges (e.g., intermittent services) are present through data availability in the region. A dearth of studies on equitable infrastructure resilience could contribute to greater inequity in those regions due to the absence of empirical evidence and proper methodological solutions. This aligns with other findings on sustainable development goals and climate adaptation broadly 153 . Global research efforts, along with common data platforms, standards and methods (see above), that include international collaborations among researchers across the global north and global south regions can bridge this gap and expand the breadth of knowledge and solutions for equitable infrastructure resilience.
Finally, while significant attention has been paid to distributional demographic and spatial inequity issues 151 , there remain several underutilized definitions of equity. Procedural and capacity equity hold the greatest potential for people to feel more included in the infrastructure resilience process. Instead of depending directly on the infrastructure systems, individual households can adapt to disrupted periods through substituted services and alternative actions (such as ref. 78 ). To advance procedural equity in infrastructure resilience, citizen-science research or participatory studies can begin by empowering locals to understand and monitor their resilience (such as ref. 76 ) or failures in their infrastructure systems (such as ref. 120 ). As referenced by Masterson and Cooper 154 , the ladder of citizen power can serve as a framework for how to ethically engage with community partners for procedural equity. The ladder, originally developed by Arnstein 155 , includes non-participation, tokenism, and citizen power. Table 3 shows that most research falls into non-participation: survey data and information are extracted without any community guidance. Limited studies that have branched into community involvement still stay restricted in the tokenism step, such as models that are validated by stakeholders or receive expert opinions on their conceptual models. Future studies should expand inquiries regarding the procedural and capacity dimension of equity in infrastructure resilience assessments and management. For instance, research could map out where inequities occur in the decision-making process and targeted spatial regions as well as allocate of resources for infrastructure resilience. It could also continue pursuing inclusive methodologies such as participatory action research and co-design processes. It should investigate effective methods to genuinely integrate different stakeholders and community members from conception through evaluation of research.
Although the primary audience of the literature review is academic scholars and fellow researchers, the identified gaps are of importance for practitioners, governmental agencies, community organizations, and advocates. By harnessing the transformative power of equity, studies in infrastructure resilience can transcend its traditional role and develop equity-focused data, modeling, and decision-making tools which considers everyone in the community. The integration of equity aspects within the framework of infrastructure resilience not only enhances the resilience of infrastructure systems but also contributes to the creation of inclusive and resilient communities. Infrastructure resilience would not just be a shield against adversity but also a catalyst for positive social and environmental change.
The created excel database which includes information on the key parts of the 8-dimensional equity framework will be uploaded to DesignSafe-CI.
Oh, E. H., Deshmukh, A. & Hastak, M. Criticality assessment of lifeline infrastructure for enhancing disaster response. Nat. Hazards Rev. 14 , 98–107 (2013).
Article Google Scholar
Tripathi, B., Thomson Reuters Foundation. in Reuters (2023).
Hallegatte, S., Rentschler, J. & Rozenberg, J. Lifelines: the resilience infrastructure opportunity (2019).
Scherzer, S., Lujala, P. & Rød, J. K. A community resilience index for Norway: an adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 36 , 101107 (2019).
Platt, S., Gautam, D. & Rupakhety, R. Speed and quality of recovery after the Gorkha Earthquake 2015 Nepal. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50 , 101689 (2020).
George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health & University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health. Ascertainment of the estimated excess mortality from hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (2018).
National Infrastructure Advisory Council. Critical Infrastructure Resilience Final Report and Recommendations (2010).
Hosseini, S., Barker, K. & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 , 47–61 (2016).
Berkeley, A. & Wallace, M. A Framework for establishing critical infrastructure resilience goals final report and recommendations by the council (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 2010).
Mehvar, S. et al. Towards resilient vital infrastructure systems–challenges, opportunities, and future research agenda. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21 , 1383–1407 (2021).
United Nations Office for Project Services. Inclusive Infrastructure for Climate Action. (2022).
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Principles for Resilient Infrastructure. (2022).
Schlör, H., Venghaus, S. & Hake, J.-F. The FEW-Nexus city index—measuring urban resilience. Appl. Energy 210 , 382–392 (2018).
Hart, D. K. Social equity, justice, and the equitable administrator. Public Adm. Rev. 34 , 3 (1974).
Cook, K. S. & Hegtvedt, K. A. Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 9 , 217–241 (1983).
Boakye, J., Guidotti, R., Gardoni, P. & Murphy, C. The role of transportation infrastructure on the impact of natural hazards on communities. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 219 , 108184 (2022).
Pandey, B., Brelsford, C. & Seto, K. C. Infrastructure inequality is a characteristic of urbanization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119 , e2119890119 (2022).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Hendricks, M. D. & Van Zandt, S. Unequal protection revisited: planning for environmental justice, hazard vulnerability, and critical infrastructure in communities of color. Environ. Justice 14 , 87–97 (2021).
Ma, C., Qirui, C. & Lv, Y. “One community at a time”: promoting community resilience in the face of natural hazards and public health challenges. BMC Public Health 23 , 2510 (2023).
Liévanos, R. S. & Horne, C. Unequal resilience: the duration of electricity outages. Energy Policy 108 , 201–211 (2017).
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (2020).
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction & Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure. Global Methodology for Infrastructure Resilience Review (2023).
Robertson, I. et al. Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure, Science Plan, Multi-Hazard Research to Make a More Resilient World, Third Edition, < https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-abbs-0966 > (2023).
Rathnayaka, B., Siriwardana, C., Robert, D., Amaratunga, D. & Setunge, S. Improving the resilience of critical infrastructures: Evidence-based insights from a systematic literature review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 78 , 103123 (2022).
Esmalian, A. et al. Disruption Tolerance Index for determining household susceptibility to infrastructure service disruptions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2021.102347 (2021).
Patrascu, F. I. & Mostafavi, A. Spatial model for predictive recovery monitoring based on hazard, built environment, and population features and their spillover effects. Environ. Plan. B: Urban Anal. City Sci. 23998083231167433 https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083231167433 (2023).
Archer, D., Marome, W., Natakun, B., Mabangyang, P. & Phanthuwongpakdee, N. The role of collective and individual assets in building urban community resilience. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 12 , 169–186 (2020).
Anguelovski, I. et al. Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: critical perspectives from the Global North and South. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 36 , 333–348 (2016).
Hallegatte, S. & Li, J. Investing in resilience and making investments resilient. PLOS Clim. 1 , e0000077 (2022).
Kim, J. H. & Sutley, E. J. Implementation of social equity metrics in an engineering-based framework for distributing disaster resources. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 64 , 102485 (2021).
Seigerman, C. K. et al. Operationalizing equity for integrated water resources management. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 59 , 281–298 (2023).
Karakoc, D. B., Barker, K., Zobel, C. W. & Almoghathawi, Y. Social vulnerability and equity perspectives on interdependent infrastructure network component importance. Sustain. Cities Soc. 57 , 102072 (2020).
Silva-Lopez, R., Bhattacharjee, G., Poulos, A. & Baker, J. W. Commuter welfare-based probabilistic seismic risk assessment of regional road networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 227 , 108730 (2022).
Dhakal, S. & Zhang, L. A Social welfare-based infrastructure resilience assessment framework: toward equitable resilience for infrastructure development. Nat. Hazards Rev. 24 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000597 (2023).
Sotolongo, M., Kuhl, L. & Baker, S. H. Using environmental justice to inform disaster recovery: vulnerability and electricity restoration in Puerto Rico. Environ. Sci. Policy 122 , 59–71 (2021).
Atallah, D. G. et al. Developing equitable primary health care in conflict-affected settings: expert perspectives from the frontlines. Qual. Health Res. 28 , 98–111 (2018).
Coleman, N. et al. Energy inequality in climate hazards: empirical evidence of social and spatial disparities in managed and hazard-induced power outages. Sustain. Cities Soc. 92 , 104491 (2023).
Balomenos, G. P., Hu, Y. J., Padgett, J. E. & Shelton, K. Impact of coastal hazards on residents’ spatial accessibility to health services. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 25 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000509 (2019).
Wakhungu, M. J., Abdel-Mottaleb, N., Wells, E. C. & Zhang, Q. Geospatial vulnerability framework for identifying water infrastructure inequalities. J. Environ. Eng. 147 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001903 (2021).
Abdel-Mooty, M. N., Yosri, A., El-Dakhakhni, W. & Coulibaly, P. Community flood resilience categorization framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102349 (2021).
Millington, N. Producing water scarcity in São Paulo, Brazil: The 2014-2015 water crisis and the binding politics of infrastructure. Political Geogr. 65 , 26–34 (2018).
Clark, L. P. et al. A data framework for assessing social inequality and equity in multi-sector social, ecological, infrastructural urban systems: focus on fine-spatial scales. J. Ind. Ecol. 26 , 145–163 (2022).
Toland, J. C., Wein, A. M., Wu, A.-M. & Spearing, L. A. A conceptual framework for estimation of initial emergency food and water resource requirements in disasters. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 90 , 103661 (2023).
Zhai, W., Peng, Z. R. & Yuan, F. Examine the effects of neighborhood equity on disaster situational awareness: harness machine learning and geotagged Twitter data. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101611 (2020).
Yuan, F. et al. Smart flood resilience: harnessing community-scale big data for predictive flood risk monitoring, rapid impact assessment, and situational awareness. Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain. 2 , 025006 (2022).
Google Scholar
Logan, T. M. & Guikema, S. D. Reframing resilience: equitable access to essential services. Risk Anal. 40 , 1538–1553 (2020).
Meerow, S. & Newell, J. P. Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geogr. 40 , 309–329 (2019).
Holling, C. S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4 , 1–23 (1973).
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. & Abel, N. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 , 765–781 (2001).
Krishnan, S., Aydin, N. Y. & Comes, T. TIMEWISE: temporal dynamics for urban resilience—theoretical insights and empirical reflections from Amsterdam and Mumbai. npj Urban Sustain. 4 , 4 (2024).
Aldrich, D. P. & Meyer, M. A. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 59 , 254–269 (2014).
Choi, J., Deshmukh, A. & Hastak, M. Seven-layer classification of infrastructure to improve community resilience to disasters. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 25 , 04019012 (2019).
Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M. & Fang, L. Systems methodologies in vitae systems of systems. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 32 , 63–77 (2011).
Okada, N. A scientific challenge for society under sustainability risks by addressing coping capacity, collective knowledge and action to change: a Vitae System perspective. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 32 , 53–62 (2011).
Hay, A. Planning Resilient Infrastructure Systems 75–106 (2021).
Cutter, S. L. Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? Geogr. J. 182 , 110–113 (2016).
Wenar, L. John Rawls, < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/ > (2021).
Van Zandt, S. Engaged Research for Community Resilience to Climate Change (Elsevier, 2020).
Walker, G. Antipode . 4 edn.
Walker, J. “Abundant Access”: a map of a community’s transit choices, and a possible goal of transit , < https://humantransit.org/2013/03/abundant-access-a-map-of-the-key-transit-choices.html > (2013).
Casali, Y., Aydin, N. Y. & Comes, T. A data-driven approach to analyse the co-evolution of urban systems through a resilience lens: a Helsinki case study. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 0 , 1–18 (2024).
Beck, A. L. & Cha, E. Probabilistic disaster social impact assessment of infrastructure system nodes. Struct. Infrastruct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2022.2097268 (2022).
Matin, N., Forrester, J. & Ensor, J. What is equitable resilience? World Dev. 109 , 197–205 (2018).
Clark, S., Seager, T. & Chester, M. A capabilities approach to the prioritization of critical infrastructure. Environ. Syst. Decis. 38 , 339–352 (2018).
Coleman, N., Esmalian, A. & Mostafavi, A. Anatomy of susceptibility for shelter-in-place households facing infrastructure service disruptions caused by natural hazards. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50 , 101875 (2020).
Esmalian, A., Wang, W. & Mostafavi, A. Multi‐agent modeling of hazard–household–infrastructure nexus for equitable resilience assessment. Comput.‐Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 37 , 1491–1520 (2021).
Dhakal, S., Zhang, L. & Lv, X. Understanding infrastructure resilience, social equity, and their interrelationships: exploratory study using social media data in hurricane Michael. Nat. Hazards Rev. 22 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000512 (2021).
Adu-Gyamfi, B., Shaw, R. & Ofosu, B. Identifying exposures of health facilities to potential disasters in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area of Ghana. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 54 , 102028 (2021).
Fan, C., Jiang, X., Lee, R. & Mostafavi, A. Equality of access and resilience in urban population-facility networks. npj Urban Sustain. 2 , 1–12 (2022).
Best, K. et al. Spatial regression identifies socioeconomic inequality in multi-stage power outage recovery after Hurricane Isaac. Nat. Hazards 117 , 1–23 (2023).
Chopra, S. S. & Khanna, V. Interconnectedness and interdependencies of critical infrastructures in the US economy: implications for resilience. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 436 , 865–877 (2015).
Rivera, D. Z. Unincorporated and underserved: critical stormwater infrastructure challenges in South Texas Colonias. Environ. Justice https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2022.0062 (2022).
Rendon, C., Osman, K. K. & Faust, K. M. Path towards community resilience: examining stakeholders’ coordination at the intersection of the built, natural, and social systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 68 , 102774 (2021).
Eghdami, S., Scheld, A. M. & Louis, G. Socioeconomic vulnerability and climate risk in coastal Virginia. Clim. Risk Manag. 39 , 100475 (2023).
Parsons, M. et al. Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: a conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19 , 1–11 (2016).
Champlin, C., Sirenko, M. & Comes, T. Measuring social resilience in cities: an exploratory spatio-temporal analysis of activity routines in urban spaces during Covid-19. Cities 135 , 104220 (2023).
Stock, A. et al. Household impacts of interruption to electric power and water services. Nat. Hazards https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-810057/v1 (2021).
Abbou, A. et al. Household adaptations to infrastructure system service interruptions. J. Infrastruct. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000715 (2022).
Völker, B. Disaster recovery via social capital. Nat. Sustain. 5 , 96–97 (2022).
Covidence. < https://www.covidence.org/ >
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 , 264–269 (2009).
CDRI. Global infrastructure resilience: capturing the resilience dividend—a biennial report from the coalition for disaster resilient infrastructure (2023).
Comes, M. et al. Strategic crisis management in the European Union: Evidence Review Report (2022).
Casali, Y., Yonca, N. A., Comes, T. & Casali, Y. Machine learning for spatial analyses in urban areas: a scoping review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 104050 (2022).
Regulation (Eu) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) Office Journal of the European Union (2021).
Wolford, B. What is GDPR, the EU’s protection law? < https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ >
Roman, M. et al. Satellite-based assessment of electricity restoration efforts in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. PLoS One 14 , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218883 (2019).
Lee, C.-C., Maron, M. & Mostafavi, A. Community-scale big data reveals disparate impacts of the Texas winter storm of 2021 and its managed power outage. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 , 1–12 (2022).
Chen, Y. & Ji, W. Public demand urgency for equitable infrastructure restoration planning. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 64 , 102510 (2021).
Batouli, M. & Joshi, D. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2022: Infrastructure Sustainability and Resilience—Selected Papers from Construction Research Congress (2022).
Ulak, M. B., Kocatepe, A., Sriram, L. M. K., Ozguven, E. & Arghandeh, R. Assessment of the hurricane-induced power outages from a demographic, socioeconomic, and transportation perspective. Nat. Hazards 92 , 1489–1508 (2018).
Dong, S., Esmalian, A., Farahmand, H. & Mostafavi, A. An integrated physical-social analysis of disrupted access to critical facilities and community service-loss tolerance in urban flooding. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 80 , 101443 (2020).
Baeza, A., Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A., Janssen, M. A. & Eakin, H. Operationalizing the feedback between institutional decision-making, socio-political infrastructure, and environmental risk in urban vulnerability analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 241 , 407–417 (2019).
Clark, S. S., Peterson, S. K. E., Shelly, M. A. & Jeffers, R. F. Developing an equity-focused metric for quantifying the social burden of infrastructure disruptions. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 8 , 356–369 (2023).
Kohlitz, J., Chong, J. & Willetts, J. Rural drinking water safety under climate change: the importance of addressing physical, social, and environmental dimensions. Resources 9 https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9060077 (2020).
Islam, M. A., Shetu, M. M. & Hakim, S. S. Possibilities of a gender-responsive infrastructure for livelihood-vulnerable women’s resilience in rural-coastal Bangladesh. Built Environ. Project Asset Manag. 12 , 447–466 (2022).
Masterson, J. et al. Plan integration and plan quality: combining assessment tools to align local infrastructure priorities to reduce hazard vulnerability. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2023.2165779 (2023).
Stough, L. M., Sharp, A. N., Resch, J. A., Decker, C. & Wilker, N. Barriers to the long-term recovery of individuals with disabilities following a disaster. Disasters 40 https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12161 (2016).
Coleman, N., Esmalian, A. & Mostafavi, A. Equitable resilience in infrastructure systems: empirical assessment of disparities in hardship experiences of vulnerable populations during service disruptions. Nat. Hazards Rev. 21 , 04020034 (2020).
Dargin, J. S., Li, Q. C., Jawer, G., Xiao, X. & Mostafavi, A. Compound hazards: an examination of how hurricane protective actions could increase transmission risk of COVID-19. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102560 (2021).
Lee, C.-C., Maron, M. & Mostafavi, A. Community-scale big data reveals disparate impacts of the Texas winter storm of 2021 and its managed power outage. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 , https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01353-8 (2021).
Grineski, S. E., Collins, T. W. & Chakraborty, J. Cascading disasters and mental health inequities: Winter Storm Uri, COVID-19 and post-traumatic stress in Texas. Soc. Sci. Med. 315 , 115523 (2022).
Dominelli, L. Mind the gap: built infrastructures, sustainable caring relations, and resilient communities in extreme weather events. Aust. Social Work 66 https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2012.708764 (2013).
Sam, A. S. et al. Flood vulnerability and food security in eastern India: a threat to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102589 (2021).
Ahmed, B. et al. Indigenous people’s responses to drought in northwest Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. 29 , 55–66 (2019).
Chakalian, P. M., Kurtz, L. C. & Hondula, D. After the lights go out: household resilience to electrical grid failure following hurricane Irma. Nat. Hazards Rev. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000335 (2019).
Lee, J. Y. & Ellingwood, B. R. Ethical discounting for civil infrastructure decisions extending over multiple generations. Struct. Saf. 57 , 43–52 (2015).
Esmalian, A., Coleman, N., Yuan, F., Xiao, X. & Mostafavi, A. Characterizing equitable access to grocery stores during disasters using location-based data. Sci. Rep. 12 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23532-y (2022).
Mitsova, D., Esnard, A. M., Sapat, A. & Lai, B. S. Socioeconomic vulnerability and electric power restoration timelines in Florida: the case of Hurricane Irma. Nat. Hazards 94 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3413-x (2018).
Hamlet, L. C., Kamui, M. M. & Kaminsky, J. Infrastructure for water security: coping with risks in rural Kenya. J. Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. 10 , 481–489 (2020).
Esmalian, A., Dong, S., Coleman, N. & Mostafavi, A. Determinants of risk disparity due to infrastructure service losses in disasters: a household service gap model. Risk Anal. 41 , https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13738 (2021).
Daramola, A. Y., Oni, O. T., Ogundele, O. & Adesanya, A. Adaptive capacity and coping response strategies to natural disasters: a study in Nigeria. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 15 , 132–147 (2016).
Yang, Y., Tatano, H., Huang, Q., Wang, K. & Liu, H. Estimating the societal impact of water infrastructure disruptions: A novel model incorporating individuals’ activity choices. Sustain. Cities Soc. 75 , 103290 (2021).
Zhu, L., Gong, Y., Xu, Y. & Gu, J. Emergency relief routing models for injured victims considering equity and priority. Ann. Oper. Res. 283 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3089-3 (2019).
Blondin, S. Let’s hit the road! Environmental hazards, materialities, and mobility justice: insights from Tajikistan’s Pamirs. J. Ethn Migr. Stud. 48 , 3416–3432 (2022).
Basu, M., Hoshino, S., Hashimoto, S. & DasGupta, R. Determinants of water consumption: a cross-sectional household study in drought-prone rural India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 24 , 373–382 (2017).
Sweya, L. N., Wilkinson, S. & Kassenga, G. A social resilience measurement tool for Tanzania’s water supply systems. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 65 , 102558 (2021).
Hendricks, M. D. et al. The development of a participatory assessment technique for infrastructure: neighborhood-level monitoring towards sustainable infrastructure systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 38 , 265–274 (2018).
Oti, I. C. et al. Validity and reliability of drainage infrastructure monitoring data obtained from citizen scientists. J. Infrastruct. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000495 (2019).
Gharaibeh, N., Oti, I., Meyer, M., Hendricks, M. & Van Zandt, S. Potential of citizen science for enhancing infrastructure monitoring data and decision-support models for local communities. Risk Anal. 41 , 1104–1110 (2021).
Oswald Beiler, M. & Mohammed, M. Exploring transportation equity: development and application of a transportation justice framework. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 47 , 285–298 (2016).
Hsieh, C.-H. & Feng, C.-M. The highway resilience and vulnerability in Taiwan. Transp. Policy 87 , 1–9 (2020).
Wang, C., Sun, J., Russell, R. & Daziano, R. A. Analyzing willingness to improve the resilience of New York City’s transportation system. Transp. Policy 69 , 10–19 (2018).
Islam, M. S. et al. Households’ willingness to pay for disaster resilient safe drinking water sources in southwestern coastal Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00229-x (2019).
Stock, A. et al. Household impacts of interruption to electric power and water services. Nat. Hazards 115 , 1–28 (2022).
Ulak, M. B., Yazici, A. & Ozguven, E. A prescriptive model to assess the socio-demographics impacts of resilience improvements on power networks. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 51 , 101777 (2020).
Sapat, A. Lost in translation? Integrating interdisciplinary disaster research with policy praxis. Risk Anal. 41 , 1232–1239 (2021).
Ross, D., Wilson, T. & Irwin, C. A White House call for real-time, standardized, transparent power outage data , < https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/11/22/a-white-house-call-for-real-time-standardized-and-transparent-power-outage-data/ > (2022).
Invest in Open Infrastructure Steering Committee. IOI’s Strategic Plan for 2021–2024 , < https://investinopen.org/about/strategic-plan-2021-2024/ > (2024).
Nuthi, K. The EU’s Latest Proposal is Another Step Toward More Public Sector Open Data in Europe , < https://datainnovation.org/2022/06/the-eus-latest-proposal-is-another-step-toward-more-public-sector-open-data-in-europe/ > (2022).
Pine, K. & Mazmanian, M. Emerging insights on building infrastructure for data-driven transparency and accountability of organizations. iConference 2015 Proceedings (2015).
Longo, J., Kuras, E., Smith, H., Hondula, D. M. & Johnston, E. Technology use, exposure to natural hazards, and being digitally invisible: Implications for policy analytics. Policy Internet 9 , 76–108 (2017).
Criado-Perez, C. Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. 411 pages (Chatto & Windus, 2019).
Gbedemah, S. F., Eshun, F., Frimpong, L. K. & Okine, P. Domestic water accessibility during COVID-19: challenges and coping strategies in Somanya and its surrounding rural communities of Ghana. Urban Gov. 2 , 305–315 (2022).
Jacobsen, J. K. S., Leiren, M. D. & Saarinen, J. Natural hazard experiences and adaptations: a study of winter climate-induced road closures in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Nor. J. Geogr. 70 , 292–305 (2016).
Comes, T. AI for crisis decisions. Ethics Inf. Technol. 26 , 1–14 (2024).
Yuan, F. et al. Smart flood resilience: harnessing community-scale big data for predictive flood risk monitoring, rapid impact assessment, and situational awareness. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain. 2 , https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac7251 (2021).
Future of Life Institute. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act , < https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ >
Ruijer, E., Porumbescu, G., Porter, R. & Piotrowski, S. Social equity in the data era: a systematic literature review of data‐driven public service research. Public Adm. Rev. 83 , 316–332 (2023).
Sung, W. A Study on the effect of smartphones on the digital divide. In Proc of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 276–282 (2015).
Blake, A., Hazel, A., Jakurama, J., Matundu, J. & Bharti, N. Disparities in mobile phone ownership reflect inequities in access to healthcare. PLOS Digit. Health 2 , e0000270 (2023).
Ortiz, J. et al. Giving voice to the voiceless: The use of digital technologies by marginalized groups. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (2019).
Soden, R. et al. The importance of accounting for equity in disaster risk models. Commun. Earth Environ. 4 , 386 (2023).
Esmalian, A., Dong, S. & Mostafavi, A. Susceptibility curves for humans: empirical survival models for determining household-level disturbances from hazards-induced infrastructure service disruptions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 66 , 102694 (2021).
Holguin-Veras, J., Perez, N., Jaller, M., Van Wassenhove, L. N. & Aros-Vera, F. On the appropriate objective function for post-disaster humanitarian logistics models. J. Oper. Manag. 31 , 262–280 (2013).
Khan, M. T. I., Anwar, S., Sarkodie, S. A., Yaseen, M. R. & Nadeem, A. M. Do natural disasters affect economic growth? The role of human capital, foreign direct investment, and infrastructure dynamics. Heliyon 9 , e12911 (2023).
Wise, R. M., Capon, T., Lin, B. B. & Stafford-Smith, M. Pragmatic cost–benefit analysis for infrastructure resilience. Nat. Clim. Change 12 , 881–883 (2022).
de Bruijn, K. M. et al. Flood risk management through a resilience lens. Commun. Earth Environ. 3 , 285 (2022).
Teodoro, J. D., Doorn, N., Kwakkel, J. & Comes, T. Flexibility for intergenerational justice in climate resilience decision-making: an application on sea-level rise in the Netherlands. Sustain. Sci. 18 , 1355–1365 (2023).
Clements, R., Alizadeh, T., Kamruzzaman, L., Searle, G. & Legacy, C. A systematic literature review of infrastructure governance: cross-sectoral lessons for transformative governance approaches. J. Plan. Lit. 38 , 70–87 (2022).
Seyedrezaei, M., Becerik-Gerber, B., Awada, M., Contreras, S. & Boeing, G. Equity in the built environment: a systematic review. Build. Environ. 245 , 110827 (2023).
Oelz, M., Dhir, R. K. & Harsdorff, M. Indigenous peoples and climate change: from victims to change agents through decent work. International Labour Office, Gender, Equality and Diversity Branch , 1–56 (2017).
Berrang-Ford, L. et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 989–1000 (2021).
Masterson, J. & Cooper, J. Engaged Research for Community Resilience to Climate Change (Elsevier, 2020).
Arnstein, S. R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35 , 216–224 (1969).
Download references
This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant CMMI-1846069 (CAREER) and the support of the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. We would like to thank the contributions of our undergraduate students: Nhat Bui, Shweta Kumaran, Colton Singh, and Samuel Baez.
Authors and affiliations.
Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Urban Resilience.AI Lab, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Natalie Coleman, Xiangpeng Li & Ali Mostafavi
TPM Resilience Lab, TU Delft, Delft, South Holland, the Netherlands
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
All authors critically revised the manuscript, gave final approval for publication, and agree to be held accountable for the work performed therein. N.C. was the lead Ph.D. student researcher and first author, who was responsible for guiding data collection, performing the main part of the analysis, interpreting the significant results, and writing most of the manuscript. X.L. was responsible for guiding data collection, figure creations, and assisting in the manuscript. T.C. and A.M. were the faculty advisors for the project and provided critical feedback on the literature review development, analysis and manuscript.
Correspondence to Natalie Coleman .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information, rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Coleman, N., Li, X., Comes, T. et al. Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal review and future directions. npj Nat. Hazards 1 , 25 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00022-x
Download citation
Received : 10 November 2023
Accepted : 29 May 2024
Published : 02 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00022-x
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Recent advances in characterization and valorization of lignin and its value-added products: challenges and future perspectives.
Feature | Kraft Lignin | Lignosulfonates | Organosolv Lignin |
---|---|---|---|
Production Process | Kraft pulping (NaOH & Na S) | Sulfite pulping (SO & salts) | Organosolv pulping (Organic solvents) |
Sulfur Content | High | High | Low/Sulfur-free |
Molecular Weight | High | Low | Low/Medium |
Solubility | Low (water) | High (water) | Variable (solvent dependent) |
Applications | Adhesives, dispersants, chemicals/materials precursor | Concrete additives, animal feed binders, dispersants | High-purity lignin derivatives, specialty chemicals, carbon fibers, resins, composites |
Advantages | Most widely produced | Water-soluble, versatile | Relatively pure, sulfur-free |
Disadvantages | High sulfur content, complex processing | High sulfur content, environmental challenges | Variable solubility |
References | [ , ] | [ , ] | [ , ] |
2. methodology, 2.1. understanding lignin: characterization as the foundation for sustainable valorization, 2.2. chemical analysis (compositional methods), 2.3. spectroscopic techniques for characterization of lignin, 2.4. microscopic techniques for characterization of lignin, 3. pretreatment: loosening bonds with other biomass components, 3.1. thermal depolymerization of lignin, 3.2. catalytic depolymerization, 3.3. ionic liquid pretreatment for lignin depolymerization, 3.4. biological depolymerization of lignin, 3.5. emerging techniques for valorization of lignin, 4. challenges and readiness of lignin depolymerization, 5. advancements in the valorization of lignin, 5.1. lignin as a source of biofuels, 5.2. lignin-derived chemicals and materials, 5.3. lignin in polymer blends and composites, 5.4. lignin as a uv protector and antioxidant, 5.5. functionalization and modification of lignin, 5.6. economic and environmental benefits of lignin valorization, 6. exploring the expanding applications of upgraded lignin, 6.1. lignin as precursors for biofuels and bio-based chemicals, 6.2. role of lignin as a functional additive in biocomposites, 6.3. source of aromatic building blocks for novel biomaterials, 6.4. reduced reliance on fossil resources, 6.5. efficient use of natural resources, 6.6. lignin valorization for polyurethane, 6.7. lignin for bioplastics, 7. conclusions, future prospects and recommendations, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Technique | Uses/Key Features | References |
---|---|---|
Functional group characterization | ||
31P NMR | Quantitative determination of different types of hydroxyl groups present in lignin, including aliphatic (α-OH, β-OH), phenolic (OH ph), and carboxylic acid groups | [ , , ] |
FTIR | ), carbonyls (C=O stretch around 1700 cm ), alkenes (C=C stretch around 1650 cm ), etc. ) of an FTIR spectrum contains a unique pattern of absorption bands that can be used to identify structural features and distinguish between isomers. (S ring breathing) and 1270 cm (G ring breathing) can be used to estimate the S/G ratio. | [ , , ] |
Morphological analysis | ||
SEM | Visualization of lignin morphology on cell wall surfaces, interaction with other components, surface topography, and modifications after pretreatment | [ , ] |
Determination of lignin distribution across cell wall layers, interaction with cellulose microfibrils. | [ ] | |
AFM | Nanoscopic mapping of lignin location and distribution on cellulose nanofibers: | [ ] |
Structural elements characterization | ||
Py-GC-MS | Identification of Monomers: Identification of Inter-unit Linkages: Py-GC-MS is a powerful technique for identifying monomers and linkages in polymers. | [ , ] |
NMR (1H, 13C, 2D) | Elucidation of structural elements and inter-unit linkages. | [ ] |
Molar mass distribution analysis | ||
SEC | Determination of weight-average (Mw), number-average (Mn), and peak molar mass (Mp) | [ ] |
Other Techniques | ||
XRD | Evaluation of crystallinity and amorphous regions | [ ] |
Thermal Analysis (TGA, DSC) | Thermal stability and phase transitions | [ ] |
Elemental Analysis | Determination of elemental composition (C, H, O, S, etc.) | [ ] |
LC-MS | Analysis of lignin degradation products, identification of monomers, dimers, and oligomers, structural elucidation | [ , , ] |
GC-MS | Analysis of volatile lignin degradation products, identification of monomers and dimers | [ , ] |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Ali, S.; Rani, A.; Dar, M.A.; Qaisrani, M.M.; Noman, M.; Yoganathan, K.; Asad, M.; Berhanu, A.; Barwant, M.; Zhu, D. Recent Advances in Characterization and Valorization of Lignin and Its Value-Added Products: Challenges and Future Perspectives. Biomass 2024 , 4 , 947-977. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass4030053
Ali S, Rani A, Dar MA, Qaisrani MM, Noman M, Yoganathan K, Asad M, Berhanu A, Barwant M, Zhu D. Recent Advances in Characterization and Valorization of Lignin and Its Value-Added Products: Challenges and Future Perspectives. Biomass . 2024; 4(3):947-977. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass4030053
Ali, Shehbaz, Abida Rani, Mudasir A. Dar, Muther Mansoor Qaisrani, Muhammad Noman, Kamaraj Yoganathan, Muhammad Asad, Ashenafi Berhanu, Mukul Barwant, and Daochen Zhu. 2024. "Recent Advances in Characterization and Valorization of Lignin and Its Value-Added Products: Challenges and Future Perspectives" Biomass 4, no. 3: 947-977. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass4030053
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The results show that it is possible to undertake quantitative research in the arts faculty without extreme calculations, and that both qualitative and quantitative research types could be ...
In total we have analyzed 8,798 painting artworks. As shown in Fig. S1, over 94% of images are larger than 700 × 700 pixels and the largest one is 1350 × 1533. Therefore, the quality of the ...
Abstract. This research extends a method previously applied to music and philosophy (Vilson Vieira et al., 2012), representing the evolution of art as a time-series where relations like dialectics are measured quantitatively. For that, a corpus of paintings of 12 well-known artists from baroque and modern art is analyzed.
Abstract and Figures. Classifying artists and their work as distinct art styles has been an important task of scholars in the field of art history. Due to its subjectivity, scholars often ...
Large-Scale Quantitative Analysis of Painting Arts Daniel Kim1, Seung-Woo Son2 & Hawoong Jeong3,4 1Department of Physics, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon 305-701, Korea ...
Greenwood (Citation 2012) identified two uses of ABR in the research project. On the one hand, arts can be considered as tools to study, collect data, analyse and represent findings; on the other hand, the research process is an investigation of art works in order to deeply understand and describe them. This article will focus on the first ...
Arts-based research can be considered as a distinct methodology, or one that is inextricably linked to the paradigm of qualitative research. Yet, for those considering undertaking an arts-based form of inquiry—including arts-based approaches to dissemination—in tandem with qualitative and quantitative research, what is the nature of this relationship?
This study is believed to provide a new perspective on uncovering previously unknown mentor of Vermeer, and the research methods adopted here can be applied to other related research issues in art history, such as authenticity debates on masterpieces, by quantitatively archiving artists' characteristic styles.
Empirical Studies of the Arts (ART) aims to be an interdisciplinary forum for theoretical and empirical studies of aesthetics, creativity, and all of the arts. It spans anthropological, psychological, neuroscientific, semiotic, and sociological studies of the … | View full journal description. This journal is a member of the Committee on ...
In an arts-based research paradigm, just as a system for interpretation may constitute a work of art, it likewise constitutes a strategy for mediating an initial understanding of an encounter or experience with a natural material, human subject, event, or phenomenon. In this May 2016 issue of Art Education, three of our assembled authors ...
Research in art and design involves the knowledge and understanding associated with creative works. ... quantitative processes. Research in art and ... Purpose The purpose of this paper is to ...
First and foremost, arts-based research is not just one thing. By its very nature, it is interdisciplinary. Secondly, it is a relative latecomer to the realm of qualitative methodology. Additionally, there are several terms, or labels, that are commonly used in association with or in place of arts-based research.
Introduction. The term arts-based research is an umbrella term that covers an eclectic array of methodological and epistemological approaches. The key elements that unify this diverse body of work are: it is research; and one or more art forms or processes are involved in the doing of the research.How art is involved varies enormously. It has been used as one of several tools to elicit ...
In this paradigm shift it may be more useful and relevant to select arts-based or qualitative research evaluative criteria that are more aligned with the aesthetic intersubjective mental model (Greene, 2007) or worldview of the creative arts therapies in contrast to a quantitative research reductive mindset more aligned with physical sciences ...
3.Identify central terms and definitions relevant to research. 4.Describe the history of art therapy research. 5.Identify the differences among research paradigms in social sciences that are relevant to art therapy. 6.Compare and contrast the types of research methods used in art therapy, including quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods ...
This paper presents Prosopography as a very valuable technique for art history, and among others, for studying modern art. It insists on the relevance of biographical data contained in Exhibition catalogues, a source too little explored by art historians in a quantitative and statistical way.
Key words: Research in art and design, research through creative practice, methodology, colour and architectural space design. 1. Introduction. Investigation in art and design is nowadays brought ...
3.2.1 Definition of the aims for the quantitative research As we have already mentioned at the beginning of this thesis, the objective of the research is to get to an approximation of what people understand by art, what arts they value more or better, and what works or artists are considered more artistic.
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 6 No. 7 July 2018 121 The Impact of Visual Arts in Students' Academic Performance Jovita F. Punzalan Malolos City, Bulacan, Philippines, 3000 [email protected] 0917 276 10 86 Abstract Arts have long been considered part of the human affective experience and needed by our young ...
Research through art and design is according to Newbury (1996: 216), research fiwhere art and design is the vehicle of the research and a means of communicating the resultsfl. In this kind of research the artwork is emphasized. It is considered by many the best method to manage research through creative practice, since the researcher
Both the AAMC and NASEM advocated for novel pedagogical approaches, enhanced research, and a need to measure 'learner outcomes beyond satisfaction with the course or program.' Some medical humanities educators argue that quantitative measurement of the effects of visual arts-based programming is unnecessary [16,22,23]. But curricular ...
31 Architecture Research Paper Topics. 32 Theater Research Paper Ideas. 33 The Study of Photography as Research about Art. 34 Artist Biography Ideas. 34.1 Art Topics Ideas Base on the Artists of the 18th Century. 34.2 Artists of the 19th Century. Art has been a significant aspect of human civilization for centuries.
arts, performing arts, literature, and multimedia, creative research frequently entails investigating novel concepts, methods, or viewpoints. This is a comprehensive guide for
In analyzing quantitative data, most research has focused on using descriptive statistics, linear models, and Moran's I statistic which have been effective in pinpointing areas with heightened ...
Lignin, the earth's second-most abundant biopolymer after cellulose, has long been relegated to low-value byproducts in the pulp and paper industry. However, recent advancements in valorization are transforming lignin into a sustainable and versatile feedstock for producing high-value biofuels, bioplastics, and specialty chemicals. This review explores the conversion of lignin's complex ...
Quantitative research explains phenomena by collecting numerical unchanging d etailed data t hat. are analyzed using mathematically based methods, in particular statistics that pose questions of ...