APPENDIX A

Literature Review

Contents

A.1 Introduction

A.2 Methodology

A.3 Supply-Chain and Predictive Modeling Literature

A.4 Economic Development and Planning Literature

A.5 Policy Documentation, Military, and Other Relevant Practices

A.6 Conclusions

A.7 Bibliography

A.1 Introduction

The team reviewed and analyzed more than 200 documents to identify findings and key insights regarding the emphasis (or lack) of literature in specific areas; the need to consider aspects such as political influence on a state DOT’s adoption of resilience practices; and the potential need to incorporate new concepts like cascading recoveries. After a more in-depth review of key literature, the team concluded that there is a need for further research into what constitutes resilient transportation networks. The remaining sections of this introduction discuss salient topics that the research team considers worth highlighting. Section A.2 discusses the methodology used to search, identify, revise, and synthesize the most relevant literature. Sections A.3, A.4, and A.5 address in-depth pertinent topics of supply-chain management; economic development and planning; and policy documentation, military logistics, ports, and cybersecurity. Section A.6 provides concluding remarks. While the text only cites the most relevant sources, the bibliography of this report accounts for all papers consulted in this literature review.

A.1.1 Politics and Resilience

While the team did not identify any specific documents that discussed the relationship between politics and the implementation of resilience practices, the team determined it would be productive to examine this issue. This determination is not to advocate for an overt discussion of the subject in this research effort but to consider the contexts in which resilience is framed and communicated as it can inform perspective in subsequent tasks. Potential questions to consider are as follows:

• Are resilience and climate change addressed differently in blue and red states, and if so, how?
• What practices have not worked in what places and why?

While this topic can be divisive, the team believes it is a significant factor to include and can be done in an evidence-based and constructive manner.

A.1.2 Pandemics

Available relevant sources for the literature review include a handful of documents related to pandemics, with nine documents specifically related to the recent COVID-19 health emergency. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, it is reasonable to expect that the body of literature addressing pandemics and resilience will increase.

A.1.3 Geography, Climate, and Resilience

There are some obvious reasons that geography and climate change can play a role in a DOT’s general perception and adoption of resilience practices. The literature review reveals that most published DOT frameworks and practices have focused on coastal states or other areas that experience frequent flooding and extreme weather events. For example, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), a coastal state prone to hurricanes and flooding, has published a Resilience Quick Guide: Incorporating Resilience in the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. As another example, Vermont developed a resilience-planning tool and guidance to help plan for and mitigate flooding impacts on critical transportation facilities, most notably bridges.

However, it is essential to convey that not only state DOTs located along coastlines or subject to recurrent flooding and other extreme weather events are the ones implementing resilience practices and guidance.

The team recognizes that elements of DOT resilience strategies will be contingent on geography and climate. FDOT’s Quick Guide for MPOs acknowledges that even within the state of Florida,

context varies. Hence, how an MPO incorporates resilience into their long-range planning process will also differ. However, it is also true that frameworks, or aspects of frameworks, can potentially apply to numerous DOTs, and the toolkit and guidance should reflect that potentiality.

A.1.4 Range of Resilience Topics

The available literature presents a wide range of resilience topics, and much of the research tended toward a relatively narrow focus. The most significant contemporary synthesis report on resilience issues and practices is the NCHRP Syntheses 527: Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration (Flannery et al. 2018). The broad range of resilience-related topics lies at the center of developing and effectively implementing a resilience toolkit and guidance. Given the breadth of issues and the limited number of attempts yet made to synthesize these issues and existing practices, one challenge that can be anticipated is the difficulty for busy agency officials and staff to absorb this extensive body of knowledge in a meaningful way. The fact that most published research thus far has chosen to focus only on specific elements of resilience tends to support this assertion.

The project team considered how best to incorporate the wide range of resilience topics into a practical and user-friendly product that agency practitioners will use. Key topics included the following:

• Which elements of resilience should be considered in which aspects of DOT workflows?
• How are elements of resilience siloed in organizational structures, or are there examples where they are not?
• Does DOT staff need to comprehensively understand resilience issues, and if so, at what level?
• Is there a best way(s) to begin “eating the resilience elephant”?

PlanWorks is a tool supported by FHWA based on research from the SHRP2 initiative. PlanWorks is a decision guide comprising four modules: long-range planning, corridor planning, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and programming. The guide modules are designed around critical decisions and decision points of the respective processes and show how decisions and decision points in each process are related to the others. Furthermore, PlanWorks can be used as a foundation to build agency-specific frameworks. While PlanWorks is not focused on resilience and was expensive and time-consuming to develop because it is a web-based tool, significant aspects of the guide help show the interrelationships of resilience topics. Understanding these interrelationships will likely prove useful given the range of geographical and climate conditions across the United States and how those conditions relate to the resilience issues an agency may face.

A.1.5 Complexity of Resilience Models and Implications for DOT Adoption

The literature on resilience includes numerous articles related to resilience modeling and risk assessment. Most sources focus on preparedness, but a few discuss response, recovery, and mitigation. These resources generally address only highway and bridge facilities but include a range of models, such as probability, data-driven, optimization, and simulation models. Several relevant questions need to be asked about the applicability and use of such models in DOTs. While DOTs currently employ several complex asset management, travel demand, and simulation models, their use requires specialized staff and resources. Do DOTs have the bandwidth to increase staff and capability? For example, using resilience-centric benefit-cost analyses, it is relatively easy to calculate a benefit/cost ratio for the potential future failure of one specific structure, like a culvert. However, carrying that calculation forward to include potential cascading impacts of the culvert failure becomes significantly more complex and potentially unwieldy regarding available time and resources. It is essential to carefully consider whether such models can be practically and effectively used and to what extent.

A.1.6 Interdependencies and Cascading Effects

Important insights identified in the literature review include the significance of dependencies and interdependencies and the potential for cascading effects that can affect transportation network resilience. A dependency in this context refers to a relationship in which a network or system relies on an external service or product for its operation. Examples include hospitals that depend on electricity, communications systems that rely on cell phone towers and the transportation network that relies on many infrastructure structures and services such as ports, bridges, and the power distribution network. An interdependency expands the concept of dependency to include cases in which the dependent network provides critical services or operations to the supporting network. Therefore, cascading effects refer to disruptions that affect networks, systems, and processes beyond the initial impact due to dependencies and interdependencies.

An illustration of these concepts is the 2003 blackout in Italy that left the entire country without electricity. In this event, the original disruption affected one of the power substations. This initially small power outage affected one of the servers controlling a different substation which was also supporting another substation. The result of these interdependencies was a complete blackout of the peninsula. Transportation networks rely on and support other networks and systems. Identifying, mapping, and quantifying such interdependencies could significantly enhance resilience tools and guidance.

A.1.7 Cascading Recoveries—a New Perspective on Interdependencies

Interdependencies can create vulnerabilities and increase risk as they become the points where disruptions can affect multiple networks. However, identifying such interdependencies can lead to a better understanding of the key nodes that need to be restored to expedite the recovery process. In other words, strategically incorporating these interdependencies in the recovery of transportation and other interdependent networks can, in effect, reverse the flow of cascading negative impacts to create more efficient recovery impacts. The team has termed these interactions in the response stage “cascading recoveries.”

A.1.8 Evolution of Transportation Networks Resilience Research

The topic of transportation network resilience has been on the minds of researchers for decades, going back to Carey and Hendrickson (1984). The sheer number of sources included in the bibliography for this review reflects the growing salience of the topic. A Google search of the phrase “Transportation Network Resilience” returned over 38,000 links, illustrating the extent to which resilience issues are now being discussed in the public forum of the internet and internet-accessible publications. These search results suggest a coalescence of thought emerging. Flannery et al. (2018) synthesize resilience efforts related to planning, engineering, management, policy, and administration. This synthesis summarizes the body of the transportation network risk and resilience efforts to date.

Resilience research has evolved considerably in the last decade. With the effects of climate change manifesting themselves in more extreme weather events and sea level rise, efforts related to community and transportation network resilience have accelerated. Additionally, new areas of resilience analysis have emerged to reflect terrorism threats to hard assets and cyber networks. With the growing reliance on data and technologies to manage transportation networks and the growing adoption of connected vehicle/autonomous vehicle (CV/AV) technologies, this area of research will become increasingly important in understanding and enhancing transportation network resilience.

Much of the existing body of research tends to focus on specific areas of risk or resilience. However, there is growing recognition from academia and the public and private sectors that both risk and resilience should be considered at a systemic level. NCHRP Report 732 provides a case in point. The report’s project team developed a five-step model that evaluates the economic impacts of a disruption in a broad spatial and temporal context. The model considers downstream supply-chain effects on the larger economy and whether cargo can be shifted to another mode. The concept of multimodal transportation networks and supply chains is becoming increasingly important, as evidenced by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. The model considers social and public sector and direct supply-chain costs. While the report does not consider the whole range of resilience topics, it does demonstrate the need to think systemically about transportation network disruptions. Related to this concept is how definitions of resilience have evolved. Not surprisingly, most research reports and frameworks take care to define resilience at the outset. This practice presents an informative retrospective on the evolution of resilience definitions. The definitions tend to reflect the focus area of a report.

As the level of sophistication grows within state DOTs and their agency partners, a natural extension of the practice is assessing the risk and magnitude of potential future disruptions. Assessing risk and developing expected potential costs for future disruptions are necessary to develop comprehensive estimates of transportation system needs and include them in long-range transportation plans. Most state DOTs use some level of project-based risk analyses. While these assessments are typically qualitative, many attempt to approximate potential costs associated with different levels of risk. With the growing recognition of the importance of merging the practices of resilience and risk analyses, an increasing body of research on various means and methods of integrating the two disciplines is emerging. Such practices range from tapping the institutional knowledge of DOT staff to running complex, multivariate Monte Carlo analyses.

Last, a growing body of research exists around developing structural frameworks that can help agencies and their private sector partners perform risk and resilience self-assessments and incorporate risk and resilience workflows within their organizations. However, until most DOTs begin to incorporate concepts of risk and resilience, it will be challenging to improve the overall resilience of the nation’s transportation networks. As mentioned in the introduction, FDOT’s Quick Guide and Vermont’s Planning Guide are two such frameworks for helping transportation agencies implement resilience efforts. In this light, one of the conclusions of Flannery et al. (2018) was the need to develop guidance and toolkits to assist state DOTs and their MPO partners with the heady task of making transportation networks more resilient; hence, the reason for this project.

A.2 Methodology

The number of documents corresponding to the proposed sections of the playbook is shown in Table A.1. The team collected more than 200 documents, including journal articles, reports, policy documentation, case studies, and planning documents. The team narrowed the list to around 90 papers explicitly focused on transportation network resilience.

In addition to searching and collecting documents by topic, all documents have been classified using a tag system. These tags identify relevant information, topics, fields, methodology, or phases of the emergency management cycle. These tags will help the team identify documents that contribute to more than one category and will also be used in a reference database for easy access to the documents. Table A.2 shows all the tags the team used.

Figure A.1 shows the number of documents associated with each tag. This figure allowed the team to identify specific topics and fields that have attracted the attention of academia, practitioners, and public sector agencies. Additionally, this type of analysis reveals issues that have not yet attracted the attention of these communities. A timely example is the issue of pandemics

Table A.1. Overview of literature reviewed.

Table A.2. Tags used to classify documents.

in the context of transportation network resilience. This topic remains largely unexplored, and at the time of this study, just a handful of documents analyze pandemics and their potential impacts on transportation network resilience. However, it is expected this will change due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

A.3 Supply-Chain and Predictive Modeling Literature

A.3.1 Supply-Chain Management (SCM)

The concept of resilience in supply-chain management has generated an increasing number of publications in the last 20 years. In 2018, more than 100 articles were published on the subject, reflecting steady growth from 2004, when the first paper on the topic was published. The main reason for the increase in interest in the field is the number of disruptive events, both natural and human-made, that have caused substantial damage and economic losses, directly affecting supply chains’ performance locally and globally. Pettit et al. (2013) provide an overview of the current state of the art in supply-chain management and further research directions.

In the context of SCM, there seems to be a consensus related to the importance of agility and robustness (Wieland and Wallenburg 2013), connectivity and visibility (Brandon-Jones et al. 2014), flexibility and adaptability (Ivanov et al. 2014), and supply-chain relationships and collaboration (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). Overall, these concepts correspond to the capabilities of the supply chain to prepare, respond, and recover from disruptions. In addition, mapping the potential vulnerabilities is also relevant when addressing the problem of increasing resilience in SCM.

The private sector takes a unique approach to the problem of resilience by considering vulnerabilities and capabilities as a portfolio. This approach highlights these issues’ importance and prioritizes increasing capabilities and reducing vulnerabilities. Second, it forces companies to constantly revise, map, and communicate resilience strategies in the company’s context, industry, and geographic location. This is particularly important given the constant evolution of challenges, opportunities, new technologies, and potential threats. The novel COVID-19 pandemic has been a painful reminder of the importance of considering even low-probability events.

Finally, numerous modeling approaches have been used to incorporate the stochastic nature of SCM: weighted goal programming (Mari et al. 2014), discrete event simulation (Carvalho et al. 2012, MacDonald et al. 2018), agent-based simulations (Wu et al. 2013), and system dynamics (Spiegler et al. 2012).

Key Insights and Findings

• A key concept in SCM is the life cycle of resilience. Similar to the product life cycle, the life cycle of resilience refers to the need for constant evaluation of resilience measures and potential vulnerabilities.
• In the private sector, capabilities and vulnerabilities represent a portfolio that has a direct influence on the performance of the supply chain. This allows companies to constantly evaluate, manage, and modify them to reach a balanced resilience.
• The need for monitoring and managing events is more important than ever. SCM in the private sector entails constant monitoring of capabilities and vulnerabilities, and these capabilities and vulnerabilities are highly dependent on industry, company, geographic, and cultural characteristics.
• Estimating the impacts of resilience investments on the performance of supply chains is particularly difficult for private firms. This is because the difference between the costs of a disruption and the costs of investments in resilience often are not measurable unless another, similar actor in the industry suffers the consequences from a lack of resilience planning. Therefore, quantifying the positive impact of resilience planning on performance is the number one barrier to justifying investments in resilience.

A.3.2 Private Sector Resilience Reports and Toolkits

The private sector uses numerous toolkits. The focus is primarily on increasing resilience in supply chains. What seems to be the most widely used toolkit/framework is SCRAM: Supply Chain Resilience Assessment Management (Pettit et al. 2013). SCRAM uses empirical data and theoretical foundations to link vulnerabilities and capabilities. The fundamental tenant is identifying what Pettit et al. (2013) define as Resilience Gaps, leading to the selection of improvement strategies. The toolkit is tested using several disruptive scenarios to measure the system dynamics and conclude with the elicitation of resilient improvement opportunities. The framework is applied throughout the supply chain, from suppliers to customers.

Key Insights and Findings

• Toolkits have evolved from the early 2000s to incorporate disruptive scenarios and system dynamics. This evolution has responded to the increase in disruptive events around the world. These disruptive events, coupled with the globalization of supply chains, have resulted in high financial and operational costs.
• There is an increasing emphasis on identifying dependencies and interdependencies in the supply chain. The SCRAM tool addresses this issue by mapping the supply chain and identifying resilience gaps.

A.3.3 Risk Management and Modeling

Using quantitative methods and defensible data is becoming increasingly essential to forecast transportation facilities’ resilience and support investment decisions. The vulnerability of road infrastructure and its adaptation must be assessed quantitatively to develop a robust and resilient transportation network. Most research has been carried out on qualitative aspects focused on theoretical models associating risk and resilience or location-specific case studies. More research is required on quantitative, engineering-based analysis to assess the impacts of hazardous events on the road network.

There is significant literature on operational resilience and adaptation planning during the emergency phase using travel demand models, but only limited research on their application in the recovery phase and incorporating risk and resilience in the long-range planning phase. A significant focus has been on adjusting travel behavior during disasters, including evacuation and short-term displacement, using travel demand models’ demographics and zonal characteristics.

Key Insights and Findings

• There are good resources available on stochastic modeling to determine the failure probability of roads under extreme events.
• There is literature that discusses the integration of hazard data and risk models with travel demand models for adaptation and evacuation planning and hazard mitigation during various events like floods, fire, and climate change.
• Even though some references are available on adaptation planning during climate change, there are not many quantitative approaches discussed in real-size case studies.
• Highway bridges are considered one of the most vulnerable elements of transportation infrastructures; therefore, more literature on risk analysis for bridges is available.
• There are few restoration models, and more research is needed on their development to include them in the risk and resilience assessment of transportation infrastructures.
• More simplified models are required to assess the impact of tsunami loadings on bridges, as the existing models are complex and time-consuming.
• Past research has been focused on risk assessment and management for specific infrastructures. However, most of the time, the infrastructure sites are not isolated, and damage in one may have

• a cascading effect, causing damage to other infrastructures. Therefore, more research is needed to understand the dependent and interdependent structures for better preparedness from a regional planning perspective. Research in this direction includes case studies with hot-spot analysis based on infrastructure proximity and papers suggesting modeling needs to identify cascading effects and mitigation needs.

Very few models exist for uncertainty analysis in this realm. In estimating reliability, it has been observed that a model that accounts for uncertainty yields better results than a deterministic (no uncertainty) model.

A.4 Economic Development and Planning Literature

A.4.1 Incorporating Risk and Resilience in Planning Processes

The literature includes a surprising number of reports about incorporating resilience into the planning process. FDOT developed a quick guide recognizing that meeting the transportation needs of communities and businesses requires incorporating resilience in long-range transportation plans. FDOT asserts it is important for MPOs to consider resilience when assessing and establishing overall transportation needs. They also advocated for considering resilience at each step of the long-range planning process, including setting goals and objectives; determining performance measures, trends, and targets; needs plan development; and financial constraints. FDOT recommends adding another step to traditional long-range planning practices called Risk and Vulnerabilities Assessment (FDOT Resilience Quick Start Guide: Incorporating Resilience in the MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan). RAND Corporation (2019) suggests that transportation planners consider short- and long-term transportation network disruptions in their planning processes. It also presents how state DOTs are incorporating resilience in their planning processes, considering agency motivations, methods they are using to assess risks, and how they are projecting future disruptions. The core questions are how do DOTs and MPOs define resilience? Why are DOTs and MPOs integrating resilience into their planning processes? Which DOTs and MPOs are considering resilience in their planning? The report found that the most significant number of DOTs and MPOs surveyed had implemented resilience in setting goals and objectives for the planning process. Many MPOs considered resilience in developing their strategies, even though few conducted extensive vulnerability assessments. The final report also offers a methodology for incorporating resilience into long-range planning. Based on interviews and a review of relevant literature, the project team developed a logic model called AREA (Absorptive capacity, Restorative capacity, Equitable access, and Adaptive capacity), establishing a set of metrics related to different aspects of resilience. The model focuses on understanding the criticality and exposure of assets to develop alternatives and strategies that address this exposure (RAND Corporation 2019).

Flannery et al. (2018) document resilience efforts in state DOTs and how they are organized, understood, and implemented within core organizational workflows. The synthesis assessed the motivations behind resilience policies, definitions of risk and resilience, and the level of understanding of the quantitative relationship between the two fields. The effort found a growing recognition of the importance of resilience, yet that recognition has not led to widespread implementation of resilience practices within DOTs. The report identified three primary challenges for state DOTs in their efforts to incorporate resilience practices into their workflows: (1) a lack of understanding of how resilience is related to risk assessment, (2) a lack of metrics and a clear definition of resilience, and (3) the disjointed nature of how asset management, planning, risk, climate change, nonclimate change disrupters, and safety are operationalized in DOTs.

Key Insights and Findings

• Using risk assessments will lead to developing a comprehensive network-wide perspective of resilience issues.

• Resilience is a complex and dynamic issue.
• There is no widespread adoption of incorporating resilience in planning processes.
• Even when resilience practices have been adopted, there is little effort to assess the costs of making systems more resilient, partly due to the funding limitations constraining DOT programs.
• While several MPOs and state DOTs are considering resilience in developing their goals and objectives, very few are conducting vulnerability assessments.
• State DOTs and MPOs should consider the following:
  • Expanding the scope of resilience considerations.
  • Broadening asset data to include human and equipment assets.
  • Developing data sets to account for the broader definition of hazards and assets.
  • Using performance measures to assess system resilience.
  • Broadening communication and collaboration with stakeholders when prioritizing improvements.
  • Using multi-criteria prioritization models that consider the economic impact, benefit/cost, and life-cycle cost considerations.
• Using risk assessments will lead to the development of a comprehensive network-wide perspective of resilience issues

A.4.2 Integrating Economic Analyses of Resilience Practices in Planning

The literature includes several sources related to the economic effects associated with transportation network disruptions, and there is a range of topics in the general category of economics. The following five publications are representative of the existing body of research in this area. With their consultant team, Tetra Tech, EPA, and the State of Rhode Island developed a framework to help communities understand economic vulnerabilities related to climate change. The effort involved the private sector in brainstorming more creative ways to prosper in the face of a changing climate. By developing a framework and preparing for future risks, the team believed it would serve as a mechanism to attract future development to the state (U.S. EPA 2016).

Kurth et al. (2019) asserted that the primary factors driving transportation investment are reducing delay and congestion and that it is difficult for DOTs to justify making investments based on potential future disruptions to the system. To change this paradigm, agencies need to begin to consider the broader economic costs associated with transportation system disruptions. By considering such outcomes and costs at the outset, the authors assert a reduction in long-run economic losses.³⁸

NCFRP Research Report 39 developed guidance to help public and private sector partners mitigate and adapt to supply-chain disruptions, even if those disruptions occur across space and time. The effort assessed a broad range of issues to develop a self-assessment guide that can be used to evaluate risk levels and capabilities. Notably, the research found that outside the response to a disruption, there was very little consideration given to downstream impacts (Meyer et al. 2019).

NCHRP Report 732 assessed the economic impacts, beyond those directly associated with infrastructure loss, to public and private sector players, from disruptions in the flow of goods through freight corridors. The research developed two approaches for assessing economic impacts: (1) a high-level rule of thumb approach, and (2) a five-step sequential model considering societal, public sector, and direct supply-chain costs (Georgia Tech Research Corporation et al. 2012).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology developed a standard methodology for evaluating resilience investment decisions. A basic premise of the guide is that communities cannot continue to rebuild as they were before persistent disruptions. Instead, communities must take a systemic view that includes short- and long-term horizons. A key attribute of resilient

communities lies in risk management. The key is understanding the trade-offs of different investment decisions and that the natural environment, the built environment, and infrastructure play an interconnected role in supporting community well-being.³⁹

Key Insights and Findings

• There is a general lack of consideration for broader economic concerns related to transportation network disruptions and cascading effects.
• There is a recognition that the complex relationships and interdependencies between goods movement and economic activity are not well understood.
• Given funding constraints, it is difficult for DOTs to justify investments for potential disruptions.
• The many definitions of resilience range from those narrowly focused on transportation assets to those broadly focused on community and economic vitality.
• The distinction between the concepts of risk and resilience is often not well understood.
• There is a lack of resilience-related performance measures and metrics.
• Generally, there is a disjointed approach to relating resilience to the various functions of state DOTs, such as planning, asset management, risk management, safety, and project implementation.

A.4.3 Planning and Community Resilience

While the literature on resilience, freight, and land use is plentiful, existing research at the intersection of all three topics is scarce. The available literature relating to resilience and freight focuses on network resilience, while the existing literature concerning freight and land use focuses on travel time reliability. However, research addressing resilience and land use focuses on disaster events. This section provides research examples that attempt to address and draw connections between all three areas. A running theme throughout this review is that risk and resilience-based research and practice generally exist in silos, and there are few contemporary attempts to address the topics systemically.

The Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (Cauffman 2015) articulates the importance of integrating resilience planning into systemic planning (economic, emergency preparedness, land use), particularly in the case of the built environment. The guide focuses on the logistics of recovery, including making land-use planning decisions that can aid post-disaster recovery, and provides examples of how delays in land-use planning decisions can delay recovery. For example, it includes land-use and development guidelines along electricity transmission corridors and pipelines. It also notes that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports reconstruction incorporating land-use and zoning techniques to reduce vulnerability to accidental or natural hazard events. The guide also explains how local government land-use decisions can inhibit communication infrastructure resilience by prohibiting the construction of infrastructure assets necessary for redundancy.

A World Bank report on urban resilience discussed the closely linked development activity of land-use planning and infrastructure development (Cauffman 2015). The report articulates a risk-based land-use planning framework as a tool for building urban resilience. Specifically, it cautions against the use of optimal engineering design with a preference for a robust approach that incorporates flexibility in such a way as to account for weak spots or potential failures. This approach can help avoid the lock-in of large investments potentially unsuited for future conditions. Risk-based land-use planning prioritizes investments in infrastructure projects in the safest areas, reducing risk exposure in hazard-prone areas. The report also advocates for integrating land-use planning with systems management approaches to promote resilience and use the natural environment to reduce the cost of urban infrastructure projects. This approach specifically addresses small and medium-sized urban areas lacking resources or capacity. Land-use planning is identified for its essential role in flood management. The report cautions that investments that

increase redundancy may result in networks being overbuilt to inefficient levels. The report also emphasizes the need to articulate the long-term cost savings of resilience in terms of reduced disruptions.

Examples of increasing resilience include understanding how highway departments think about which links are critical and how they identify alternatives to the disrupted link. Disaster impact mitigation can occur through locational approaches to avoid hazards through land-use planning. Hazard mapping is noted as requiring significant resources and advocates their inclusion in routine project work and the wide dissemination of hazard maps. Regarding the freight transportation system, the report identifies that a single mitigation strategy will be insufficient to permit essential goods and services to keep moving. Further, it suggests that road network failures can affect not only whole regions but also global trade and commerce. The report identifies that urban road networks are redundant in many countries and can be easily reconfigured. However, most regions have critical bottlenecks (bridge, tunnel, mountain pass) that are typically the principal network vulnerabilities. The report contrasts the highway network with the rail network, which is much less interconnected, and urban land uses typically represent bottlenecks for rail lines. Electrical outages can also disrupt traffic flow for both highway and road networks.

Withanaarachchi and Setunge (2014) note that decisions made at the land-use planning stage affect the resilience of transportation infrastructures. They also advocate for transportation corridor planning sensitive to how future transportation demands on the network will be affected by future land-use development and freight movements. They also suggest that new network improvements should be made by identifying these future demands. The article asserts that major roadway improvements can take decades, and over such a period, many disruptions may occur, highlighting the importance of seldom-used risk-planning approaches.

El Rashidy (2014) provides an excellent framework and index for the resilience of transportation networks, analyzing networks in terms of redundancy, vulnerability, and mobility, measuring resilience at the network junction, road link, and origin-destination levels. Redundancy measures the presence of alternate paths, vulnerability, the potential of a link to cease functioning, and mobility of the travel between given origin-destination pairs.

Weisbrod and Fitzroy (2011) consider the effects of traffic congestion on supply chains, noting that growth and congestion impair the ability of freight operations to maintain dependable and reliable schedules. Land-use development affects freight network resilience through traffic congestion. The effects increase over time as metropolitan expansion causes previously peripheral warehousing locations at the edge to become more central to the metropolitan area. The combination of increased land costs and competing land uses inhibits the expansion of existing sites. The article also recognizes a growing body of research on time-sensitive delivery and the cost-premium associated with travel time reliability. The paper identifies that the effects of congestion not only affect operating costs but also production processes, customer markets served, and worker access. The cumulative impact of congestion is rarely realized, as businesses incrementally adjust their operations in response to changing conditions. Long-term consequences may not be realized until the effects are severe. Congestion affects labor and freight delivery markets and, consequently, distribution centers and production sites. The effects of congestion are especially severe at massification terminals (intermodal rail, air cargo, marine terminals) by adding to transload time costs. For airports especially, reliable truck transportation from the airport is an essential element of airport competitiveness.

Key Insights and Findings

• It is tempting to treat transportation networks as idealized vector networks, but transportation networks are located in actual space. They intersect with other networks and compete with other urban land uses for space. The competition for space can lead to efficient sparse networks

• with few alternatives and networks channeled to a limited number of bottlenecks. Land use affects network redundancy, and hence freight network resilience. Further, proximate uses to the transportation network affect the network’s resilience, as passenger transportation competes with freight traffic for road capacity or through flooding. Efficient/optimized networks are only so for average conditions as the effects of disruptions of critical linkages can have severe consequences, and resilient options that reduce disruption may be more optimal.
• The transportation network exists to connect land uses, and the urbanization of hazardous areas means the origins and destinations of freight traffic are also vulnerable. Transportation demand along a road segment is also affected by proximate land uses, and failure to plan accordingly for future demand on the corridor can result in network unreliability. For example, over time, freight access to existing warehousing can be impaired due to increased congestion as urban expansion incorporates previously peripheral sites. The cumulative effects of increased congestion can have serious economic effects extending beyond additional transportation costs, affecting freight reliability and labor-market access for freight-related land uses. The congestion impacts are more severe on intermodal facilities, which rely on trucks for first-/last-mile access to distribution centers and customers.

Land-use planning is critical for future transportation network resilience. Once constructed, the built environment is essentially fixed, making land-use planning critical in ensuring the transportation network’s immediate sufficiency, long-term sustainability, and situation-specific resilience.

A.5 Policy Documentation, Military, and Other Relevant Practices

A.5.1 Freight Plans

Among the reviewed state freight plans, all 20 mentioned resilience at some point in the plan. However, most of these references were related to aligning the goals within the state freight plan with the national goals outlined in the FAST Act and state transportation goals. TxDOT’s Texas Freight Mobility Plan stated, “Resiliency planning is inherent in the development of the multimodal freight network” (Houston-Galveston Area Council et al. 2021).

FDOT used a 2045 Resiliency Scenario as part of the Florida Freight Mobility and Trade Plan to “ensure adequate redundancies have been built into supply chains to address disruptions and risks.” Some state freight plans identified threats, alternate or redundant highway and multimodal routes, gaps in the system’s redundancy, and projects to improve resilience, including Caltrans, NYSDOT, WSDOT, and MnDOT plans.

State freight plans list several disruptions that can negatively affect freight transportation networks. These include natural disasters (earthquakes, erosion, landslides, wildfires), recurring extreme weather events like flooding, and disruptions due to climate change, such as rising sea levels. The freight transportation network must also be resilient to other types of disruptions like special events, work zones, incidents, and labor disruptions. The Louisiana Freight Mobility Plan discusses the Louisiana Supply Chain & Transportation Council’s efforts to improve resilience to storm-related vulnerabilities through the Louisiana Resilience Pilot Project, while FDOT’s plan calls for developing a freight resilience program. The Oregon Freight Plan identifies and tracks locations where the lack of highway system redundancy leaves it vulnerable to natural or weather-related disruptions threatening system continuity. Seismic activity was specifically addressed concerning freight system resilience by the Oregon and Washington State freight plans. Oregon called for seismic analysis of the highway system under a statewide emergency management plan, and Washington State references its Seismic Retrofit Program and Seismic Lifeline Routes.

A common theme among the state freight plans regards supply chains and the need for efficient and reliable freight networks to drive economic competitiveness within the states. Out of the

20 plans reviewed, 17 discussed disruptions to supply chains. The Nevada State Freight Plan states, “The networked structure of global and regional trade means that small disruptions at one point spread to others” (Nevada Department of Transportation 2017). Several combined factors have increased the focus on creating or maintaining multimodal connectivity to improve the freight transportation system’s performance. These factors include the emergence of just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing processes, the rising importance of reliable on-time delivery and e-commerce business models, and changing warehouse locations and associated impacts on traffic volumes and routes.

Key Insights and Findings

• The majority of references to resilience in the reviewed state freight plans concerned aligning state freight goals with national freight goals and encompassing state transportation goals.
• When states have gone beyond simply aligning state freight goals with national freight goals or other state goals related to resilience, these efforts are mainly referenced in the state freight plan without corresponding details.
• States understand the relationship between efficient, reliable freight and enabling economic competitiveness for businesses. Maintaining multimodal connectivity and identifying redundant routes are popular state efforts to improve efficiency and reliability.
• Trends increasing the importance of having an efficient and reliable multimodal freight network include JIT manufacturing, e-commerce, and various types of disruptions, including natural disasters, recurring extreme weather events, impacts from changing climates, and labor disputes.

A.5.2 Cybersecurity Impacts on Resilience

Transportation infrastructure is adopting increasingly advanced technology and smart systems. The term intelligent transportation system has become more common as such systems’ combined connectivity, coordination, adaptivity, and automated responses for transportation have improved efficiency. However, new technologies have also created greater risks to the network (Ganin et al. 2019; Tonn et al. 2019). Increasing digital dependency has made the transportation infrastructure highly vulnerable to cyberattacks. Cyber threats to critical infrastructure are rising precipitously and are one of national security’s most serious challenges (Executive Order—Improving Critical Infrastructure Cyber Security 2013). Significant research has been done on transportation network resilience against cyber threats. Federal and public agencies have focused on policies, directives, and supply-chain toolkits to address and mitigate cybersecurity issues. The academic literature tends to focus more on scenarios of cyberattacks, possible cyber threats to transportation networks, and identifying the most critical areas to protect the network.

Different studies have been conducted by federal, state, public, and private agencies to understand and tackle the cyber threats on transportation networks. The U.S. DOT initiated a Departmental Cybersecurity Policy to establish the department’s information security program’s policies, processes, procedures, and standards (U.S. DOT 2011). Similarly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DOT, United States Coast Guard (USCG), and other Transportation Systems Sector (TSS) stakeholders collectively prepare TSS-specific guidance to serve as an assist to TSS organizations in implementing the NIST’s Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (National Institute of Standards and Technology 2018). Murphy et al. (2015) provide guidelines for airport managers and IT officers to better understand, prevent, and mitigate cybersecurity breaches in airport information technology infrastructures. The U.S. DOT published a report on best practices for intelligent transportation cybersecurity with step-wise guidelines for local and state DOTs to start their cybersecurity plans and penetration tests (Krause et al. 2019).

Research related to cyber risk and insurance for transportation infrastructure investigates historical cyber incidents on transportation systems and indicates that the number and cost of such incidents are increasing annually (Tonn et al. 2019). This research further points out

that the existing cyber risk assessments, mitigation strategies, and toolkits are inadequate for infrastructure managers to identify, manage, and mitigate cyber risk. The paper identifies four primary research needs to improve the management, mitigation, and protection of transportation infrastructure systems from cyber incidents:

1. Cyber incident data and models.
2. Quantifiable cyber risks metrics.
3. Cyber insurance for transportation infrastructure.
4. Perceived risk and cognitive biases in decision-making while managing cyber risk for transportation infrastructure.

Other similar research (Cheung and Bell 2019, Ghena et al. 2014) studied the cyber threat scenario and provided recommendations on mitigating cyber risk and improving transportation infrastructure resilience against cyber threats.

Key Insights and Findings

• Metrics and indicators are needed for measuring progress toward resilience to make effective improvements in the resilience of transportation systems (Weilant et al. 2019).
• A study that analyzed the impacts of an attack on a traffic signal network found that under worst-case scenarios, an attack on 20% of the intersections would cause 14.6% more traffic delays than a similar attack on freeways (Ganin et al. 2019).
• Interest in the cybersecurity of logistics and supply-chain management has grown, but academic research has not matched this (Cheung and Bell 2019).
• As the design and size of commercial airports vary considerably, their approach and techniques for cybersecurity solutions also vary accordingly. This design complexity provides a significant target area for adversaries to attack. All commercial airports should develop their cybersecurity frameworks and interpret guidelines and standards according to their specific needs. However, a collaborative cyber-resilience model to address threats as shared responsibilities will allow airports to stay informed and ahead of emerging cyber threats (Lykou et al. 2018).
• The literature covers a broad range of policy and strategy documentation. The policy and best-practice guidelines assist the information manager or officer in determining the current status of communication infrastructure, identifying the weak links within them, and how best to secure them.
• There is sparse literature on defense and recovery processes after a cyberattack on transportation infrastructure.
• There is a lack of proper quantitative metrics to measure the strength or weakness of transportation infrastructure against a cyber threat.
• Most studies recommend more training and awareness for IT managers to identify weak links and assess the possibility of cyberattacks to mitigate the threats posed by cybersecurity incidents.

A.5.3 Military Operations and Other Relevant Practices

Significant research has been done in the federal sector on building supply-chain toolkits. USAID and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have built supply-chain toolkits. The National Supply Chain Assessment (NSCA) Toolkit documents USAID’s extensive study of the medical supply chain. From that study, USAID developed a toolkit that developing countries can use to assess and build resilience in their medical supply chains. The toolkit consists of four documents and includes an overview, methodology, assessment guides, surveys, pilot demonstrations, and an implementation guide (U.S. Agency for International Development n.d.). The Supply Chain Resilience Guide also developed a toolkit that can be used by FEMA to strengthen emergency supply-chain response in the event of a disaster (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2019).

Most of the Department of Defense (DOD) literature centers on recent changes to acquisition law and the impacts of that law on Tier 1 suppliers. This research is not pertinent to transportation network resilience and therefore is not included in the literature review. A MITRE article titled Deliver Uncompromised is a Strategy for Supply Chain Security and Resilience in Response to the Changing Character of War was cited in several sources and is therefore included in this literature search (Nissen et al. 2018). The document identifies adversarial threats to the supply chain and provides a holistic approach to countering those threats.

Executive Order 13806 Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States (DOD et al. 2018) was also reviewed for the current study. This executive order tasked the DOD with leading interagency groups in assessing and strengthening the U.S. supply chain and industrial base. The document identifies threats and provides policies and budget considerations to mitigate those threats.

Key Insights and Findings

• USAID has extensively studied the medical supply chain and developed a toolkit that developing countries can use to assess and build resilience in their medical supply chains. The toolkit includes methodology, assessment guides, surveys, pilot demonstrations, and an implementation guide. The associated literature comprises the following documents: overview, assessment tools, strategic/operational plans, investment plans and monitoring, and implementation guide.
• U.S. adversaries no longer must engage the United States kinetically. They have shifted their strategy to engage our nation asymmetrically to include cybersecurity and supply-chain disruption.
• Supply-chain resilience was a significant concern of the Trump Administration. Executive Order 13806 was signed by President Trump and established interagency teams under the direction of the DOD to assess and strengthen the country’s supply chain.

A.5.4 Port Policies and Operations

Many articles have been written on resilience, business continuity and recovery, and preparation regarding ports and their related supply chains. The American Association of Port Authorities published the Emergency Preparedness & Continuity of Operations Planning Manual for Best Practices (American Association of Port Authorities 2009). Various port staff volunteers developed this document to help the association members in their pursuit of preparing their respective agencies to respond to multiple levels of disruptive events. These events can be as brief as a small hazardous material spill cleaned up in an hour to weeks or months-long closures caused by natural events such as weather disruptions like hurricanes and floods. Fortunately, all disruptions can follow the same general response procedures tailored to the incident’s size.

There have been notable studies on supply-chain evaluation and disruptions (Azadegan 2018; Lu et al. 2016). In these studies, the authors identify that supply chains can be vulnerable to disruptions of all kinds and that advanced preparation in understanding and identifying alternatives in supply chains is required to enable an organization to achieve resilience quickly post-event.

Performance metrics are a consistent theme within the literature. Lim et al. (2019) observed that there is limited literature on port sustainability performance and assessment. They suggest that ports set benchmarks and goals in the recovery strategies. This recommendation aligns with the FEMA requirements to identify recovery timelines.

Numerous case studies based on post-disaster interviews and observations provide observations and recommended strategies to respond to catastrophes and extract lessons to incorporate in future disaster preparation efforts (Holguín-Veras et al. 2014). These case studies emphasize that coordination and information sharing among agencies are crucial in resilience efforts. These activities

must be practiced before an event and implemented as soon as possible post-event to ensure pertinent information is efficiently passed among the appropriate parties.

Key Insights and Findings

• U.S. ports have established emergency response and recovery procedures that have evolved from their security requirements and Homeland Security/FEMA mandates.
• A limited number of departments within a port, such as security and operations, are usually very knowledgeable and well-trained on emergency response techniques, policies, and procedures. The port industry follows the Incident Command System, similar to a military or emergency medical services response, due to its history of following a military command leadership structure. In past generations, many port leaders had military experience, including Army Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard experience, which they brought into their port jobs. This history of military training and experience allows a port to quickly mobilize personnel trained in emergency preparation and response to all types of disruption events, such as terrorist attacks, active shooters, hazardous material leaks, protestors, weather, or earthquake events.
• Preparation includes developing policies and procedures and understanding which vendors/suppliers are essential before an event occurs. It is necessary to have a contingency plan for acquiring needed supplies and materials during and in the recovery stages of an emergency that is flexible enough to enable the agency to procure the supplies required for an effective response.
• Preparing, training, practicing, and testing plans are vital to response and recovery activities.
• The identification of mission essential functions, principal business functions, recovery time objectives, timelines for implementation, and a prioritized management plan for returning to pre-event conditions can speed the recovery of work activities and agency assets.

The literature covers a broad range of port-related topics, with sources authored by reputable experts in their fields. However, very few sources are written by port staff that can provide experience from inside organizations versus observations by third parties. Thus, there may sometimes be a disconnect between research efforts and the practical needs of the port staff. In the last decade, ports have moved away from developing their internal research. It appears that most port staff do not look to literature to learn best practices but instead respond to daily needs based on their experience and practical knowledge.

A.6 Conclusions

The picture that emerges from this literature review is that the topic of resilience has attracted increasing attention across academia and the public and private sectors. Sections A.3, A.4, and A.5 of this review describe the main findings regarding frameworks, key concepts, tools, and methodologies developed to increase resilience in supply-chain management. There is a gap between theoretical developments and the implementation of resilience. There is also a wide variety of definitions and metrics for resilience in both the private and public sectors. The source of the problem seems to be the fact that resilience is highly dependent on key public and private sector players.

Despite the variety of applications and sometimes discrepancies in terms and definitions regarding resilience, significant insight can be elicited from the current practice. It is encouraging that resilience is increasingly incorporated into regular procedures as a key component of project evaluation. Additionally, the integration of risk management and modeling shows an effort to make these issues visible and increase coordination.

Regarding the relationship between public and private sectors in incorporating resilience in transportation networks, DOTs are generally responsible for the planning, design, and construction of publicly owned transportation networks, with shipping by air and rail the apparent exceptions. At the same time, local governments are responsible for community development, while the private sector focuses on operating procedures that minimize costs and maximize the use of available

infrastructure. A clear takeaway from the literature review is that public and private sector players are not coordinating, or perhaps not even thinking comprehensively, about the interdependencies and potential negative and positive cascading effects of disruptions to transportation networks and global supply chains, both physical and virtual.

Integral to this discussion is making the business case for incorporating resilience. DOTs generally struggle with this issue. Many DOTs do not have the primary resources to maintain and preserve their existing transportation networks, let alone expand those networks to accommodate population and economic growth. Resilience is a medium- to long-term strategy that requires focus and buy-in. To ask most DOTs to spend more to harden assets based solely on the potential for future problems is a big ask, and the United States has shown a lack of political will for such investments. While the circumstances are different, the mentality is similar in the private sector. Growing trade tensions with China and the current bout with COVID-19 have pointed out that businesses have optimized global supply chains based on optimal conditions, which generally work until they don’t. Again, it is hard for many publicly traded companies to invest considerable resources in redundant supply chains or build their products in safer but more expensive economies. The question then is, how does one help both the public and private sectors make the business case to develop resilient transportation networks?

A.7 Bibliography

Baggag, A., Abbar, S., Zanouda, T., and Srivastava, J. (2018). Resilience Analytics: Coverage and Robustness in Multi-Modal Transportation Networks. EPJ Data Science, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0139-7.

Balas, V. E., Jain, L. C., and Zhao, X. Eds. (2015). Information Technology and Intelligent Transportation Systems. Springer.

Barker, K. (2019). Modeling Resilience and Impact in Multi-Modal Transportation Networks.

Baroud, H., Barker, K., Ramirez-Marquez, J. E., and Rocco, C. M. (2015). Inherent Costs and Interdependent Impacts of Infrastructure Network Resilience. Risk Analysis, 35(4), pp. 642–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12223.

Baroud, H., Barker, K., Ramirez-Marquez, J. E., and Rocco S., C. M. (2014). Importance Measures for Inland Waterway Network Resilience. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 62, pp. 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.11.010.

Barrett, M., Marron, J., Pillitteri, V. Y., Boyens, J., Quinn, S., Witte, G., and Feldman, L. (2020). Approaches for Federal Agencies to Use the Cybersecurity Framework. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8170.

Becker, A. H., Matson, P., Fischer, M., and Mastrandrea, M. D. (2015). Toward Seaport Resilience for Climate Change Adaptation: Stakeholder Perceptions of Hurricane Impacts in Gulfport (MS) and Providence (RI). Progress in Planning, 99, pp. 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.11.002.

Beiler, M., McNeil, S., Ames, D., and Gayley, R. (2013). Identifying Resiliency Performance Measures for Mega-regional Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2397, pp. 153–160. https://doi.org/10.3141/2397-18.

Berche, B., Von Ferber, C., Holovatch, T., and Holovatch, Y. (2009). Resilience of Public Transport Networks Against Attacks. European Physical Journal B, 71(1), pp. 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2009-00291-3.

Bergström, J., Van Winsen, R., and Henriqson, E. (2015). On the Rationale of Resilience in the Domain of Safety: A Literature Review. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 141, pp. 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.008.

Berle, Ø., BjØrn, I. N., and AsbjØrnslett, E. (2013). Optimization, Risk Assessment and Resilience in LNG Transportation Systems. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

Blanchard-Horan, C. (n.d.). Technical Assistance, National Supply Chain Assessment Task Order.

Boyens, J., Paulsen, C., Bartol, N., Winkler, K., and Gimbi, J. (n.d.). Draft NISTIR 8276, Key Practices in Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management: Observations from Industry C-SCRM Practices. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8276-draft.

Brand, D., Mehndiratta, S. R., and Parody, T. E. (2000). Options Approach to Risk Analysis in Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1706(1), pp. 54–63.

Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., and Petersen, K. J. (2014). A Contingent Resource-Based Perspective of Supply Chain Resilience and Robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), pp. 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12050.

Bruyelle, J. L., O’Neill, C., El-Koursi, E. M., Hamelin, F., Sartori, N., and Khoudour, L. (2014). Improving the Resilience of Metro Vehicles and Passengers for an Effective Emergency Response to Terrorist Attacks. Safety Science, 62, pp. 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.022.

C-TPAT’s Five Step Risk Assessment. (n.d.).

Can Saglam, Y., Sezen, B., and Çankaya, S. Y. (2020). The Inhibitors of Risk Information Sharing in the Supply Chain: A Multiple Case Study in Turkey. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 28(1), pp. 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12285.

Carey, M., and Hendrickson, C. (1984). Bounds on Expected Performance of Networks with Links Subject to Failure. Networks, 14(3), pp. 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.3230140307.

Carvalho, H., Barroso, A., Machado, V., Azevedo, S., and Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation. ElsevierPaperpile, 62(1), pp. 329–341. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835211002907?casa_token=1g1l5EPNa5AAAAAA:Rrciqqr0lQD3QJz4IzHldWX3HuVrlMaYABJd4hdzTFJeBC0EvtlFNS3e9Oy_Yeyrt6vGp3rofA.

Cauffman, S. (2015). Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems. The Military Engineer. https://www.nist.gov/publications/community-resilience-planning-guide-buildings-and-infrastructure-systems.

Chapman, R. E, J. F. Helgeson, D. T. Burtry, and S. W. Gilbert. 2015. Community Resilience Economic Decision Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology, December 2015. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1197.pdf.

Chaudhuri, A., Ghadge, A., Gaudenzi, B., and Dani, S. (2020). A Conceptual Framework for Improving Effectiveness of Risk Management in Supply Networks. International Journal of Logistics Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2018-0289.

Chen, C. C., Feng, C. M., Tsai, Y. H., and Wu, P. J. (2013). Modeling Resilience Enhancement Strategies for International Express Logistics. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2378, pp. 92–98. https://doi.org/10.3141/2378-10.

Chen, L., and Miller-Hooks, E. (2012). Resilience: An indicator of Recovery Capability in Intermodal Freight Transport. Transportation Science, 46(1), pp. 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1110.0376.

Cheung, K. F., and Bell, M. G. H. (2019). Attacker–Defender Model Against Quantal Response Adversaries for Cyber Security in Logistics Management: An Introductory Study. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.10.019.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment. (2016).

Climate Change Resilience: 20 Questions in 20 Minutes. (2016).

Climate Data Processing Tool User’s Guide. (2016).

Colon, C., Hallegatte, S., and Rozenberg, J. (2019). LIFELINES: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity Transportation and Supply Chain Resilience in the United Republic of Tanzania Assessing the Supply-Chain Impacts of Disaster-Induced Transportation Disruptions.

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. (2012).

Conference Proceedings 53: Transportation Resilience: Adaptation to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events. Summary of the Fourth Eu-U.S. Transportation Research Symposium. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2016. https://doi.org/10.17226/24648.

Countermeasures Assessment and Security Experts LLC and Western Management and Consulting LLC. (2016). NCHRP Web-Only Document 221/TCRP Web-Only Document 67: Protection of Transportation Infrastructure from Cyber Attacks: A Primer. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/23516

Cox, A., Prager, F., and Rose, A. (2011). Transportation Security and the Role of Resilience: A Foundation for Operational Metrics. Transport Policy, 18(2), pp. 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.09.004.

Cromar, J. (2016). ARC/FHWA Climate Resilience Peer Exchange: A Southeast Florida Perspective.

Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management: An Introduction. (2018).

Darayi, M. (2017). Infrastructure Network Resilience and Economic Impacts: Applications in Multi-Modal Freight Transportation. University of Oklahoma.

Das, K., and Lashkari, R. S. (2015). Risk Readiness and Resiliency Planning for a Supply Chain. International Journal of Production Research, 53(22), pp. 6752–6771. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1057624.

Deploying Transportation Resilience Practices in State DOTs. (n.d.).

Dille, J. (2016). Accommodating Extreme Weather Adaptation to Planning and Sustainability.

Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. (2012).

Dix, B., Zgoda, B., Vargo, A., Heitsch, S., and Gestwick, T. (2018). Integrating Resilience into Transportation Planning Processes: White Paper on Literature Review Findings Integrating Resilience into the Transportation Planning Process.

DOD. (2018). Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States. Executive Order 13806. https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/assessing-and-strengthening-the-manufacturing-and%20defense-industrial-base-and-supply-chain-resiliency.pdf.

Dorbritz, R. (2011). Assessing the Resilience of Transportation Systems in Case of Large-Scale Disastrous Events. International Conference on Environmental Engineering.

DOT Helps States, Local Communities Improve Transportation Resilience. (2015).

Dougherty, M., and Ballard, D. (2017). Transportation System Resilience.

El-Rewini, Z., Sadatsharan, K., Selvaraj, D. F., Plathottam, S. J., and Ranganathan, P. (2020). Cybersecurity Challenges in Vehicular Communications. In Vehicular Communications (Vol. 23). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vehcom.2019.100214.

El Rashidy, R. (2014). The Resilience of Road Transport Networks Redundancy, Vulnerability and Mobility Characteristics [University of Leeds]. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/7782.

Emergency Management Agency, F. (2018). Supply Chain Resilience Guides National Engagement.

Emergency Trends. Resilience. (2019).

Enabling Distributed Security in Cyberspace. (2011).

Enjalbert, S., Vanderhaegen, F., Pichon, M., Ouedraogo, K. A., and Millot, P. (2011). Assessment of Transportation System Resilience. In Human Modelling in Assisted Transportation. Springer Milan. pp. 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1821-1_36.

Fattahi, M., Govindan, K., and Keyvanshokooh, E. (2017). Responsive and Resilient Supply Chain Network Design Under Operational and Disruption Risks with Delivery Lead-Time Sensitive Customers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 101, pp. 176–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.02.004.

Faturechi, R., and Miller-Hooks, E. (2015). Measuring the Performance of Transportation Infrastructure Systems in Disasters: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943.

Ferreira, F. de A. L., Scavarda, L. F., Ceryno, P. S., and Leiras, A. (2018). Supply Chain Risk Analysis: A Shipbuilding Industry Case. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 21(5), pp. 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2018.1472748.

Ferreira, P. N. P. (2011). Resilience in the Planning of Rail Engineering Work. University of Nottingham.

Ferry, H., and Poindexter, V. (n.d.). Supply Chain Risk Management: An Introduction to the Credible Threat.

Flannery, A., Pena, M. A., and Manns, J. (2018). NCHRP Synthesis 527: Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25166.

Fletcher, D. (2014). Effective Practices for the Protection of Transportation Infrastructure from Cyber Incidents.

Fletcher, D. R., and Ekern, D. S. (2016). Understanding Transportation Resilience. In AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management.

Flood Pathways. (n.d.).

FMC. (2017). Supply Chain Innovation Initiative.

Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. (2014).

Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. (2018). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.CSWP.04162018.

Freight System Plan. (2017).

Freight Transportation Plan. (2019).

Friedman, D. M., Monteith, M. C., Kay, D. H., Couts, V. B., Trombly, J. W., Bratvold, D., and Hirschman, I. (2006). NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 11, Disruption Impact Estimating Tool-Transportation (DIETT): A Tool for Prioritizing High-Value Transportation Choke Points. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/13940.

FTP-SIS Resilience Kick-Off Webinar. (2019).

Ganin, A. A., Mersky, A. C., Jin, A. S., Kitsak, M., Keisler, J. M., and Linkov, I. (2019). Resilience in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 100, pp. 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.01.014.

Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., and A. Strauss-Wieder, Inc. (2012). NCHRP Report 732: Methodologies to Estimate the Economic Impacts of Disruptions to the Goods Movement System. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.

Ghena, B., Beyer, W., Hillaker, A., Pevarnek, J., and Halderman, J. A. (2014). Green Lights Forever: Analyzing the Security of Traffic Infrastructure.

Goetz, A. R., and Szyliowicz, J. S. (1997). Revisiting Transportation Planning and Decision Making Theory: The Case of Denver International Airport. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 31(4), pp. 263–280.

Gomes, J. O., Woods, D. D., Carvalho, P. V. R., Huber, G. J., and Borges, M. R. S. (2009). Resilience and Brittleness in the Offshore Helicopter Transportation System: The Identification of Constraints and Sacrifice Decisions in Pilots’ Work. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94(2), pp. 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.026.

GRA, Inc., LMI Government Consulting, RFMarchi Aviation Consulting, AECOM, and CH Planning. (2019). ACRP Research Report 199: Climate Resilience and Benefit-cost Analysis: A Handbook for Airports. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25497.

Grayson, M. E., Lau, C., and Nicholson, J. (2015). Transportation Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations President MTN Government Services.

Han, B., Wu, B., Nguyen, Q., Camargo, R., and Arancibia, I. (2019). The Threat of Cyber-Terrorism & Security in Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture. Melbourne School of Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Hanke, T., and Krumme, K. (2012). Risk and Resilience in Sustainable Supply Chain Management-Conceptual Outlines. Proceedings of the 10th International Logistics & Supply Chain Congress, pp. 379–388. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4761.9604.

Harrington, L. (2016). Defense Supply Chain Security & Risk Management: Principles & Practice.

He, L., Wu, Z., Xiang, W., Goh, M., Xu, Z., Song, W., Ming, X., and Wu, X. (2020). A Novel Kano-QFD-DEMATEL Approach to Optimize the Risk Resilience Solution for Sustainable Supply Chain. International Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1724343.

Hibbard, J. L. (n.d.). Georgia DOT and System Resilience: Learning from Past Experience.

Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H., and Talluri, S. (2015). Supply Chain Risk Management: A Literature Review. International Journal of Production Research, 53(16), pp. 5031–5069. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1030467.

Holguín-Veras, J., Taniguchi, E., Jaller, M., Aros-Vera, F., Ferreira, F., and Thompson, R. G. (2014). The Tohoku Disasters: Chief Lessons Concerning the Post Disaster Humanitarian Logistics Response and Policy Implications. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 69, pp. 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.003.

Hosseini, S., and Barker, K. (2016). Modeling Infrastructure Resilience Using Bayesian Networks: A Case Study of Inland Waterway Ports. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 93, pp. 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.01.007.

Hughes, J. F., Healy, K., and NZ Transport Agency. (n.d.). Measuring the Resilience of Transport Infrastructure.

Hur, S. H., Kim, D. K., Kho, S. Y., and Lee, C. (2014). Dual-Route Distribution Strategy with Supply Chain Disruption. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2466, pp. 12–21. https://doi.org/10.3141/2466-02.

Implementing Cyber Security in DOD Supply Chains. (2018).

Infrastructure: The Cost of Doing Nothing Meeting. (2013).

Innovation in Transportation Risk Management. (2019).

Integrating Economic Resilience in Performance-based Transportation Planning. (2018).

International Transportation and Economic Development Conference. (2018).

Ip, W. H., and Wang, D. (2011). Resilience and Friability of Transportation Networks: Evaluation, Analysis, and Optimization. IEEE Systems Journal, 5(2), pp. 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2010.2096670.

Ishfaq, R. (2012). Resilience Through Flexibility in Transportation Operations. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 15(4), pp. 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2012.709835.

Islam, M., Chowdhury, M., Li, H., and Hu, H. (2018). Cybersecurity Attacks in Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Applications and Their Prevention. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2672(19), pp. 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118799012.

Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., and Dolgui, A. (2014). The Ripple Effect in Supply Chains: Trade-Off “Efficiency-Flexibility-Resilience.” In Disruption Management. International Journal of Production Research, 52(7), pp. 2154–2172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.858836.

Janić, M. (2015). Modelling the Resilience, Friability and Costs of an Air Transport Network Affected by a Large-Scale Disruptive Event. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 81, pp. 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.07.012.

Jin, J. G., Tang, L. C., Sun, L., and Lee, D. H. (2014). Enhancing Metro Network Resilience Via Localized Integration with Bus Services. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 63, pp. 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.01.002.

Johnson, D. (2016). Metro Water District Climate Utility Resiliency Study.

Jones, C. (2017). Transportation Planning in an Era of Inequality and Climate Change. In Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 44.

Kaiser, L. (n.d.). Transportation Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Cybersecurity Standards Strategy.

Kbah, Z., Erdil, N. O., and Aqlan, F. (2020). Risk Assessment in Oil and Gas Industry Using Simulation and Bow-Tie Analysis. In International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 27(1).

Kelarestaghi, K. B., Foruhandeh, M., Heaslip, K., and Gerdes, R. (2018). Vehicle Security-Risk Assessment in Transportation. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv.

Kelly, J. C., Ersal, T., Li, C. T., Marshall, B. M., Kundu, S., Keoleian, G. A., Peng, H., Hiskens, I. A., and Stein, J. L. (2015). Sustainability, Resiliency, and Grid Stability of the Coupled Electricity and Transportation Infrastructures: Case for an Integrated Analysis. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000251.

Khaled, A. A., Jin, M., Clarke, D. B., and Hoque, M. A. (2015). Train Design and Routing Optimization for Evaluating Criticality of Freight Railroad Infrastructures. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 71, pp. 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.10.002.

Kim, D. S., and Omishakin, T. (2019). California Freight Mobility Plan 2020.

Kim, K., Francis, O., and Yamashita, E. (2018). Learning to Build Resilience into Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2672(1), pp. 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118786622.

Klaus, J. (n.d.). Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure and System Resilience.

Kogler, C., and Rauch, P. (2019). A Discrete-Event Simulation Model to Test Multimodal Strategies for a Greener and More Resilient Wood Supply. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(10), pp. 1298–1310. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0542.

Krause, C., Anderson, J., Shain, K., Nana, L., Mazzone, T., McNaught, S., and Jackson, M. (2019). Cybersecurity and Intelligent Transportation Systems: Best Practice Guide.

Kurapati, S., Lukosch, H., Verbraeck, A., and Brazier, F. M. T. (2015). Improving Resilience in Intermodal Transport Operations in Seaports: A Gaming Approach. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 3(3–4), pp. 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-015-0047-z.

Kurth, M., W. Kozlowski, A. Ganin, A. Mersky, B. Leung, M. Kitsak, and I. Linkov. 2019. Lack of Resilience in Transportation Networks: Economic Implications. arXiv.org. http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04331.

Lawrence, T., Garben, K., Murray, B., Weikel, J., Song, D., Zhou, H., Hartong, M., Lawson, R., Milojevic, A., Fabro, M., Schroeder, M., Dow, K., Program Manager, A., and Smith, S. (2013). Securing Control and Communications Systems in Rail Transit Environments.

Lévy-Bencheton, C., and Darra, E. (2015). Cyber Security and Resilience of Intelligent Public Transport. https://doi.org/10.2824/778225.

Lim, S., Pettit, S., Abouarghoub, W., and Beresford, A. (2019). Port Sustainability and Performance: A Systematic Literature Review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 72, pp. 47–64.

Lin, X., Negenborn, R. R., Duinkerken, M. B., and Lodewijks, G. (2018). Reducing Unmet Demand and Spoilage in Cut Rose Logistics: Modeling and Control of Fast Moving Perishable Goods. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2672(9), pp. 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118783901.

Lu, C.-S., Shang, K.-C., and Lin, C.-C. (2016). Examining Sustainability Performance at Ports: Port Managers’ Perspectives On Developing Sustainable Supply Chains. https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/marpmg/v43y2016i8p909-927.html.

Lykou, G., Anagnostopoulou, A., and Gritzalis, D. (2018). Smart Airport Cybersecurity: Threat Mitigation and Cyber Resilience Controls. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19010019.

Macdonald, J. R., Zobel, C. W., Melnyk, S. A., and Griffis, S. E. (2018). Supply Chain Risk and Resilience: Theory Building Through Structured Experiments and Simulation. International Journal of Production Research, 56(12), pp. 4337–4355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1421787.

Machado-León, J. L., and Goodchild, A. (2017). Review of Performance Metrics for Community-Based Planning for Resilience of the Transportation System. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2604(1), pp. 44–53. https://doi.org/10.3141/2604-06.

Managing a Cyber Attack on Critical Infrastructure. (2018).

Mansouri, M., Nilchiani, R., and Mostashari, A. (2010). A Policy Making Framework for Resilient Port Infrastructure Systems. Marine Policy, 34(6), pp. 1125–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.03.012.

Mansouri, M., Nilchiani, R., and Mostashari, A. (2009). A Risk Management-Based Decision Analysis Framework for Resilience in Maritime Infrastructure and Transportation Systems. Third Annual IEEE Systems Conference, pp. 35–41.

Mari, S. I., Lee, Y. H., and Saad Memon, M. (2014). Sustainable and Resilient Supply Chain Network Design Under Disruption Risks. Sustainability, 6, pp. 6666–6686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6106666.

Maryland Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment. (2016).

Maryland Strategic Goods Movement Plan. (2015).

Maslaric, M., Nikolicic, S., Backalic, T., and Mircetic, D. (2013). Assessing the Trade-Off Between Lean and Resilience Through Supply Chain Risk Management. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (IJIEM), 4(4), pp. 229–236.

Mathematical Frontiers. (2019).

Mejia-Giraldo, D., Villarreal-Marimon, J., Gu, Y., He, Y., Duan, Z., and Wang, L. (2012). Sustainability and Resiliency Measures for Long-Term Investment Planning in Integrated Energy and Transportation Infrastructures. Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol. 138(2), pp. 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000067.

Meyer, M. (n.d.). Climate Change Overview ARC/FHWA Climate Resilience Peer Exchange.

Meyer, M., Bilotto, C., and Grabowski, D. (n.d.). Planning for Resilient Communities.

Meyer, M., Flood, M., Keller, J., Lennon, J., McVoy, G., Dorney, C., Leonard, K., Hyman, R., and Smith, J. (2014). NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System: Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/22473.

Meyer, M., McLeod, S., Fidell, T., Gajjar, H., Sood, D., Kamali, M., Wingate, R., Willauer, D. O., and Southworth, F. (2019). NCFRP Research Report 39: Freight Transportation Resilience in Response to Supply Chain Disruptions. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25463.

Michigan Freight Plan. (n.d.).

Miller-Hooks, E., Zhang, X., and Faturechi, R. (2012). Measuring and Maximizing Resilience of Freight Transportation Networks. Computers & Operations Research, 39(7), pp. 1633–1643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.09.017.

Minnesota Statewide Freight System and Investment Plan. (2018).

Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan. (2017).

Missouri State Freight Plan—Introduction. (n.d.).

Mulligan, M. J. (2019). Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM).

Multimodal Transportation Plan. (2014).

Murphy, J. (n.d.). Positioning America for the Future: Port Tomorrow Resilience Planning Tool.

Murphy, R. J., Sukkarieh, M., Haass, J., Hriljac, P. (2015). ACRP Report 140: Guidebook on Best Practices for Airport Cybersecurity. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.

Nair, R., Avetisyan, H., and Miller-Hooks, E. (2010). Resilience Framework for Ports and Other Intermodal Components. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2166, pp. 54–65. https://doi.org/10.3141/2166-07.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Critical Issues in Transportation 2019. Washington DC, The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25314.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, (2018). Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/cswp/nist.cswp.04162018.pdf.

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015. (2015).

Nevada Department of Transportation. (2017). Nevada State Freight Plan: A Strategic Framework for Freight Mobility and Economic Competitiveness. Carson City.

New Jersey Statewide Freight Plan. (2017).

Nissen, C., Gronager, J., Metzger, R., and Rishikof, H. (2018). A Strategy for Supply Chain Security and Resilience in Response to the Changing Character of War. MITRE. https://www.mitre.org/news-insights/publication/deliver-uncompromised-strategy-supply-chain-security-and-resilience.

Noei, S., Sargolzaei, A., Abbaspour, A., and Yen, K. (2016). A Decision Support System for Improving Resiliency of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control Systems. Procedia Computer Science, 95, pp. 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.326.

Omer, M., Mostashari, A., Nilchiani, R., and Mansouri, M. (2012). A Framework for Assessing Resiliency of Maritime Transportation Systems. Maritime Policy and Management, 39(7), pp. 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2012.689878.

Onofrio, D. D. (2016). ARC’s Planning Work on Climate Change.

Osei-Asamoah, A., and Lownes, N. E. (2014). Complex Network Method of Evaluating Resilience in Surface Transportation Networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2467, pp. 120–128. https://doi.org/10.3141/2467-13.

Ozguven, E. E., Horner, M. W., Kocatepe, A., Marcelin, J. M., Abdelrazig, Y., Sando, T., and Moses, R. (2016). Metadata-based Needs Assessment for Emergency Transportation Operations with a Focus on an Aging Population: A Case Study in Florida. Transport Reviews, 36(3), pp. 383–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1082516.

Pant, S. B. (2012). Transportation Network Resiliency: A Study of Self-Annealing. Utah State University, Logan.

Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., and Fiksel, J. (2013). Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development and Implementation of an Assessment Tool. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(1), pp. 46–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12009.

Pitera, K. A., and Goodchild, A. V. (2009). Interpreting Resilience: An Examination of the Use of Resiliency Strategies within the Supply Chain and Consequences for the Freight Transportation System.

Pitilakis, K., Argyroudis, S., Kakderi, K., and Selva, J. (2016). Systemic Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of Transportation Systems Under Natural Hazards Towards More Resilient and Robust Infrastructures. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, pp. 1335–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.206.

Planning for Climate Resiliency. (2016).

Planning for Transportation Together. (2016).

Potteiger, B., Abdel-Aziz, H., Neema, H., and Koutsoukos, X. (2019). Simulation Based Evaluation of Security and Resilience in Railway Infrastructure. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Article 22, pp. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314058.3317731.

Rajan, V. C., Sridharan, R., and Kumar, P. N. R. (2019). Supply Chain Risk Management: Models and Methods. Int. J. Management and Decision Making, 18(1), pp. 31–75.

Reggiani, A. (2013). Network Resilience for Transport Security: Some Methodological Considerations. Transport Policy, 28, pp. 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.09.007.

Resilience and Transportation Planning and Project Development Peer Exchange: U.S. EPA Region 5. (2017).

Resilience Quick Guide: Incorporating Resilience in the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. (2020).

Rodehorst, B., Dix, B., Hurley, B., Keller, J., Hyman, R., Beucler, B., Mohamed, K., and Kafalenos, R. (2018). Planning to Build Resilience into Transportation Assets: Lessons Learned. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2672(3), pp. 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118797799.

Sarpong Boadi, R., Amekudzi-Kennedy, A., Asce, M., and Couture, J. (2015). Risk-Based Planning in Transportation Asset Management: Critical Pitfalls. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 141(2).

Schramm, P. (n.d.-a). ARC/FHWA Climate Resilience Peer Exchange.

Schramm, P. (n.d.-b). Climate Change and Health.

Schweikert, A. (2015). A Sustainability Framework to Prioritize Proactive Climate Change Adaptation Investments for Impacts on Road Infrastructure Using a Data-Driven Approach. University of Colorado.

Securing Control and Communications Systems in Transit Environments. (n.d.).

Security-Emergency Management and Infrastructure Protection-Related Projects in Development. (2019).

Serulle, N., Heaslip, K., Brady, B., Louisell, W. C., and Collura, J. (2011). Resiliency of Transportation Network of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: Case Study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2234, pp. 22–30. https://doi.org/10.3141/2234-03.

Shafieezadeh, A., and Ivey Burden, L. (2014). Scenario-Based Resilience Assessment Framework for Critical Infrastructure Systems: Case Study for Seismic Resilience of Seaports. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 132, pp. 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.07.021.

Shahbaz, M. S., Rasi, R. Z. R. M., Bin, M. F., and Rehman, F. (2017). What Is Supply Chain Risk Management? A Review. Advanced Science Letters, 23(9), pp. 9233–9238. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.10061.

Shakhovska, N. (2017). Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International.

Sharii, M. S., Shahabi, M., Abshar, E., Khorgami, M. H., and Poorzahedy, H. (2016). Population Capacity Threats to Urban Area Resiliency: Observations on Chaotic Transportation Network Behavior. Scientia Iranica A, 23(4), pp. 1675–1688.

Simba, S., Niemann, W., Kotzé, T., and Agigi, A. (2017). Supply Chain Risk Management Processes for Resilience: A Study of South African Grocery Manufacturers. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 11(0). https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v11i0.325.

Southworth, F., Hayes, J., McLeod, S., and Strauss-Wieder, A. (2014). NCFRP Report 30: Making U.S. Ports Resilient as Part of Extended Intermodal Supply Chains. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/23428.

Spiegler, V. L. M., Naim, M. M., and Wikner, J. (2012). A Control Engineering Approach to the Assessment of Supply Chain Resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 50(21), pp. 6162–6187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.710764.

Statewide Freight Plan. (2019).

Statewide Multimodal Freight Plan. (2017).

Stuckey Benfield, S., and Garcia, J. (2016). City of Atlanta Climate Action Plan Resilience Plan.

Sullivan, K., and Ahadi, K. (2014). Efficient Dredging Strategies for Improving Transportation Infrastructure Resilience. Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center, Tier 1 University Transportation Center, U.S. Department of Transportation. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31918.

Supply Chain Resilience Guide. (2019).

Supply Chain Security Strategy. (n.d.).

Ta, C., Goodchild, A. V., and Ivanov, B. (2010). Building Resilience into Freight Transportation Systems: Actions for State Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2168, pp. 129–135. https://doi.org/10.3141/2168-15.

Ta, C., Goodchild, A. V., and Pitera, K. (2009). Structuring a Definition of Resilience for the Freight Transportation System. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2097, pp. 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3141/2097-03.

Tamvakis, P., and Xenidis, Y. (2012). Resilience in Transportation Systems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, pp. 3441–3450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1308.

Tarei, P. K., Thakkar, J. J., and Nag, B. (2018). A Hybrid Approach for Quantifying Supply Chain Risk and Prioritizing the Risk Drivers: A Case of Indian Petroleum Supply Chain. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(3), pp. 533–569. Https://Doi.Org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2017-0218.

Technical Assistance, National Supply Chain Assessment Task Order. (n.d.).

Testa, A. C., Furtado, M. N., and Alipour, A. (2015). Resilience of Coastal Transportation Networks Faced with Extreme Climatic Events. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2532, pp. 29–36. https://doi.org/10.3141/2532-04.

Thekdi, S. A., and Santos, J. R. (2016). Supply Chain Vulnerability Analysis Using Scenario-Based Input-Output Modeling: Application to Port Operations. Risk Analysis, 36(5), pp. 1025–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12473.

Tonhauser, M., and Ristvej, J. (2019). Disruptive Acts in Cyberspace, Steps to Improve Cyber Resilience at National Level. Transportation Research Procedia, 40, pp. 1591–1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.220.

Tonn, G., Kesan, J. P., Zhang, L., and Czajkowski, J. (2019). Cyber Risk and Insurance for Transportation Infrastructure. Transport Policy, 79, pp. 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.04.019.

Toppen, A., Chambers, J., Ciccarelli, A., Gomez-Martin, L., Daywalt, C., and Berger, K. (2019). Transportation Management Center Information Technology Security. Final Report. FHWA-HOP-19-059.

Transportation Research Board. (2020). Consensus Study Report: Strengthening Post-Hurricane Supply Chain Resilience. Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25490.

Transportation Research E-Circular E-C226: Transportation Systems Resilience—Preparation, Recovery, and Adaptation. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. (2017).

Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, J., and Bell, M. (2015). Article Supply Chain Resilience: Definition, Review, and Theoretical Foundations for Further Study. Taylor & Francis, 53(18), pp. 5592–5623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934.

Twumasi-Boakye, R., Sobanjo, J. O., Inkoom, S. K., and Ozguven, E. E. (2018). Senior Community Resilience with a Focus on Critical Transportation Infrastructures: An Accessibility-Based Approach to Healthcare. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2672(12), pp. 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118793520.

Update of the Florida Transportation Plan. (2019).

Urena Serulle, N. (2010). Transportation Network Resiliency: A Fuzzy Systems Approach. Masters thesis. Utah State University.

U.S. Agency for International Development (n.d.). National Supply Chain Assessment (NSCA) Toolkit. https://www.ghsupplychain.org/key-initiatives/national-supply-chain-assessment-nsca-toolkit.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2019). Supply Chain Resilience Guide. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/supply-chain-resilience-guide.pdf.

U.S. DOT. (2011). Departmental Cybersecurity Policy. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/DOT-1351.37-Departmental-Cybersecurity-Policy.pdf.

U.S. EPA. (2016). Planning Framework for a Climate-Resilient Economy. Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/planning-framework-climate-resilient-economy-508.pdf.

Van Dyke, R., Singh, P., Bolen, B., Roberts, S., Foote, N., and Xu, R. (2017). Planning for Resilient Communities.

Van Wyk, F., Wang, Y., Khojandi, A., and Masoud, N. (2020). Real-Time Sensor Anomaly Detection and Identification in Automated Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21(3), pp. 1264–1276. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2019.2906038.

Wan, C., Yang, Z., Zhang, D., Yan, X., and Fan, S. (2018). Resilience in Transportation Systems: A Systematic Review and Future Directions. Transport Reviews, 34(4), pp. 479–498.

Wang, P., Krishnan, K., Twomey, J., and Yodo, N. (2018). Risk and Failure Resilience of Interdependent Transportation Systems.

Wang, J. Y. T. (2015). “Resilience Thinking” in Transport Planning. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 32, pp. 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2015.1014810.

Weilant, S., Strong, A., and Miller, B. M. (2019). Incorporating Resilience into Transportation Planning and Assessment. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/rr3038.

Weisbrod, G., and Fitzroy, S. (2011) In Chapter 16, Supply Chain Management—New Perspectives. Traffic Congestion Effects on Supply Chains: Accounting for Behavioral Elements in Planning and Economic Impact Models. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/18515.

Wieland, A., and Wallenburg, C. M. (2013). The Influence of Relational Competencies on Supply Chain Resilience: A Relational View. Emerald.com, 43(4), pp. 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2012-0243.

Wilburn, J. R., and Associates, Inc. (2017). Alabama Statewide Freight Plan.

Withanaarachchi, J., and Satunge, S. (2014). Decision Making on Transport Network Planning and the Impact on Community, Economy, and the Environment. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, pp. 882–891. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567114010144.

Wu, T., Huang, S., Blackhurst, J., Zhang, X., and Wang, S. (2013). Supply Chain Risk Management: An Agent-Based Simulation to Study the Impact of Retail Stockouts. Ieeexplore.Ieee.org, 60(4), pp. 676–686. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6193170/.

Wu, X. (2018). Introducing the Resilience into the State Transportation Network.

Yeh, A., and Ga, L. (n.d.). Surface Transportation Resiliency Planning in Hillsborough County, FL.

Zahiri, B., Suresh, N. C., and de Jong, J. (2020). Resilient Hazardous-Materials Network Design Under Uncertainty and Perishability. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106401.

Zhang, D., Yan, X., Zhang, J., Yang, Z., and Wang, J. (2016). Use of Fuzzy Rule-Based Evidential Reasoning Approach in the Navigational Risk Assessment of Inland Waterway Transportation Systems. Safety Science, 82, pp. 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.10.004.

Zhang, N., Alipour, A., and Coronel, L. (2018). Application of Novel Recovery Techniques to Enhance the Resilience of Transportation Networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2672(1), pp. 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118797510.

Zhang, X., Miller-Hooks, E., and Denny, K. (2015). Assessing the Role of Network Topology in Transportation Network Resilience. Journal of Transport Geography, 46, pp. 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.05.006.

Zhou, Y., Wang, J., and Yang, H. (2019). Resilience of Transportation Systems: Concepts and Comprehensive Review. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 20(12), pp. 4262–4276. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2018.2883766.

Zou, B., Choobchian, P., and Rozenberg, J. (2020). Cyber Resilience of Autonomous Mobility Systems Cyber Attacks and Resilience-Enhancing Strategies.

This page intentionally left blank.