Centralization and decentralization to enhance infrastructure resilience
By: Alysha Helmrich
Academics aren’t immune to miscommunication. Jargon does not necessarily span disciplines or geography. Buzzwords become established without substantial definitions, making potentially groundbreaking ideas elusive. The concept of resilience tends to fall into this latter category. Within infrastructure, resilience has been largely accepted as the ability to rebound from known disturbances, but there is growing momentum to also design for unknown disturbances through adaptation and transformation. To design resilient infrastructure, we must understand the tools infrastructure managers have available within their toolbox, and one of the tools frequently invoked is decentralization.
The concepts of decentralization and centralization (further referred to as de/centralization) are polysemous, meaning they have numerous definitions. They may refer to the configuration of infrastructure networks — the physical infrastructure that provides goods and services such as water distribution pipelines or power substations — or infrastructure governance — the rules, regulations, and norms that manage infrastructure systems. Within network configurations, de/centralization across power, water, and transportation infrastructure sectors is oftentimes characterized by proximity to resources, capacity of distribution, volume of product, and number of connections within the system. If a decentralized network exists where the producers and consumers are interconnected and working toward a common objective, it becomes a distributed system; this is becoming more feasible with emerging technologies. For instance, power consumers can opt-in to energy saver programs with their utility provider, where smart thermostats will automatically adjust the indoor temperature to reduce stress on the system. In terms of governance, the concepts of de/centralization are characterized by the number of actors with decision-making power. This power may be distributed horizontally across the organization to the core operators, or vertically toward a leadership team.
Many infrastructure systems have been designed as centralized-centralized network-governance systems, taking advantage of economies of scale. This paired configuration has operated well during periods of relative stability, allowing organizations to efficiently meet demand with minimal resources. However, the world today is increasingly less stable — consider climate change, emerging technologies, or COVID-19. Decentralization of infrastructure systems has been frequently called upon in resilience literature to increase adaptive capacity with features including network redundancy and modularity. However, a combination of de/centralization across network and governance domains is necessary to achieve resilience and, in particular, increase the ability to navigate between periods of stability and instability. A dynamic, multi-dimensional framing of de/centralization through a coupled network-governance perspective with information as a mediator (Figure 1) could help infrastructure managers identify and assess tradeoffs of various configurations.
Recognizing de/centralization as dynamic, that infrastructure managers may need to shift between the configurations, helps approach instability of the world. Emerging technologies are playing a progressively important role in infrastructure, altering the way our systems interact and share information within and between sectors. While this increases complexity, it also provides opportunities for more distributed networks by increasing connections and providing near real-time information, achieving a level of adaptive capacity that was not previously possible. For instance, navigation services have evolved to integrate wireless and GPS data to inform drivers of traffic jams, road construction, hazards, etc. and quickly provide alternative routings. This allows individual drivers to act within collective knowledge and better utilize the network. By empowering more people with information and decision-making power, infrastructure systems can more readily respond to disturbances.
To further understand how a dynamic, multi-dimensional framing of de/centralization helps address infrastructure resilience, the configurations were assessed against resilience principles to identify circumstances where each may contribute toward resilience (Figure 2). Stepping through a single network-governance scenario, a centralized governance configuration may be preferred when coordinating large-scale initiatives (e.g., long-term climate change), while decentralized networks help address localized needs and encourage experimentation. Notably, infrastructure managers will need to be mindful of this dichotomy as an increasingly decentralized network may become unwieldy or an increasingly centralized governance may become obdurate — again, emphasizing the need for flexibility in network and governance systems. Infrastructure sectors — such as power, water, and transportation — have vastly different objectives and priorities which then require tailored solutions. Reassessing how infrastructure managers perceive de/centralization as dynamic and multi-dimensional across network and governance domains creates more actionable pathways forward for resilient infrastructure.
This article summarizes the concepts and work in the publication: Helmrich, A., Markolf, S., Li, R., Carvalhaes, T., Kim, Y., Bondank, E., Natarajan, M., Ahmad, N., and Chester, M. 2021. Centralization and Decentralization for Resilient Infrastructure and Complexity. Environmental Research: Infrastructure & Sustainability. DOI: 10.1088/2634–4505/ac0a4f
