Using Biomimicry to Support Resilient Infrastructure Design

Abstract

Infrastructure must be resilient to both known and unknown disturbances. In the past, resilient infrastructure design efforts have tended to focus on principles of robustness and recovery against projected failures. This framing has developed independently from resilience principles in biological and ecological systems. As such, there are open questions as to whether the approaches of natural systems that lead to adaptation and transformation are relevant to engineered systems. To improve engineered system resilience, infrastructure managers may benefit from considering and applying a set of "Life's Principles"-design principles and patterns drawn from the field of biomimicry. Nature has long withstood disturbances within and beyond previous experience. Infrastructure resilience theory and practice are assessed against Life's Principles identifying alignments, contradictions, contentions, and gaps. Resilient infrastructure theory, which emphasizes a need for flexible and agile infrastructure, aligns well with Life's Principles, addressing each principle and most sub-principles (excluding "breakdown products into benign components" and "do chemistry in water"). Meanwhile, resilient infrastructure practice only occasionally aligns with Life's Principles and contradicts five out of six principles. As resilience theory advances, Life's Principles offer support in broadening how infrastructure managers approach resilience, and by using biomimicry, infrastructure managers can be better equipped to deploy resilience for complexity and uncertainty. Plain Language Summary In today's rapidly evolving climate, and amid unprecedented technological disruptions, engineers and designers seek infrastructure solutions that are resilient to both known and unknown future conditions. This paper uses biomimicry to provide examples and guidance for resilient infrastructure systems, spanning theory and practice. We evaluate opportunities for improving design, prompted through consideration of Life's Principles-six principles that are associated with the emergence of resilience in natural systems. We conclude that resilient infrastructure theory generally accords with Life's Principles (aligning with all but two unaddressed sub-principles). However, resilient infrastructure practice only occasionally aligns with Life's Principles, and it contradicts five out of six Life's Principles with the sixth ("use life friendly chemistry") being unaddressed. We recommend several pragmatic opportunities for infrastructure managers to improve infrastructure resilience going forward through incorporating Life's Principles within the design process.

Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on biomimetics, biomimicry, bionics, and bio-inspired concepts in civil engineering using the Scopus database

“…The resilient infrastructure theory generally aligns with Life's Principles (aligning with all but two unaddressed sub-principles). However, resilient infrastructure practice only occasionally aligns with Life's Principles and contradicts five out of six Life's Principles, with the sixth ('use life-friendly chemistry') being unaddressed [42].…”

Post-Disaster Infrastructure Delivery for Resilience

“…The field of infrastructure resilience is evolving in response to the complexity and uncertainty associated with emerging challenges such as climate change, which are highlighting the limitations of traditional resilience approaches [25]. Where traditional practice has focused largely on increasing robustness and rigidity-building infrastructure back "bigger, wider, stronger" after disturbance-more recent resilience theory is focusing on attributes of adaptability, flexibility and agility [6,18,25]. This approach seeks to design and construct infrastructure that can not only withstand projected disturbances, but that is able to adapt and adjust in the face of unexpected disruption [17].…”

“…In recent work by the authors, these emerging resilience attributes have been aligned to principles of resilience in natural environments, with a proposed convergence of "engineering resilience" theories with "socio-ecological resilience" theories-approaches that have traditionally been almost diametrically opposed [6,25]. Where engineering resilience has prioritized robustness, rigidity and stability, socio-ecological resilience has demonstrated flexibility, change and multi-functionality.…”

Biomimicry as a Sustainable Design Methodology—Introducing the ‘Biomimicry for Sustainability’ Framework

“…McDonough and Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle design approach reflects a similar orientation, maintaining that the laws of nature are the bedrock of good design [ 13 ]. In the literature, biomimicry is frequently characterised by its promise to achieve sustainable designs [ 2 , 3 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] (infrastructure design see [ 18 ], architectural and urban design see [ 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]), to reconnect humans with nature [ 1 , 4 , 7 ], to regenerate ecosystems [ 22 ], and to fundamentally transform the way we think by moving beyond anthropocentric narratives of human domination over non-human life [ 5 , 23 , 24 ].…”

“…In practice, designers translate this steady state in terms of harm reduction and damage limitation, thereby assuming an inherently harmful characterisation of human activity that must be minimised via optimal designs. However, this characteristic promise of sustainable designs is frequently contested in the literature, since biomimetic designs do not always lead to more sustainable outcomes [ 7 , 14 , 18 , 22 , 25 ], with the very notion of sustainability itself—a contested concept [ 26 , 27 ].…”