Global threats such as climate change, population growth, and rapid urbanization pose a huge future challenge to water management, and, to ensure the ongoing reliability, resilience and sustainability of service provision, a paradigm shift is required. This paper presents an overarching framework that supports the development of strategies for reliable provision of services while explicitly addressing the need for greater resilience to emerging threats, leading to more sustainable solutions. The framework logically relates global threats, the water system (in its broadest sense), impacts on system performance, and social, economic, and environmental consequences. It identifies multiple opportunities for intervention, illustrating how mitigation, adaptation, coping, and learning each address different elements of the framework. This provides greater clarity to decision makers and will enable better informed choices to be made. The framework facilitates four types of analysis and evaluation to support the development of reliable, resilient, and sustainable solutions: “top‐down,” “bottom‐up,” “middle based,” and “circular” and provides a clear, visual representation of how/when each may be used. In particular, the potential benefits of a middle‐based analysis, which focuses on system failure modes and their impacts and enables the effects of unknown threats to be accounted for, are highlighted. The disparate themes of reliability, resilience and sustainability are also logically integrated and their relationships explored in terms of properties and performance. Although these latter two terms are often conflated in resilience and sustainability metrics, the argument is made in this work that the performance of a reliable, resilient, or sustainable system must be distinguished from the properties that enable this performance to be achieved.

Evaluating and enhancing resilience in water infrastructure is a crucial step towards more sustainable urban water management. As a prerequisite to enhancing resilience, a detailed understanding is required of the inherent resilience of the underlying system. Differing from traditional risk analysis, here we propose a global resilience analysis (GRA) approach that shifts the objective from analysing multiple and unknown threats to analysing the more identifiable and measurable system responses to extreme conditions, i.e. potential failure modes. GRA aims to evaluate a system's resilience to a possible failure mode regardless of the causal threat(s) (known or unknown, external or internal). The method is applied to test the resilience of four water distribution systems (WDSs) with various features to three typical failure modes (pipe failure, excess demand, and substance intrusion). The study reveals GRA provides an overview of a water system's resilience to various failure modes. For each failure mode, it identifies the range of corresponding failure impacts and reveals extreme scenarios (e.g. the complete loss of water supply with only 5% pipe failure, or still meeting 80% of demand despite over 70% of pipes failing). GRA also reveals that increased resilience to one failure mode may decrease resilience to another and increasing system capacity may delay the system's recovery in some situations. It is also shown that selecting an appropriate level of detail for hydraulic models is of great importance in resilience analysis. The method can be used as a comprehensive diagnostic framework to evaluate a range of interventions for improving system resilience in future studies.

Resilience has been increasingly pursued in the management of water distribution systems (WDSs) such that a system can adapt to and rapidly recover from potential failures in face of a deep uncertain and unpredictable future. Topology has been assumed to have a great impact on resilience of WDSs, and is the basis of many studies on assessing and building resilience. However, this fundamental assumption has not been justified and requires investigation. To address this, a novel framework for mapping between resilience performance and network topological attributes is proposed. It is applied to WDSs here but can be adaptable to other network systems. In the framework, resilience is comprehensively assessed using stress-strain tests which measure system performance on six metrics corresponding to system resistance, absorption and restoration capacities. Six key topological attributes of WDSs (connectivity, efficiency, centrality, diversity, robustness and modularity) are studied by mathematical abstraction of WDSs as graphs and measured by eight statistical metrics in graph theory. The interplay between resilience and topological attributes is revealed by the correlations between their corresponding metrics, based on 85 WDSs with different sizes and topological features. Further, network variants from a single WDS are generated to uncover the value of topological attribute metrics in guiding the extension/rehabilitation design of WDSs towards resilience. Results show that only certain aspects of resilience performance, i.e. spatial and temporal scales of failure impacts, are strongly influenced by some (not all) topological attributes, i.e. network connectivity, efficiency, modularity and centrality. Metrics for describing the topological attributes of WDSs need to be carefully selected; for example, clustering coefficient is found to be weakly correlated with resilience performance compared to other metrics of network connectivity (due to the grid-like structures of WDSs). Topological attribute metrics alone are not sufficient to guide the design of resilient WDSs and key details such as the location of water sources also need to be considered.

Reliability, risk and resilience are strongly related concepts and have been widely utilised in the context of water infrastructure performance analysis. However, there are many ways in which each measure can be formulated (depending on the reliability of what, risk to what from what, and resilience of what to what) and the relationships will differ depending on the formulations used. This research has developed a framework to explore the ways in which reliability, risk and resilience may be formulated, identifying possible components and knowledge required for calculation of each and formalising the conceptual relationships between specified and general resilience. This utilises the Safe & SuRe framework, which shows how threats to a water system can result in consequences for society, the economy and the environment, to enable the formulations to be derived in a logical manner and to ensure consistency in any comparisons. The framework is used to investigate the relationship between levels of reliability, risk and resilience provided by multiple operational control and design strategies for an urban wastewater system case study. The results highlight that, although reliability, risk and resilience values may exhibit correlations, designing for just one is insufficient: reliability, risk and resilience are complementary rather than interchangeable measures and one cannot be used as a substitute for another. Furthermore, it is shown that commonly used formulations address only a small fraction of the possibilities and a more comprehensive assessment of a system's response to threats is necessary to provide a comprehensive understanding of risk and resilience.

Effective management of stormwater systems is necessary for protection of both the built and natural environments. However, stormwater management is facing multiple, growing challenges, including climate change, ageing infrastructure, population growth, urbanisation, environmental concerns, regulatory and institutional changes and public awareness. While the potential of 'smart', internet-of-things enabled stormwater management systems to address these challenges is increasingly being recognised, with considerable evidence in literature for the benefits of more data-driven approaches, implementation to date remains low. This paper, therefore, provides a comprehensive review of the potential barriers to adoption of smarter stormwater management practices that require addressing, and provides a roadmap for real world application. Barriers related to all elements of stormwater management, from the asset sensing to the data analytics and online optimisation, are identified. Technical challenges discussed include the availability and reliability of technologies, technological and physical limitations, decision making, uncertainty and security. Technical barriers are rapidly reducing and there is increasing evidence in the academic literature of the efficacy of smart technologies. However, socio-economic barriers remain a significant challenge, and issues such as trust and lack of confidence, resistance to change, expense, and lack of knowledge and guidance are reviewed. A 'smart stormwater management wheel' that provides a flexible and iterative approach for implementing smart functionality is also presented. Whilst acting as a roadmap, this aims to facilitate a structured methodology for overcoming barriers and benchmarking progress, and may be used to explore trade-offs and relationships between differing levels of implementation for each of the constituent technologies in a smart stormwater system.

Sustainability and resilience are both key considerations in the design and operation of wastewater systems. However, there is currently a lack of understanding of the relationship between these two goals and of the effects of increasing resilience on sustainability. This paper, therefore, presents a framework for analysis of the effects of resilience-enhancing interventions on sustainability, and applies this to an urban wastewater system. Given that sustainability addresses the long term, the framework includes a novel sustainability assessment approach which captures a continuum of potential future conditions and enables identification of tipping points where applicable. This method allows a wide range of potential futures to be captured whilst removing the need to develop scenarios or future projections. While it may be possible to develop interventions that are beneficial in terms of their effects on both resilience and sustainability, the results obtained from the case study demonstrate that implementing measures designed to increase resilience of an integrated urban wastewater system does not guarantee a universal improvement in sustainability. Therefore, when proposing measures to increase resilience, the potential effects on sustainability should be considered also. It is also shown that the extent of any negative effects on system sustainability can vary significantly depending on future conditions, with the case study intervention (increasing pump capacity) achieving the highest degree of sustainability if rainfall depths or imperviousness in the catchments reduce. However, trade-offs between sustainability indicators are present irrespective of future conditions. Furthermore, while an intervention that enhances resilience may be considered sustainable with respect to specific indicators under current conditions, tipping points exist and it will cease to be sustainable if future threat magnitudes exceed these.