Capturing practitioner perspectives on infrastructure resilience using Q-methodology

In many disciplines, the resilience concept has applied to managing perturbations, challenges, or shocks in the system and designing an adaptive system. In particular, resilient infrastructure systems have been recognized as an alternative to traditional infrastructure, in which the systems are managed to be more reliable against unforeseen and unknown threats in urban areas. Perhaps owing to the malleable and multidisciplinary nature in the concept of resilience, there is no clear-cut standard that measures and characterizes infrastructure resilience nor how to implement the concept in practice for developing urban infrastructure systems. As a result, unavoidable subjective interpretation of the concept by practitioners and decision-makers occurs in the real world. We demonstrate the subjective perspectives on infrastructure resilience by asking practitioners working in governmental institutions within the metropolitan Phoenix area based on their interpretations of resilience, using Q-methodology. We asked practitioners to prioritize 19 key strategies for infrastructure resilience found in literature in three different decision contexts and recognized six discourses by analyzing the shared or discrete views of the practitioners. We conclude that, from the diverse perspectives on infrastructure resilience observed in this study, practitioners' interpretation of resilience adds value to theoretical resilience concepts found in the literature by revealing why and how different resilience strategies are preferred and applied in practice.

Automated summary

The concept of resilience is widely applied in managing disturbances in systems, but lacks a clear standard for measurement and implementation, leading to subjective interpretations by practitioners in practice. Diverse perspectives on infrastructure resilience highlight how different strategies are preferred and applied in real-world situations.