https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.33.0617
Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 33:617–623, 2022 © 2022 The Author(s). Licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 licence

Published by the Czech Technical University in Prague

BREAKTHROUGH OF THE RESEMBLANCES AND
CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN RESILIENCE AND

SUSTAINABILITY IN CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURES

Oscar Javier Urbina∗, Elisabete Teixeira, Hélder Sousa, José Matos

University of Minho, ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, Guimars̃es, Portugal
∗ corresponding author: oscarj105@gmail.com

Abstract.
Sustainable construction has become a growing trend among researchers and stakeholders. Simul-

taneously, resilience and risk assessments for civil Infrastructures have flourished in terms of importance
among researchers, economic sectors, and society. Nevertheless, there is no abundant research that
correspond to both approaches, despite that, there are massive similarities and shared characteristics
between both investigation branches. Distinctively, this year has demonstrated that sustainable de-
velopment is directly obstructed by different extreme events that trigger risks and vulnerabilities in
civil Infrastructures. These extreme events require a deep and complex study to minimize the impacts
they may cause in society and economy, two main factors considered in the study of sustainability.
Therefore, when a risk and resilience assessments are conducted, it is already analyzed as a sizable
part of sustainability. Consequently, there exists a possibility to create a methodology that examines
and assesses four categories of civil infrastructure sustainability: Technical, environmental, social, and
economical. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the need of a comprehensive approach between
sustainability, risk, and resilience assessment, compiling and comparing the existing methodologies for
assessing the impacts on civil infrastructures, showing that both present resemblances and none can
be omitted, being necessary for the decision-making.

Keywords: Civil critical infrastructures, extreme events, resilience assessment, risk assessment, sus-
tainable construction.

1. Introduction
World population has increased dramatically in the
last decades, with a difference of 6 billion people be-
tween only one century. This exponential increment
of population results on an excessive use of primary
resources in order to fulfill their needs, being this one
of the explanations towards the climate change prob-
lem we are currently facing [1, 2]. As a result of this
worldwide problem, in the late 70s, reports began to
appear concluding that if the population growth and
its consumption of resources are not controlled, the
world would not withstand the pressure on its re-
sources, giving birth to the term of "Sustainable De-
velopment" [3]. Nowadays sustainability is a common
concept in research that has been the focus of mul-
tiple studies, these investigations usually determine
the development of humanity in the interconnection
of three dimensions, the economic dimension, which
is the most widespread over time, the environmen-
tal dimension, and the social dimension [3, 4]. Also,
it is clearer now that the sustainable development
is occasionally obstructed by new risks and vulner-
abilities, such as terrorist attacks or diseases, as we
are currently facing the new SARS-CoV-2 [5]. As
emphasized in the United Nations Agenda 21, there
are some risks, designated as systemic risks, that are
arising actively (e.g. diseases, terrorism, natural dis-

asters due to climate change), facing them in a never-
ending challenge loop [5].

Today, critical infrastructure systems face an in-
creased number of hazards, such as: natural (earth-
quakes, floods, fires), technological (operational fail-
ures in systems), and human (fires, cyber-attacks,
or terrorism), that can intervene in the functionality
of these systems. The malfunction of these systems
can cause a cascading effects through the community
that produce social, economic, and functional disrup-
tion [6, 7]. Therefore, there is the need to identify
the new upcoming risks that may affect infrastruc-
tures, so at the time needed, governments address
hazards within a comprehensive management and un-
derstanding of the complexity of civil infrastructures.
Risk management models and resilience assessments
are the best solution to assess and find solutions for
planning, mitigation, and recovery for civil infrastruc-
tures under extreme events, where the consequences
of damage and losses are quantified for decision mak-
ing [7]. In this context, risk and resilience analy-
sis play an important role, as it provides information
that help decision makers to develop risk mitigation
plans and strategies, taking into account that the eco-
nomic development of a country strongly depends on
its level of infrastructures [8]. In consequence, these
concepts should be brought into a comprehensive ap-
proach that leads towards a sustainable development

617

https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.33.0617
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.cvut.cz/en


O. J. Urbina, E. Teixeira, H. Sousa, J. Matos Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings

of infrastructures [5].
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the need of

a comprehensive approach between sustainability and
risk and resilience assessment, compiling and com-
paring the existing methodologies for assessing the
impacts on civil infrastructures, showing that both
present resemblances and none can be omitted, being
necessary for the decision-making. Thus, this paper
seeks to establish the theorical foundation for a fu-
ture approach that combines and evaluates the con-
cepts of resilience, risk, and sustainability of civil in-
frastructures simultaneously using quantitative and
qualitative methods. As this is of high importance
for stakeholders, authorities, and industries in the
decision making for civil infrastructures, under any
hazard and the impacts that it would incur in social,
economic, environmental and functionality terms.

This paper is mainly developed in 5 chapters. The
first chapter consists on a brief introduction, which
includes a general framing of the topics, the defini-
tion of the objectives of the work and a presentation
of the structure of the article. In the second chapter,
it is introduced the concept of sustainable develop-
ment, as it is necessary to understand the context
in which it emerged, as well as its historical evolu-
tion, then a short display of the most known meth-
ods at international level for sustainability in con-
struction are presented, showing their characteristics
and some examples of the indicator measures are in-
troduced. In the third chapter it is addressed the
beginning of risk and resilience analysis, recalling on
some of the worst recent events that impacted infras-
tructures and society, that at the time, pointed out
the necessity of this studies to be born, then a brief
explanation is given upon this topic. On the fourth
chapter is approached the main topic of this paper,
that is the convergence between sustainability and
risk and resilience concepts in civil infrastructures,
where is presented the current situation of research
within these two areas, through a brief state of the
art focused towards civil infrastructures, emphasizing
on the necessity to fill this research gap and stating
some key points that the creation of a methodology
that addresses sustainability, risk and resilience for
civil infrastructures must have. The last chapter are
the conclusions, where the authors summarize the key
points obtained from the research.

2. Sustainable Construction
2.1. History, definition, and application
Climate change has been increasing in recent years,
being the result of the existence and the multiple ac-
tivities conceived by Humanity. Among these activ-
ities, specifically, there is one of those that produce
the greatest impact, which is the construction indus-
try. This industry currently uses about 40% of the
fossil fuels, 30% of the raw materials and 25% of the
water consumed annually in the world. Additionally,

it consumes about 30% of electricity and generates
30% of greenhouse gas emissions [4], [9]. However,
this industry has the potential to generate large re-
ductions with small changes in the way buildings are
designed and used, which could achieve savings of up
to 30% in energy consumption, a 35% reduction in
CO2 emissions, and a reduction in water consump-
tion of up to 50% [3, 4, 9].

This brought the attention to the international
community to focus on the construction sector and
its impacts began to emerge in the early 1970’s when
the First United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development was held in Stockholm, giving rise
to the United Nations Environment Program, with
the aim to promote the appropriate use and sustain-
able development [3, 4]. Then, in 1988, in the report
of the World Commission on Environment and Devel-
opment named "Our Common Future", defined sus-
tainability as "the attempt to meet the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs". Thus, it was
only by the year 1992 that international principles
for sustainable development were established, dur-
ing the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro, where Agenda
21 was elaborated, a document that systematized a
plan of oriented actions creating the minimum nec-
essary conditions for new constructions, both for de-
veloped and undeveloped countries [3, 10]. This Rio
conference has been continued with the versions of
Rio+10 in 2002 in Johannesburg and Rio+20 in 2012
in Rio de Janeiro, to reaffirm the Rio-92 goals and to
include clean energy and corporate responsibility in
the debate and also to focus on the green economy,
being capable of generating jobs with low impact on
the environment and efficient use of natural resources
[3, 11]. After these world conferences, the need to de-
velop methods and tools to study the sustainable per-
formance of buildings emerged, because the countries
that were implementing projects with better environ-
mental performance had no ways to verify their im-
provements, obtaining situations where green build-
ings consumed more energy than conventional ones.
Accordingly, it was necessary to develop methodolo-
gies to standardize building sustainability in a global
way, allowing the analysis and comparison of various
solutions to further improve the environmental per-
formance of buildings [3].

2.2. Methodologies to assess
sustainability

Currently there are tools that are not legally required,
but they raise awareness and help to promote sus-
tainability in construction entities. Countries such as
United States, Canada, France, Japan, among oth-
ers have already implemented tools for assessing the
sustainability of buildings, as a support for project
design and at the same time assessing their post-
occupancy.

618



vol. 33/2022 Resilience and Sustainability in Civil Infrastructures

Some of the first certifications of the sustainability
level of buildings began to emerge through the use of
methods such as BREEAM in the United Kingdom,
HQE certification (Haute Qualité Enviromentale) in
France, LEED certification in the United States and
GBTool (Green Building Assessment Tool) in some
of the EU member states and adapted towards each
state’s necessities [3, 4][3]. Some of these methods are
briefly explained down below.

2.2.1. Leadership in energy and
environmental design (LEED) [3]

Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council in
1994, in the United States of America. In this
method, the environmental performance of the build-
ing is evaluated holistically, throughout its life cycle,
i.e., in the design, construction, operation and main-
tenance phases. This tool applies to various types of
buildings, such as residential, commercial, and school
buildings, among others. For a building to be eval-
uated it must meet a minimum required criterion, a
pre-selection with a series of requirements. After this
verification, the building becomes eligible, and the
stage of analysis and evaluation of its performance be-
gins. This is a points-based system, awarding points
for specific criteria in five different categories: Sus-
tainable Sites; Water Efficiency; Energy and Atmo-
sphere; Materials and Resources; and Indoor Envi-
ronmental Quality. These categories in total add up
to 100 points, but there are two additional categories
as a bonus, the Innovation in Design category, with 6
points, and the Regional Priority with 4 points. The
points of the evaluation can only be assigned if the
building complies with the requirements of the sys-
tem; in the end, with the sum of these points, a clas-
sification can be assigned to the building, among four
possible certifications, basic, silver, gold, and plat-
inum.

2.2.2. Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method-
BREEAM [3]

The BREEAM method was developed in the early
1990s in the UK by researchers. The assessment with
this tool considers the following sustainability cat-
egories: water, energy, materials, health and well-
being, management, transportation, waste, contam-
ination, and land use; each performance is verified
by comparing them with pre-established benchmarks,
thus obtaining the building’s assessment. BREEAM
can be used for virtually any type of building, such
as offices, industrial plants, residential buildings, and
hospitals. Thanks to the multiple existing versions
of this tool, each one specifically developed to suit
the building under assessment. In each of the cat-
egories mentioned above, requirements are defined,
giving credits to the building, which are added as
the building complies with them. On the other hand,
in each category, specific weights are fixed, indicating
their relevance, and depending on the type of building

being evaluated. In this way, the set of credits and
weights of the categories conform an environmental
performance index for the building, which can obtain
a value between zero and 100 for the Environmental
Performance Index (EPI). According to the obtained
EPI, six levels of certification are attributed, "Ex-
cellent", "Great", "Very Good", "Good", "Approved",
and "No classification", each one depending on the to-
tal points obtained in the environmental performance
index.

2.2.3. Sustainable building tool Portugal -
SBTool PT [3, 4, 11]

. This methodology follows four steps: (i) Quantifi-
cation of building performance at the level of each in-
dicator; (ii) Parameter normalization; (iii) Parameter
aggregation; (iv) Sustainability score calculation and
overall assessment. The overall rating of the building
depends on the weighting of the different criteria, con-
sidering benchmarking practices reference practices
that are set at the national level (Portuguese level).
This weighting is done by comparing the performance
of the building with national reference practices: the
best practice, which has a value of 1.0, and the con-
ventional practice, with a value of 0.0. The value of
this normalization is within a range between -0.2 and
1.2. Subsequently, with the performance of each indi-
cator and its corresponding weight, the performance
of the category to which it belongs is calculated. Fi-
nally, with the performances of each category and
their respective weights, the results for each dimen-
sion are calculated, thus obtaining in the end an over-
all sustainability level for the building chosen for the
case study.

3. Risk and resilience analysis in
critical infrastructures

The growing number of catastrophic events and their
implications, such as 9/11 in the United States, or
the terrorist events in Madrid on March 11, 2005,
have prompted Europe and other nations around the
world to take steps to prevent these events from lead-
ing to high consequences that can be reduced or pre-
vented. In June 2004, the European Council called
for a strategy to protect critical infrastructure, which
had a response on October 20, 2004, in a statement
in which the Commission described the actions be-
ing taken to protect critical infrastructure and pro-
posed additional measures to strengthen existing in-
struments and meet the mandates of the European
Council [12]. Later, on November 17, 2005, the Com-
mission adopted a Green Paper on a European Pro-
gramme for Critical Infrastructure Protection, stat-
ing that the main scope of the European Programme
for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) is the
need to increase the capability to protect Critical In-
frastructures (CI) in Europe and to help reduce vul-
nerabilities related to CI [13].

619



O. J. Urbina, E. Teixeira, H. Sousa, J. Matos Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings

The first step in protecting CI involves identify-
ing and assessing the factors that may negatively in-
fluence its operations, defining a systematic, analyt-
ical approach to prioritizing resilience measures for
CI. This analysis should include an assessment of the
impacts of CI disruption by pre-established criteria.
Several approaches are used in OECD countries [14].
In terms of criteria, the European Commission de-
fines a minimum set for the assessment of critical in-
frastructure, including public impacts, economic im-
pacts, environmental impacts, interdependence, po-
litical impacts, and psychological impacts. Identify-
ing weaknesses allows prioritizing where to focus re-
silience efforts in existing infrastructure systems: on
points of failure that would have the most severe con-
sequences. This prioritization can be a decisive vari-
able in decision making, such as which infrastructure
should be hardened or relocated, or which CI should
receive priority restoration after a disaster to ensure
rapid recovery [12, 14].

Infrastructures must be designed and built to serve
adequately over longer life terms without major de-
terioration or reaching collapse. With the current
technology of materials, analysis, design, and con-
struction, it should be possible to specify a bigger
design life in new infrastructure projects. This leads
towards a broader perspective which indicates that
risk and resilience assessments are part of the general
decision support to plan, to design and produce new
infrastructures that are economically efficient, reli-
able, safe, secure, and sustainable [15].

4. Integrated approach for civil
infrastructures

Recent literature has discussed the importance to go
beyond the sustainability assessment of single build-
ings and to enlarge the assessment scale to commu-
nities and cities to meet all the different aspects of
sustainability [9]. This chapter is divided in two main
parts, the first part, where are presented some of the
tools used to assess sustainability in infrastructures,
and the second part, present diverse studies that in-
tegrate risk or resilience assessments with at least
one dimension of sustainability’s assessment (environ-
mental, social, or economic).

4.1. Sustainability in Infrastructures
Sustainability assessment tools for civil infrastruc-
tures are less frequent rather than the existing tools
to evaluate buildings, however, some researchers have
already progressed in this topic. Following are
showed some of their studies.

• Pardo-Bosch et. Al. [16], presented the multicrite-
ria decision system MIVES. This decision model is
divided into 4 steps. i) identification of the prob-
lem; ii) development of the decision tree, a diagram
that organizes and structures the concepts that will
be evaluated; iii) defining the relative weight of

each of the aspects that are to be considered in
the decision tree using Analytical Hierarchical Pro-
cess; and iv) establishment for indicators of value
function that in each case reflects the appraisal of
the decision-maker [16]. It prioritizes with techni-
cal accuracy public infrastructure projects that one
administration must finance with only one budget
in a developed country, helping to minimize the
subjectivity in the entire decision-making process.

• Rosasco et. Al. [8], show a study under a pro-
gram named "Regional Strategic Intervention Pro-
gram" (P.R.I.S), which objective is to guarantee the
social protection of citizens that reside according
to the Italian law about the expropriation of pri-
vate real estate for the construction of public work
projects. Within the framework of this program,
the authors developed a mass appraisal estima-
tion model that quantifies the indemnities values
through a multi-parameter model of residential and
commercial units within the area affected by the
public work project. This multi-parameter estima-
tion model uses a survey evaluated on the real es-
tate units that are in the studied area; Seven main
features were selected, which are: 1. Dimension
(sqm); 2. age of building; 3. type of building; 4.
maintenance state; 5. floor level; 6. lift (or not); 7.
accessibility. This estimation model was applied in
a new infrastructure project located near the city
of Genoa, in Italy, the results show that the ac-
ceptance percentages of the indemnities estimated
present a high degree of satisfaction, although the
indemnities partially compensate all the inconve-
nience suffered. The authors conclude that these
economic indemnities contribute to the achieve-
ment of that social sustainability of the infrastruc-
tures, and it can guarantee reasonable transfer al-
ternatives for both residence and economic activi-
ties.

• Jones et. Al [17], considered the holistic nature of
water infrastructure development in terms of rural
areas in developing countries, through an outcome-
based assessment method using Life-Cycle Analy-
sis (LCA). This method uses the LCA framework
to supply a holistic set of sustainability indicators,
these indicators are grouped into three categories
including metrics for technical (performance), en-
vironment, and economic (market-based) aspects.
All the metrics are employed at community level to
indicate the current state of the system. Finally,
this method should provide the socio-economic im-
pacts generated. The authors applied the method
on a generic example of arsenic water-treatment in
Bangladesh.

4.2. Risk-resilience and sustainability in
civil infrastructures

The evaluation of resilience should not only consider
technical but also environmental, organizational, so-
cial and economic dimensions [9]. Despite this, there

620



vol. 33/2022 Resilience and Sustainability in Civil Infrastructures

is limited number of previous studies that integrate
them with critical infrastructure sustainability. Few
authors have worked onto developing a comprehen-
sive approach that unites sustainability and risk-
resilience analysis as it could provide synergies and
clearer results about the overall role and needs of civil
infrastructures.

• Markert et. Al. [15], presented a method for risk
and sustainability analysis of complex hydrogen in-
frastructures, this model is based on a high level
risk assessment, that are complemented with other
decision support tools such as GIS, LCA and Life
Cycle Cost (LCC). Providing a novel and compre-
hensive study as it enables the possibility to ob-
tain spatial analysis with the GIS system, for both,
the risk assessment approach, and the sustainabil-
ity approach, easing the identification of vulnerable
elements and high-risk zones, in addition to the en-
vironmental and economic aspects.

• Bocchini et. Al. [18], concluded that sustain-
ability and resilience have a great deal of simi-
larities and common features, as i.e. both inte-
grate structural analysis with social and economic
aspects, and both seek to enhance an infrastruc-
ture in terms of structural design, used materials,
maintenance, management strategies, and impacts
on society. Therefore, the authors proposed an ap-
proach established on a risk assessment, using the
concepts of probability of occurrence and risk, to
address resilience and sustainability at the same
time. Despite the differences between sustainabil-
ity and resilience targets, both converge on seeking
to perform a service level to society during and
after the occurrence of an extreme event and re-
cover to the optimal functionality at great pace.
For this, the proposed approach must be rigorous,
quantitative, and unified, being able to assess nu-
merous events and compare them. These events are
weighted using Eq. 1 to quantify their probability
of occurrence.

I =
!

e∈Er

PeIe +
!

e∈Es

PeIe (1)

Where I, is expected life-cycle impact of the in-
frastructure under analysis on the community (in
monetary terms), and are the domains of events
addressed by resilience and sustainability, respec-
tively; is the probability of occurrence of the event
e, and is the predicted impact on the community of
the event e, this result is nondimensional. Eq. 1 can
be used at the individual scale of an infrastructure
(e.g. a Bridge), or at a global scale.

• Mejia et. Al. [19], defined three performance mea-
sures for the long-term investment in energy and
transport infrastructures, which are: cost, sustain-
ability and resiliency. The authors defined sus-
tainability as the period where the infrastructure

system satisfies operational and environmental re-
quirements, and resilience as the cost from a pre-
contingency state of the infrastructure to a post-
contingency due to an occurrence of an extreme
event. In addition, the authors used four input
factors to quantify the resilience, cost, and sustain-
ability performance of the system: the system of
interest; the expected demand; projected events,
and the expected actions. This quantitative ap-
proach was demonstrated in a case study of an in-
tegrated energy and transportation system in the
United States.

• Marinella Giunta [20] proposed an integrated ap-
proach of resilience and sustainability to identify
the most efficient alternative of road infrastructure
rehabilitation after an extreme event based on life
cycle costs. The author addressed that the main
difficulty of this kind of approach is to do an evalua-
tion of the sustainability and resilience using quan-
titative indicators. To overcome this issue, she ar-
ticulated the approach in three main steps:

1. Identify the rehabilitation alternatives consider-
ing technical, economical, and time aspects.

2. Quantify the life cycle cost of each alternative.
For each alternative it is quantified the Life Cy-
cle Assessment (LCA) and the Life Cycle Cost
Analysis (LCCA).

3. Resilience assessment of the infrastructure for
each rehabilitation alternative, based on eco-
nomic aspects. It is done by the estimation of
the costs to restore functionality, and the time
needed for the reconstruction.

The result of this unified approach is a best solution
of rehabilitation based on the lowest sum of the costs
of sustainability and resilience.

4.3. Conclusions
This paper provided a broad analysis of the charac-
teristics of different tools, methodologies and appli-
cations for the identification and evaluation of risks,
resilience, and sustainability in civil infrastructures,
as an opening towards developing an integrated and
multidisciplinary methodology that allows to assess
simultaneously to serve adequately over longer life
terms without major contingencies.

It was observed in the literature from the most
relevant articles related to risk and resilience assess-
ment, that there is a possibility to create a multidis-
ciplinary methodology that includes sustainability as
it directly involves the economical and societal con-
sequences that any disruptive event might bring. In
this way, the aspects associated with sustainability
and resilience assessment are considered simultane-
ously and in a process of mutual interaction, opening
the possibility to be used for planning and develop-
ment of new cities, industries, and facilities as this
comprehensive analysis is important for their contin-
ues optimization. The development of this kind of

621



O. J. Urbina, E. Teixeira, H. Sousa, J. Matos Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings

research seems to push designers and administrators
in a similar direction, as it is a useful source of in-
formation for stakeholders at the local level, as the
assessment methods and tools may comprehensively
support sustainable choices that are also the basis for
the sustainable pursuit of civil infrastructures.

Risk, resilience, and sustainability are complemen-
tary characteristics for civil infrastructure. While
sustainability addresses the time-continuous impacts
on the economy, society, and environment that the
infrastructure certainly will distribute over its entire
service life, resilience, and risk focus on the big im-
pact that the service failure of the infrastructure can
have in the case of extreme events. The combination
of these approaches will provide a truly comprehen-
sive assessment of the quality of the infrastructure.

A possible big obstacle for the integrated assess-
ment of both sustainability and resilience is the com-
putation of truly quantitative metrics. The resilience
research is more advanced in terms of quantitative
analyses and indicators for civil infrastructures. In-
stead, sustainability assessment systems have pro-
moted a culture of qualitative assessment.

Finally, it is essential to continue investigating and
improving the way of collecting and processing these
methodologies. Hence, future studies are needed to
conduct to validate the usefulness and reliability of
a comprehensive methodology described to evaluate
the resilience and sustainability of civil infrastruc-
tures. Additionally, it is vital to realize applications
on case studies embracing different scenarios for each
characteristic.

Acknowledgements
This work was partly financed by FEDER funds through
the Competitivity Factors Operational Programme -
COMPETE and by national funds through FCT (Foun-
dation for Science and Technology) within the scope of
the project POCI-01-0247-FEDER-039555).

References
[1] J. A. Barbosa, L. Bragança. Contabilizando a

reabilitação na avaliação de sustentabilidade de
edifícios de serviços, p. 93-102, 2012.
http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/
1822/22411/1/artigo%20SREE_JAB.pdf.

[2] M. Šijanec Zavrl, M. Tanac Zeren. Sustainability of
Urban Infrastructures. Sustainability 2(9):2950-64,
2010. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092950.

[3] O. Urbina, L. Bragança, O. Sanchez. Medidas para a
otimização do nível de sustentabilidade de edifícios de
serviços - estudo de caso., University of Minho, 2018.
https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/
1822/71148/1/Dissertação%20Oscar%20Javier%20Urb
ina%20Leal.pdf.

[4] L. Bragança, R. Mateus, O. U. Leal. Utilización de la
Metodología SBTool-Pt para la Evaluación y
Optimización del Nivel de Sustentabilidad de un Edificio
de Servicios de Grandes Dimensiones, 2018. https:
//repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/
59315/1/10-URBENERE__CIRES_2018_paper_266.pdf.

[5] A. V. Gheorghe. Risks, vulnerability, sustainability
and governance: a new landscape for critical
infrastructures. International Journal of Critical
Infrastructures 1(1), 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcis.2004.003801.

[6] M. Ficco, M. Choras, R. Kozik. Simulation platform
for cyber-security and vulnerability analysis of critical
infrastructures. Journal of Computational Science
22:179-86, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2017.03.025.

[7] C. S. Ongkowijoyo, H. Doloi, A. T. Gurmu. Hybrid
risk analysis model for analyzing the urban
infrastructure risk. International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction 48, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101600.

[8] P. Rosasco, L. Sdino. Infrastructures and
Sustainability: An Estimation Model for a New
Highway Near Genoa. Sustainability 12(12), 2020.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125051.

[9] U. Berardi. Sustainability assessments of buildings,
communities, and cities, in Assessing and Measuring
Environmental Impact and Sustainability, Chapter
15m Toronto, Canada: Elsevier Inc., p. 497-545, 2015.

[10] A. M. S. Calixto. Métodos de Avaliação da
Sustentabilidade na Construção - Análise comparative
e aplicação a caso de estudo, Universidade de Coimbra,
2016. https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/
18857/1/Antonio-Miguel-Saial-Calixto.pdf.

[11] R. F. M. da S. Mateus, Avaliação da
sustentabilidade da Construção. Propostas para o
Desenvolvimento de edifícios mais sustentáveis, 2009.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=
s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjPqKPKwfL2AhWFHuwKH
cQ6AyYQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Frepositori
um.sdum.uminho.pt%2Fbitstream%2F1822%2F9886%2F
1%2FTese%2520Doutoramento_Ricardo%2520Mateus_
2009.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2k47H20u-DtZn9ruO0mle9.

[12] N. J. Mansfield. European Directives. Human
Response to Vibration, CRC Press, p. 244, 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b12481.

[13] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2013 -
The Physical Science Basis, p. 1-30, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

[14] OECD, Good Governance for Critical Infrastructure
Resilience, OECD Revie. Paris: OECD Publishing,
2019.

[15] F. Markert, A. Marangon, M. Carcassi, et al. Risk
and sustainability analysis of complex hydrogen
infrastructures. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 42(11):7698-706, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.058.

[16] F. Pardo-Bosch, A. Aguado. Sustainability as the
key to prioritize investments in public infrastructures.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 60:40-51,
2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.007.

[17] S. A. Jones, C. Silva. A practical method to
evaluate the sustainability of rural water and
sanitation infrastructure systems in developing
countries. Desalination 248(1-3):500-9, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.05.094.

622

http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/22411/1/artigo%20SREE_JAB.pdf
https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092950
https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/59315/1/10-URBENERE__CIRES_2018_paper_266.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcis.2004.003801
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2017.03.025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101600
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125051
https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/18857/1/Antonio-Miguel-Saial-Calixto.pdf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjPqKPKwfL2AhWFHuwKHcQ6AyYQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Frepositorium.sdum.uminho.pt%2Fbitstream%2F1822%2F9886%2F1%2FTese%2520Doutoramento_Ricardo%2520Mateus_2009.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2k47H20u-DtZn9ruO0mle9
https://doi.org/10.1201/b12481
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.058
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.05.094


vol. 33/2022 Resilience and Sustainability in Civil Infrastructures

[18] P. Bocchini, D. M. Frangopol, T. Ummenhofer, et
al. Resilience and Sustainability of Civil Infrastructure:
Toward a Unified Approach. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems 20(2), 2014. https:
//doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000177.

[19] D. Mejia-Giraldo, J. Villarreal-Marimon, Y. Gu, et
al. Sustainability and Resiliency Measures for
Long-Term Investment Planning in Integrated Energy
and Transportation Infrastructures. Journal of Energy
Engineering 138(2):87-94, 2012. https:
//doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ey.1943-7897.0000067.

[20] M. Giunta. Sustainability and Resilience in the
Rehabilitation of Road Infrastructures after an
Extreme Event: An Integrated Approach. The Baltic
Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 12(3):154-60,
2017. https://doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2017.18.

623

https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000177
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ey.1943-7897.0000067
https://doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2017.18