Global threats such as climate change, population growth, and rapid urbanization pose a huge future challenge to water management, and, to ensure the ongoing reliability, resilience and sustainability of service provision, a paradigm shift is required. This paper presents an overarching framework that supports the development of strategies for reliable provision of services while explicitly addressing the need for greater resilience to emerging threats, leading to more sustainable solutions. The framework logically relates global threats, the water system (in its broadest sense), impacts on system performance, and social, economic, and environmental consequences. It identifies multiple opportunities for intervention, illustrating how mitigation, adaptation, coping, and learning each address different elements of the framework. This provides greater clarity to decision makers and will enable better informed choices to be made. The framework facilitates four types of analysis and evaluation to support the development of reliable, resilient, and sustainable solutions: “top‐down,” “bottom‐up,” “middle based,” and “circular” and provides a clear, visual representation of how/when each may be used. In particular, the potential benefits of a middle‐based analysis, which focuses on system failure modes and their impacts and enables the effects of unknown threats to be accounted for, are highlighted. The disparate themes of reliability, resilience and sustainability are also logically integrated and their relationships explored in terms of properties and performance. Although these latter two terms are often conflated in resilience and sustainability metrics, the argument is made in this work that the performance of a reliable, resilient, or sustainable system must be distinguished from the properties that enable this performance to be achieved.

Evaluating and enhancing resilience in water infrastructure is a crucial step towards more sustainable urban water management. As a prerequisite to enhancing resilience, a detailed understanding is required of the inherent resilience of the underlying system. Differing from traditional risk analysis, here we propose a global resilience analysis (GRA) approach that shifts the objective from analysing multiple and unknown threats to analysing the more identifiable and measurable system responses to extreme conditions, i.e. potential failure modes. GRA aims to evaluate a system's resilience to a possible failure mode regardless of the causal threat(s) (known or unknown, external or internal). The method is applied to test the resilience of four water distribution systems (WDSs) with various features to three typical failure modes (pipe failure, excess demand, and substance intrusion). The study reveals GRA provides an overview of a water system's resilience to various failure modes. For each failure mode, it identifies the range of corresponding failure impacts and reveals extreme scenarios (e.g. the complete loss of water supply with only 5% pipe failure, or still meeting 80% of demand despite over 70% of pipes failing). GRA also reveals that increased resilience to one failure mode may decrease resilience to another and increasing system capacity may delay the system's recovery in some situations. It is also shown that selecting an appropriate level of detail for hydraulic models is of great importance in resilience analysis. The method can be used as a comprehensive diagnostic framework to evaluate a range of interventions for improving system resilience in future studies.

Resilience has been increasingly pursued in the management of water distribution systems (WDSs) such that a system can adapt to and rapidly recover from potential failures in face of a deep uncertain and unpredictable future. Topology has been assumed to have a great impact on resilience of WDSs, and is the basis of many studies on assessing and building resilience. However, this fundamental assumption has not been justified and requires investigation. To address this, a novel framework for mapping between resilience performance and network topological attributes is proposed. It is applied to WDSs here but can be adaptable to other network systems. In the framework, resilience is comprehensively assessed using stress-strain tests which measure system performance on six metrics corresponding to system resistance, absorption and restoration capacities. Six key topological attributes of WDSs (connectivity, efficiency, centrality, diversity, robustness and modularity) are studied by mathematical abstraction of WDSs as graphs and measured by eight statistical metrics in graph theory. The interplay between resilience and topological attributes is revealed by the correlations between their corresponding metrics, based on 85 WDSs with different sizes and topological features. Further, network variants from a single WDS are generated to uncover the value of topological attribute metrics in guiding the extension/rehabilitation design of WDSs towards resilience. Results show that only certain aspects of resilience performance, i.e. spatial and temporal scales of failure impacts, are strongly influenced by some (not all) topological attributes, i.e. network connectivity, efficiency, modularity and centrality. Metrics for describing the topological attributes of WDSs need to be carefully selected; for example, clustering coefficient is found to be weakly correlated with resilience performance compared to other metrics of network connectivity (due to the grid-like structures of WDSs). Topological attribute metrics alone are not sufficient to guide the design of resilient WDSs and key details such as the location of water sources also need to be considered.

No abstract

Government bodies, utilities, practitioners, and researchers have growing interest in the incorporation of resilience into wastewater management. Since resilience is a multidisciplinary term, it is important to review what has been achieved in the wastewater sector, and describe the future research directions for the forthcoming years. This work presents a critical review of studies that deal with resilience in the wastewater treatment sector, with a special focus on understanding how they addressed the key elements for assessing resilience, such as stressors, system properties, metrics and interventions to increase resilience. The results showed that only 17 peer-reviewed papers and 6 relevant reports, a small subset of the work in wastewater research, directly addressed resilience. The lack of consensus in the definition of resilience, and the elements of a resilience assessment, is hindering the implementation of resilience in wastewater management. To date, no framework for resilience assessment is complete, comprehensive or directly applicable to practitioners; current examples are lacking key elements (e.g. a comprehensive study of stressors, properties and metrics, examples of cases study, ability to benchmark interventions or connectivity with broader frameworks). Furthermore, resilience is seen as an additional cost or extra effort, instead of a means to overcome project uncertainty that could unlock new opportunities for investment.