Data-driven synthesis reveals progress and gaps in infrastructure resilience research across various disasters.
This study examines how research in the United States has addressed infrastructure resilience across different disaster contexts, situating the topic within broader discussions on climate-related risks and adaptation. Infrastructure resilience has gained increasing importance as communities face more frequent and severe natural hazards and as infrastructure systems become more complex and interconnected. A database of more than 7000 studies published over the past century by universities, research centers, and government agencies was compiled and organized, including supplemental works from regions such as Europe, Australia, Japan, Africa, and South America. The dataset provides a long-term perspective on the evolution of resilience-related research and reflects the scope of accessible literature indexed in major research repositories. Using systematic classification, each study was categorized by disaster type (i.e., floods, hurricanes, wildfires, heatwaves, and snowstorms) and by infrastructure system (i.e., transportation, water, energy, telecommunications, and buildings). A keyword-based relevance scoring method was applied to distinguish studies in which resilience is a central analytical focus from those in which it appears as a secondary or contextual concept. The results are presented through an interactive web-based platform that enables users to explore resilience research by state, year, disaster type, infrastructure category, and level of relevance. The analysis reveals a substantial increase in resilience-related publications in recent decades, with notable geographic and thematic concentrations. Transportation and water infrastructure dominates the literature, while energy systems, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure remain underrepresented. These findings highlight both progress and persistent gaps in infrastructure resilience research and support more integrated, system-oriented, and future-focused resilience planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goncalves et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: