3.2.1 Definitions of Resilience

According to the Definitions of Community Resilience: An Analysis by Community and Regional Resilience Institute (2013), it verifies that “resilience” is a term that was originally derived from the Latin “resalire” and means “to spring back.” It has been becoming a popular term in many fields of study and discipline and is considered one of the most important aspects in the context of achieving sustainable development in the last fifteen years (Folke 2006; Robert et al. 2005; Walker et al. 2004; Westrum 2006). The term resilience was initially introduced and formally used by an ecologist in the 1970s and a psychologist in the 1980s to develop somewhat distinct phenomena (Community and Regional Resilience Institute 2013; Rockefeller Foundation 2014). In an ecological community, the term was applied to describe the capability of an ecosystem to maintain and recover its functionality from the disruption or disturbance of catastrophic events (Folke et al. 2010; Gunderson 2000; Holling 1973). For a psychological society, the term was used to identify a group of test subjects with consistent behaviors in adversity or distress situations (Folke 2006). Even though the conceptualization of resilience has noticeably gained widespread attention from various sectors, including government, academia, and industry, and seriously applies to many areas of past, current, and possible future research and projects, unfortunately, there is no agreement or approval on a universally accepted definition that is used across all fields of study (Vasuthanasub 2019). For this reason, subject reviews present the diversity of developed definitions based on a core concept of resilience.

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the term resilience began being earnestly adopted by the government in developed countries to re-examine and re-evaluate their national security, especially in the United States, and also systematically employed by the engineering community to design the protection plans and security frameworks for CI systems. Since then, the core concept has been mostly related to the ability to absorb, recover from, and adapt to hazards (Community and Regional Resilience Institute 2013). Nowadays, resilience has numerous definitions based on its applicability and suitability in the different domains of research communities. Table 3.1 provides a sample of widely recognized definitions of resilience (Community and Regional Resilience Institute 2013).

The above table is meant to highlight the core of the concept of resilience: How the community should respond to an adverse event. The debate for the definition is left to others. However, we suggest that the spirit of the definition should follow the core concept’s themes and the appropriate context of the discussion/research. Moreover, the Community and Regional Resilience Institute (2013) research suggest that resilience can be metaphorical, as in “resistibility and adaptability.” Many ontological definitions begin with “The ability” or “The capability” of entities, organizations, or societies and then reflect the idea of “resistance vs. adaptation” to cope with shocks and stresses (Walker et al. 2004). That is to say, a system resists the threat to avoid change, and its resilience is determined by how much difficulty it can withstand and endure without collapsing. In contrast, a system can adapt to great danger by altering its functionality or spending resources in preservative ways (Anderies et al. 2004).

Another way to classify resilience is through the notion of “predictability.” Because some of the developed definitions partially borrow from different fields of a research community, therefore, the definitions in this environment often can be referred to as a prediction on how long and how well a system will be able to regain its intended functions compared to the others (Holling 1996). While this classification may be useful (and appropriate) for making predictions, it lends resilience to an issue that can only be applicable after an occurrence of an event (Butler et al. 2007).

Resilience can also be viewed in the context of “trajectory.” As has been noted, since ecologists firstly utilized the terminology, most of the derived definitions in an ecological domain are typically focused on whether or not a system evolves in difficult circumstances and do not try to evaluate whether the change is an innovation or deterioration (Folke et al. 2010). This definition offers a more straightforward view of resilience: If the system can survive stressful situations, it is resilient; the system is not resilient if it does not survive (Vasuthanasub 2019).

All in all, it seems difficult to choose one as the best from the above, exemplified, definitions. While some depict resilience as an emergent property that appears only in the wake of a crisis (Butler et al. 2007), others view resilience as a process of dealing with adversity (Community and Regional Resilience Institute 2013). Therefore, since each perspective offers relevant insights, the selection of the definition is less relevant than the context of the application of the definition. In the context of CI systems, suffice to say resilience is the capability of a system – systems as a whole – to withstand, absorb, recover from, or adapt to a change in environment or conditions (Moteff 2012).

3.2.2 Norfolk: A Resilient City?

In 2014 the Rockefeller Foundation started the 100 Resilient Cities (i.e. 100RC) project. At that time, many cities, including Bangkok, Barcelona, Glasgow, Lisbon, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montreal, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sydney, and San Francisco, were selected to join the program. The foundation also selected the City of Norfolk (Virginia, United States) as among the first group of members of 100RC. 100RC is committed to supporting cities all over the globe to become more resilient under the challenging situations of physical sustainability, social complexity, and economic difficulty (City of Norfolk 2015). Physical sustainability, social complexity, and economic difficulty are key concerns for the twenty-first century, which need addressing by direct partnerships and close collaborations between member cities to understand resilience challenges and seek viable solutions. A program promotes the adoption and incorporation given resilience that includes the shocks caused by natural disasters and the stresses resulting from global situations or human errors. The vision of 100RC is not just helping individual member cities to strive for resilient development but it also aims to facilitate the global creative practices of urban resilience planning among governments, private organizations, non-profit associations, and citizen groups (City of Norfolk 2015).

Norfolk, Virginia, was established in August 1682 based on the British Act of 1680. The Elizabeth River surrounded the lower part of the county on the east, west, and south. For more than 300 years, this historic city on water has been a key part of American history, military, commerce, and innovation (City of Norfolk 2015). Nowadays, Norfolk is the home of Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval base in the world, and Port of Virginia’s Norfolk International Terminals, one of the essential economic assets on the East Coast of the United States (Jeffers et al. 2016). It acts as an international city that drives global trading activities and the main hub of the Hampton Roads region that links national logistic nodes. According to these notable privileges, water access is the greatest advantage of Norfolk. The shoreline and waterways are always and will be the most critical assets of a city, as they render the opportunities and additionalities to strengthen a foundation of transportation infrastructure. However, locating next to the water also presents a city with a huge drawback. Norfolk has experienced several floods throughout its history, but the frequency and severity of occurrences have steadily increased in recent decades. In recent times, the city was forced to look into several sustainable solutions due to accelerating water risks and hazards, including:

• Sea level rise: With the subsidence of local lands and coastal areas around Norfolk’s coastline, the city is now facing the highest relative sea level rise rate on the East Coast (Jeffers et al. 2016). While the average global sea level rise has been between 5–8 inches over the last century, the sea level at Norfolk has risen over 14 inches since 1930 (City of Norfolk 2015).
• Storm incidences: Regarding statistical data on water level elevations of major storms at Sewells Point tide gauge that have affected Norfolk since 1933, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), six out of the eleven storms occurred during the last twelve years (City of Norfolk 2015). As a matter of fact, the percentage of tidal flooding areas around the city has increased by 3.25 times since 1960, and the sea level at the Norfolk location is projected to rise between 1.5–7.5 feet in the next 85–100 years (City of Norfolk 2015; Jeffers et al. 2016). Therefore, in order to help Norfolk withstand this unavoidable circumstance, the direction is clear that the city will definitely need to plan ahead or even do something better for the near future.
• Flood risk: While more frequent and more intense storms, as well as repeatedly routine flooding, keep threatening Norfolk’s residents, some of the city’s most commercially and industrially at-risk zones are openly vulnerable to floods and storms (City of Norfolk 2015).

At this juncture, we can make three points: First, risks of geographic conditions around the city continue to shift. The city faces tough times now, and yet it must prepare for the future. Moreover, the city’s economy will continue to rely on access to the waters and thus must adapt to the changing environment in practical ways. Second, to build a resilient city (as well as forming solid communities and societies), several stakeholders – city leaders, the private sector, neighbor groups, and residents – must collaborate to develop solutions that lead to the flourishing of business and living quality. Finally, this resilience involves infrastructure, people, and governance mechanisms.

3.2.3 Qualities of Resilient Systems

In the context of CI systems, resilience becomes conceptually pertinent when either an extensive range of sudden shocks and chronic stresses or the collapses of physical and social systems threaten national security. Considering this experience, the Rockefeller Foundation (2014) clarifies that resilience has filled the gap between disaster risk reduction and natural hazards adaptation by moving away from traditional disaster risk management, usually recognized in conventional risk assessments related to specific events. In other words: “Instead of accepting the possibility that a wide range of threatening incidents – both tensions and collapses – may occur but are not necessarily predictable. Resilience focuses on enhancing the performance of a system in the face of multiple hazards, rather than preventing or mitigating the loss of assets due to specific events” (Rockefeller Foundation 2014). Nevertheless, one conceptual limitation of this evidence is that resilience does not account for the power dynamics integrated with how CI systems function and cope with disruptions and disturbances.

Assigning the qualities listed below to infrastructure systems can enhance the overall performance of resilience of CI systems. In this manner, extensive research and studies have indicated that there are at least seven distinctive qualities that truly resilient systems should demonstrate (Vasuthanasub 2019):

• Flexibility – This characteristic refers to the ability or capability of systems to react, adjust, evolve, and adapt by using allocated alternative strategies corresponding to the needs of changing circumstances or sudden crises (Rockefeller Foundation 2014). It is directly related to the decentralized and modular approaches to infrastructure management. Rockefeller Foundation (2015) suggested that the successful development of flexible systems can be achieved through introducing new knowledge and innovative technologies, as well as the additional combination of local experiences and management in new ways.
• Inclusion – A inclusion strategy underlines completeness of communication, including comprehensive consultation, commitment, and especially the engagement of all decision-makers and stakeholders. Addressing and monitoring the potential risks, hazards, and events related to one sector or set of CI systems in isolation from the others is an obstruction to reaching the core concept of resilience (Foundation 2015; Rockefeller Foundation 2014). Hence, an inclusive approach is needed to create a sense of shared ownership or joint vision and produce effective leadership or attentive governance on systems resilience.
• Integration – This attribute emphasizes an integrated process and alignment between the interrelated or interconnected set of CI systems to maintain and promote consistency in decision-making among decision-makers and stakeholders. Integration must be evident within systems and across different scales of their operation. It helps to ensure that investments and actions mutually and appropriately address the common needs or outcomes. Exchanging the data and information between systems and sub-systems allows them to function collectively and respond rapidly in shorter periods or loops throughout the whole system (Rockefeller Foundation 2014).
• Redundancy – This feature refers to a spare capacity or secondary alternative within systems purposely designated to accommodate disruption due to extreme pressures or external interferences (Rockefeller Foundation 2014). The intent of redundant systems must be diversified so that there are multiple selections to obtain a given objective or to fulfill a particular function. An example of existing systems in the real world incorporating redundancy is power distribution networks and multiple delivery pathways of energy infrastructures (Rockefeller Foundation 2015). Redundancies should be well-considered, cost-effective, and prioritized at a large-scale implementation.
• Reflectiveness – Reflective systems signify an acceptance of inherent uncertainties and necessary changes in the real world. Rather than seeking permanent solutions based on theoretical beliefs, individuals and institutions must continuously evolve, modify their norms, and adjust their behaviors based on emerging evidence (Rockefeller Foundation 2014). Thus, reflective or thoughtful people are always enthusiastic to systematically look, listen, and learn from past experiences and then leverage this learning and understanding to inform future decision-making (Rockefeller Foundation 2015).
• Resourcefulness – This qualification implies that individuals, groups, and organizations are the key to success in finding and discovering different ways to accomplish their goals or satisfy their needs during difficult times or challenging moments (Rockefeller Foundation 2014). It is more like a personal trait of persons rather than a qualification of systems. A resourceful workforce may include decision-makers, stakeholders, and other associated persons responsible for or involved in the investment and development processes, such as future state forecasts, set priorities ranking, and financial and physical resources allocation and management (Rockefeller Foundation 2014). Resourcefulness is considered an essential instrument of CI systems’ ability to maintain and restore their functionality under critical conditions or severe constraints at times of crisis.
• Robustness – Robust systems are a reflection of robust design. They represent how well systems are conceived, constructed, and are mainly managed physical assets (Rockefeller Foundation 2015). As a result, the systems can resist the outcomes or impacts of catastrophic events without significant damage or loss of functionality. The robust design of CI systems should focus on scanning potential internal failures and making precautions to ensure failure is predictable, safe, and not deviant from the root causes (Rockefeller Foundation 2014). That is to say, when the design thresholds of robustness are exceeded, the protective systems will not quickly or suddenly fail.

3.3.1 Serious Gaming

Digital games always have outstanding motivational potential. They manipulate a set of design elements to encourage players to interact with them willingly without any rewards, but just for the satisfaction of playing and the opportunity to win, so much so that playing video games or computer games undoubtedly consumes the attention of players. By watching students or participants play video or computer games, it becomes apparent that they prefer this way of learning rather than traditional approaches (Griffiths 1996, 1997, 2002). However, it is unquestionably relevant to investigate the extent to which serious game technologies positively impact education.

As serious games can require concentration and stimulate players’ motivation in learning experiences and outcomes, they have led to the emergence of gaming terminologies in education, such as edutainment, serious gaming, and gamification. Serious gaming can be viewed as a redefined version of the first fundamental gaming concept in education called “edutainment,” which was considerably popular during the 1990s. At that time, edutainment – educating through entertainment – became well known due to the booming growth of the personal computer market (Michael and Chen 2005). The term was usually used to describe any types of education that are concurrently knowledgeable and enjoyable. The primary target group was young children in elementary and junior high school, focusing on reading, mathematics, and science.

Unfortunately, due to a growing interest in the Internet and the poor quality of the games themselves, edutainment has finally failed to mark itself as the first milestone in the history of gaming in the academic world (Michael and Chen 2005; Eck 2006). Yet, the development of digital games for non-entertainment purposes began and evolved long before a flourishing era of edutainment. As edutainment failed to prove its applicability and practicality, the concept of serious gaming was subsequently re-examined during the late 1990s. In 2002 with a campaign video game (America’s Army) released by the United States Army and the institution of the Serious Games Initiative founded by the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, a journey of serious gaming had started (Susi et al. 2007).

In general terms, serious gaming usually refers to video and computer games for informing, educating, and training all genders and ages. The concept itself inherits the same primary goals as edutainment but extends far beyond teaching facts and routine memorization (Michael and Chen 2005). By way of example, Corti (2006, p. 1) simplifies the term: “Serious gaming is all about leveraging the power of computer games to captivate and engage end-users for a specific purpose, such as to develop new knowledge and skills.” Today’s “serious games” are serious business, as stated by Ben Sawyer, co-founder of the Serious Games Initiative (Susi et al. 2007). In 2006 the digital gaming sector industry was estimated to have a value of $10 billion per year, and the market of serious games only was roughly worth $20 million. However, it is expected to grow continuously over the next decade (van Eck 2006).

During the last decade, serious gaming has been applied to a broad spectrum of applications areas and research domains, including military, government, education, corporate, and healthcare, and also earning widespread recognition of distinctive features and intrinsic capability from both public and private organizations. Nowadays, the concept of serious gaming is becoming even more and more popular in the global education and training market. The term itself is already established, but there is still no universally accepted definition (Susi et al. 2007). Many sources or references either describe the concept vaguely or do not define it clearly. As of October 2022, a Google search on “serious games” resulted in over 700 million hits. “Serious gaming” resulted in over 160 million hits. These results suggest that serious gaming is indeed a serious business and that digital games are interested in achieving something greater than entertainment alone.

Serious gaming involves using concepts and technologies derived from (computer) entertainment games for non-entertainment purposes such as research, policy and decision-making, training, and learning. Serious gaming often combines analog techniques (pen and paper) and social interaction with state-of-the-art game and simulation technology (immersive 3D virtual game worlds) Cidota et al. (2016). This view of serious gaming suggests that, for example, CI systems can be characterized as complex systems; their behaviors, functions, activities, relationships, and interactions can be modeled and simulated in different ways for decision-making, research, and learning experiences. Furthermore, much research and experimentation also suggest that some critical or unique skills may be developed or strengthened by playing serious games (Griffiths 2002; Michael and Chen 2005; Squire and Jenkins 2003; Susi et al. 2007; van Eck 2006). For instance, spatial planning and visualization abilities, such as creative and critical thinking, data allocation and management, and three-dimensional object rotation and manipulation, can gradually evolve along with gaming experiences (Mitchell and Savill-Smith 2004; Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 1994). Given that serious games may seem to be more effective and advantageous for young people, like children and teenagers who started with relatively beginner skills (Griffiths 1996, 1997), consequently, researchers, educators, and corporates are now using video games and computer games as an application or a tool for studying individuals, teaching students, and training personnel and staff.

Regarding the studies and results from various literature conducted by Griffiths (2002), many reasons have provided insights as to why serious gaming may be useful for educational purposes (Griffiths 2002; Vasuthanasub 2019):

• Serious games can be used as measurement tools or applications for research; as investigation and study tools, their potentials are diverse.
• Serious games attract participation across different demographic boundaries, including age, gender, ethnicity, and educational level.
• Serious games can aid students in establishing objectives, ensuring goal rehearsal, providing feedback and support, and maintaining records of behavioral change.
• Serious games are productive instruments since they help researchers measure performance on various tasks and can be easily applied, standardized, and perceived.
• Serious games can be utilized to examine individual characteristics, like self-esteem, self-dignity, and self-respect.
• Serious games can be playful, fanciful, and purposeful to participators simultaneously. Consequently, it seems simpler to receive and maintain participants’ attention for more extended periods of time (Donchin 1995). Also, because they are amusing and exciting, they may promote a learning experience in innovative ways.
• Serious games can create an element of interactive thinking, which may stimulate learning.
• Serious games allow players to encounter novelty, curiosity, and difficulty, which may also motivate learning.
• Serious games interact with players through state-of-the-art technology. This implicit interaction may help participants overcome the fear of advanced technology or complex devices (Technophobia), notably computers (Griffiths 2002).
• Serious games can be computer-based simulations. This innovation enables participants and players to engage in extraordinary events or unusual activities in the form of complex computer models and to interact with each other without real consequences.

However, using serious games as applications or educational tools also has some disadvantages. For example, Vasuthanasub (2019) suggests that:

• Serious games may cause young participants, especially children, to become excessively excited. Under this condition, those players can produce unpleasant emotions or inappropriate behavior, such as competitiveness or aggressiveness.
• Serious game technologies have unceasingly developed over time. As a result, they are frequently being upgraded, making it even harder for researchers or educators to test and evaluate the impacts across studies in an academic environment.
• Serious game exercises may enhance certain skills and experiences of some participants, which can lead to inconsistent or incompatible evaluation results. Put another way, serious games are always good for all learning experiences and outcomes (van Eck 2006).

Notwithstanding the drawbacks, it would be clear that employing serious gaming in an academic context would influence positive educational purposes in any case. Inevitably, researchers and educators must examine and evaluate serious games’ benefits and positive potentials while remaining aware of possible unintended adverse effects. Given all these points, most people would probably support the use of serious gaming if they were confident that those digital games were appropriately selected to help them learn about difficult topics or complicated problems.