The Science and Practice of Resilience Igor

Linkov download

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-science-and-practice-of-
resilience-igor-linkov/

Download more ebook from https://textbookfull.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit textbookfull.com
to discover even more!

Active Interrogation in Nuclear Security Science

Technology and Systems Igor Jovanovic

https://textbookfull.com/product/active-interrogation-in-nuclear-
security-science-technology-and-systems-igor-jovanovic/

Power Systems Resilience Modeling Analysis and Practice

Naser Mahdavi Tabatabaei

https://textbookfull.com/product/power-systems-resilience-
modeling-analysis-and-practice-naser-mahdavi-tabatabaei/

Remington The Science and Practice of Pharmacy

Remington The Science and Practiice of Pharmacy 23rd
Edition Adeboye Adejare

https://textbookfull.com/product/remington-the-science-and-
practice-of-pharmacy-remington-the-science-and-practiice-of-
pharmacy-23rd-edition-adeboye-adejare/

The Rise of Big Spatial Data Igor Ivan

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-of-big-spatial-data-
igor-ivan/
Infrastructure Development : Theory, Practice and
Policy: Sustainability and Resilience 1st Edition
Rachna Gangwar

https://textbookfull.com/product/infrastructure-development-
theory-practice-and-policy-sustainability-and-resilience-1st-
edition-rachna-gangwar/

Resilience of Large Water Management Infrastructure

Solutions from Modern Atmospheric Science Faisal
Hossain

https://textbookfull.com/product/resilience-of-large-water-
management-infrastructure-solutions-from-modern-atmospheric-
science-faisal-hossain/

Exploring Resilience A Scientific Journey from Practice

to Theory Siri Wiig

https://textbookfull.com/product/exploring-resilience-a-
scientific-journey-from-practice-to-theory-siri-wiig/

The Science and Practice of Lithium Therapy 1st Edition

Gin S. Malhi

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-science-and-practice-of-
lithium-therapy-1st-edition-gin-s-malhi/

Ethics and the Practice of Forensic Science 2nd Edition

Robin T. Bowen

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-and-the-practice-of-
forensic-science-2nd-edition-robin-t-bowen/
Risk, Systems and Decisions

Igor Linkov
Benjamin D. Trump

The Science
and Practice
of Resilience
Risk, Systems and Decisions

Series Editors
Igor Linkov
Engineer Research and Development Center
US Army Corps of Engineers, Concord, MA, USA
Jeffrey Keisler
University of Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
James H. Lambert
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Jose Figueira
University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13439

Igor Linkov • Benjamin D. Trump

The Science and Practice of

Resilience
Igor Linkov Benjamin D. Trump
US Army Corps of Engineers US Army Corps of Engineers
Concord, MA, USA Concord, MA, USA

ISSN 2626-6717     ISSN 2626-6725 (electronic)

Risk, Systems and Decisions
ISBN 978-3-030-04563-0    ISBN 978-3-030-04565-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04565-4

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018963846

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword

Our world is experiencing critical challenges that affect our everyday life. Severe
weather, digital hacking, and infrastructural failure represent just a few of such chal-
lenges where a disruption can trigger significant and lasting consequences for stake-
holders ranging from local communities to national and international organizations.
Even more troublesome is the increasing complexity and range of consequences
that these threats produce, including a “butterfly effect” where disruption to one
system such as an energy grid can have widespread and disastrous consequences to
many others dependent on that resource. These threats, and their impact upon the
increasing complexity of our everyday systems, will continue to challenge policy-
makers and decision-makers to think of more creative and innovative concepts.
Thankfully, our experience and ability to develop innovative concepts will help
scientists and policymakers meet the challenges of tomorrow. One of these concepts
includes the philosophy and practice of resilience, which emphasizes the capacity
of our infrastructural, digital, social, environmental, and human systems to recover
from disruptions. As the 53rd Chief of Engineers of the United States Army and the
Commanding General of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2012–2016),
resilience was an important philosophy and a practice we sought to apply to various
initiatives within the USACE. In this drive to emphasize the concept of resilience, it
was important to articulate the need to apply a “systems thinking” approach to com-
plex environments such as watersheds, coastal infrastructure, and storm preparation
and response. Such a systems-thinking approach included within an overall focus
on resilience will better empower our communities to understand and address the
increasingly complex challenges of tomorrow.
This book authored by Dr. Igor Linkov and Dr. Benjamin Trump includes a com-
pendium of research on the subject of resilience, including several projects executed
by the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center’s Risk and Decision
Science Team. Herein, the authors articulate a clear divide between the past focus
on “risk management” and “resilience thinking.” This “risk management” approach,
while helpful in many contexts with well-established and well-researched threat
scenarios, does not necessarily address the need to enable systems to recover from
disruption. Such disruption can arise in various ways, such as low-probability and

v
vi Foreword

high-consequence events as seen in extreme weather demonstrated by Superstorm

Sandy on the American Eastern Seaboard or through a chain reaction of complex
and cascading events such as the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that triggered
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Ōkuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan.
Linkov’s and Trump’s work offers one of the most complete introductory texts
on resilience currently available. From general theoretical background to method-
ological practice and governance, to case study demonstration with real-world data
and analytical insight, the book demonstrates the importance of resilience and sys-
tems thinking as well as how to actually execute it. This book will be of assistance
to anyone interested in learning more about what resilience is, why it is important,
and how it can be assessed and implemented in a broad variety of modern infra-
structural, environmental, human, and cyber systems.
With increasing uncertainty and complexity in global systems, we must be better
prepared to address the role of recovery from disruption as well as the need to
address the potential for cascading system failure. Resilience is one such philoso-
phy and methodological approach by which this may be achieved and will comple-
ment existing risk assessment and management practices that have been embedded
in many modern societies.

Thomas P. Bostick
53rd Chief of Engineers of the United States Army
Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC, USA
Acknowledgment and Dedication

This book could not have happened without the deep support from our many col-
leagues and friends. This acknowledgment does not do justice to your friendship
and contributions to the field of resilience and risk.
Many individuals have inspired our approach on resilience. We would like to
thank Dr. Jeffrey Keisler (University of Massachusetts, Boston), Dr. James Lambert
(University of Virginia), Dr. Thomas Seager (Arizona State University), and Dr.
José Palma-Oliveira (University of Lisbon), who are great friends and trusted col-
leagues related to resilience theory and practice. Related to network science, we
would like to thank Dr. Maksim Kitsak (Northeastern University), Dr. Shlomo
Havlin (Bar-Ilan University, Israel), Dr. H. Eugene Stanley (Boston University), and
Dr. Alessandro Vespignani (Northeastern University). For their guidance and exper-
tise on resilience as a property of a system, we would like to thank Dr. Craig Allen
(University of Nebraska-Lincoln), Dr. Jesse Keenan (Harvard University), Dr. Scott
Greer (University of Michigan), Dr. David Alderson (Naval Postgraduate School),
and Dr. Stephen Flynn (Northeastern University).
Special thanks are due to past and current members of the Risk and Decision
Science Team at the US Army Corps of Engineers who contributed to developing
many ideas presented here. Catherine Fox-Lent was tireless in her scholarly and
professional work as a civil and environmental engineer and inspired much of the
work herein. Dr. Alexander Ganin provided leadership in developing simulations
and case studies in network science applications to resilience. We also are very
thankful for the scholarly assistance from Dr. Matthew Wood, Dr. Matthew Bates,
Valerie Zemba, Dr. Avi Mersky, Margaret Kurth, Dr. Zachary Collier, Emily Wells,
Dr. Daniel Eisenberg, Dr. Emanuele Massaro, and Joshua Trump. Additional thanks
are due to George Siharulidze, who translated our whiteboard images into beautiful
designs and figures published throughout the book.
We are thankful for the leadership of Drs. Beth Fleming and Ilker Adiguzel
(Laboratory Directors, Environmental Lab, US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center) who allowed us to explore this new and unknown area. We
also acknowledge the unprecedented leadership of LTG (ret.) Thomas Bostick,
Ph.D., 53rd Chief of Engineers of the US Army Corps of Engineers, who has done

vii
viii Acknowledgment and Dedication

much to advance the study of resilience in civil and environmental engineering

within the USACE and nationwide. Funding support is greatly appreciated and
acknowledged from several sources over the years, including Drs. Elizabeth
Ferguson and Todd Bridges (USACE), Dr. Alexander Kott (Army Research Labs),
Dr. Paul Tandy (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), and Dr. Colanda Cato (Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences).
We are grateful to many organizations who actively engaged in promoting resil-
ience. Marie-Valentine Florin and the International Risk Governance Council at the
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne have championed the study of resilience
and systemic threats. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
particularly Gabriela Ramos, William Hynes, Patrick Love, and Stephane Jacobzone,
is at the cutting edge of integrating societal and economic resilience in governance.
We are thankful for the continued support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO)’s Science for Peace Programme, which has funded several workshops on
risk and resilience that have allowed us to incorporate an international perspective
on the subject through this book. We are also deeply grateful for the time and energy
that our NATO workshop participants have given over the years. We are also thank-
ful for the continued engagement and groundbreaking research from the Joint
Research Centre (European Commission), the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (United States), and the Department of Homeland Security (United
States).
Our deepest gratitude is due to all of you for your friendship and support.
This book is dedicated to our sons, Eugene Linkov and Owen Trump. It is our
hope that resilience yields a brighter and more promising world for you to explore.
Contents

Part I Foundations of Resilience

1 Risk and Resilience: Similarities and Differences��������������������������������    3
2 Resilience as Function of Space and Time ��������������������������������������������    9
Stages of Resilience ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   10
Domains of Resilience ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   12
Risk Versus Resilience: The Difference Between System
Hardness and Recovery��������������������������������������������������������������������������   15
A Brief Note on the Omnipresence of Uncertainty ����������������������������������   17
Similarities and Differences of Traditional Risk Analysis
and Resilience Analysis ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   20
What Does Resilience Bring to the Table of Risk Assessment?������������   23
Developing Technologies and Resilience��������������������������������������������������   25
Applying a Systems Theory of Resilience������������������������������������������������   27
Scholarly Views on Resilience: The Opinion
of Available Literature���������������������������������������������������������������������������   28
Search Methodology����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   29
Classification Scheme��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   29
Resilience as Process Versus Ability����������������������������������������������������������   30
Results��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   31
Resilience as a Process Versus Ability ��������������������������������������������������   31
Resilience Stages ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   32
NCO Domains��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   33
Threat Properties����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   33
Takeaways from Scholarly Literature��������������������������������������������������������   33
3 Panarchy: Thinking in Systems and Networks ������������������������������������   35
Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   35
Current Practices of Resilience and Potential Limitations
with Existing Practice��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   36
The Dimension of Time and Experiential Learning������������������������������   37

ix
x Contents

The Shifting Capacity of a System��������������������������������������������������������   38

Developing a Systems Theory of Resilience ��������������������������������������������   38
Be Theoretically Neutral������������������������������������������������������������������������   38
Foster and Apply Systems Theory ��������������������������������������������������������   39
Adopt a Context-Driven Approach to a Targeted System
(Cutter et al. 2008) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39
Apply a Systems-View Rather Than a Situational-View of Risk����������   41
Operationalizing and Measuring Resilience����������������������������������������������   41
4 Lessons from History ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   45
Venice, the Bubonic Plague, and Resilience Thinking:
Early Forays to Constructing Communal Resilience��������������������������������   46
Resilience Thinking in Modern Disease Control: Ebola
in West Africa��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   50

Part II Resilience Assessment: State of Science and Governance

5 Resilience and Governance ��������������������������������������������������������������������   59
Governance������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   59
Resilience as a Growing Concept in Literature and Practice��������������������   60
Calls for Resilience from Governing Authorities��������������������������������������   61
Current Applications in US Regulatory Agencies ��������������������������������   65
Resilience as a Driver of Governance in US Regulatory
Agencies������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   68
Applying Resilience Matrices to Individual Organizations:
The Case of the Department of the Army����������������������������������������������   70
Early Discussion of Resilience Within the OECD��������������������������������   73
Critical Challenges for Resilience as a Policy and Governance
Philosophy��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   75
Future and Prospective Applications����������������������������������������������������������   79
6 Resilience Quantification and Assessment��������������������������������������������   81
Generic Frameworks for Resilience Quantification����������������������������������   81
Needed Inputs for Assessment Methods����������������������������������������������������   83
Metrics and Indices��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   84
A Semi-Quantitative Approach: Resilience Matrix ����������������������������������   86
A Quantitative Approach: Network Science����������������������������������������������   93
Other Possible Methodological Avenues for Assessing Resilience:
Preliminary Approaches to Quasi-Quantification��������������������������������������   98
The Need to Standardize Methodological Practice for Resilience:
Making Resilience Useful for Decision-Makers����������������������������������������   99
Contents xi

Part III Resilience Management: State of Practice and Case Studies

7 The State of Practice�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 105
Public Health and Epidemiological Resilience������������������������������������������ 106
Macro-Level Physical and Epidemiological Resilience������������������������ 106
Micro-Level Physical and Epidemiological Resilience ������������������������ 109
Environmental Resilience�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 110
Architectural Resilience: Theories and Practice���������������������������������������� 113
Risk and Resilience Within US Building Codes������������������������������������ 114
Resilience Assessment for Emerging/Unknown Threats
to Architectural Engineering and Design���������������������������������������������� 115
Social Resilience���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117
Organizational Resilience: Rulemaking���������������������������������������������������� 120
8 Metrics-Based Approaches���������������������������������������������������������������������� 125
Coastal and Natural Disaster Resilience���������������������������������������������������� 125
Coastal Resilience Case: Jamaica Bay, NY
(After Fox-Lent et al. 2015)������������������������������������������������������������������ 129
Appling Matrices to Case Environment: Rockaway
Peninsula, New York������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 131
Energy Delivery and Energy Grid Resilience�������������������������������������������� 139
Example Resilience Matrix for Energy (After Roege et al. 2014)������������ 145
Cybersecurity Resilience �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148
Resilience Matrix for Cybersecurity
(Based on Linkov et al. 2013b)�������������������������������������������������������������� 152
Psychological Resilience �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156
Electrical Engineering�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161
9 Applications of Network Science and Systems Thinking �������������������� 167
Transportation Resilience�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 167
Efficiency and Resilience Metrics���������������������������������������������������������� 169
Network Science for Resilience in Epidemic Spread�������������������������������� 174
Cyber: Linux Software Network���������������������������������������������������������������� 177
10 Conclusion: Resilience for a Complex World���������������������������������������� 181

References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 203
About the Authors

Igor Linkov is the Risk and Decision Science Focus Area Lead with the US Army
Engineer Research and Development Center and Adjunct Professor with Carnegie
Mellon University. Dr. Linkov has managed multiple risk and resilience assess-
ments and management projects in many application domains, including cybersecu-
rity, transportation, supply chain, homeland security and defense, and critical
infrastructure. He was part of several interagency committees and working groups
tasked with developing resilience metrics and resilience management approaches,
including the US Army Corps of Engineers Resilience Roadmap. Dr. Linkov has
organized more than 30 national and international conferences and continuing edu-
cation workshops, including NATO workshops on Cyber Resilience in Estonia
(2018) and Finland (2019), as well as chaired program committee for 2015 and
2019 World Congresses on Risk in Singapore and Cape Town. He has published
widely on environmental policy, environmental modeling, and risk analysis, includ-
ing 20 books and over 350 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters in top journals,
like Nature, Nature Nanotechnology, and Nature Climate Change, among others.
He has served on many review and advisory panels for DOD, DHS, FDA, EPA,
NSF, EU, and other US and international agencies. Dr. Linkov is Society for Risk
Analysis Fellow and recipient of 2005 Chauncey Starr Award for exceptional con-
tribution to Risk Analysis as well as 2014 Outstanding Practitioner Award. He is
Elected Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS). Dr. Linkov has a B.S. and M.Sc. in Physics and Mathematics (Polytechnic
Institute) and a Ph.D. in Environmental, Occupational, and Radiation Health
(University of Pittsburgh). He completed his postdoctoral training in Risk
Assessment at Harvard University.

Benjamin D. Trump is an ORISE Postdoctoral Fellow for the US Army Corps of

Engineers and a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Lisbon, Portugal.
He has also held a postdoctoral appointment at the University of Maryland and is a
research intern at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Singapore. Dr. Trump’s
work focuses on decision-making and governance of activities under significant

xiii
xiv About the Authors

uncertainty, such as emerging and enabling technologies (synthetic biology, nano-

technology) and developing organizational, infrastructural, social, and informa-
tional resilience against systemic threats to complex interconnected systems. Dr.
Trump served as a delegate to assist US presence in OECD’s Global Science Forum
in 2017 and is the President of the Society for Risk Analysis’ Decision Analysis and
Risk Specialty Group in 2018–2019. His work has been featured in over 50 peer-­
reviewed publications, journal articles, and book chapters, including publications in
Nature, Nature Nanotechnology, EMBO Reports, Environmental Science &
Technology, Health Policy, and Regulation & Governance, among others. Dr. Trump
was also an author of the International Risk Governance Council’s Guidelines for
the Governance of Systemic Risks, as well as their second volume of the Resource
Guide on Resilience. Dr. Trump is also frequently active with several Advanced
Research Workshops for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Science for Peace
Programme, including his role as a Director of a workshop titled Cybersecurity and
Resilience for the Arctic. Dr. Trump received his Ph.D. from the University of
Michigan’s School of Public Health, Department of Health Management and Policy,
in 2016. He received an M.S. (2012) in Public Policy and Management and a B.S.
in Political Science (2011) from Carnegie Mellon University.
 Part I
Foundations of Resilience
Chapter 1
Risk and Resilience: Similarities
and Differences

An increasingly globalized world with wide-ranged and uncertain threats to public

health, energy networks, cybersecurity, and many other interconnected facets of
infrastructure and human activity, has driven governments such as within the United
States, European Union, and elsewhere to further efforts to bolster national resil-
ience and security. Resilience analysis has grown in popularity as a mechanism by
which states may judge the safety, security, and flexibility of various complex sys-
tems to recover from a range of potential adverse events. Preparation for such haz-
ards is generally thought to include measures of both passive and active resilience
and have been described as including considerations of necessary actions and risk
considerations before, during, and after a hazardous event takes place. Given all of
this, resilience is clearly a subject with radical potential consequences in the pre-
paredness of a nation’s energy, water, transportation, healthcare, emergency
response, communications, and financial sectors to prepare for and recover from
external shocks of a significant magnitude.
A 2012 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on “disaster resilience”
defines resilience as the ability of a system to perfom four functions with respect to
adverse events: (1) planning and preparation, (2) absorption, (3) recovery, and (4)
adaptation. Nevertheless, quantitative approaches to resilience in the context of sys-
tem processes have neglected to combine those aspects of the NAS understanding
that focus on management processes (i.e., planning/preparation and adaptation)
with those that focus on performance under extreme loadings or shocks (i.e., absorp-
tion and recovery). Advancing the fundamental understanding and practical applica-
tion of resilience requires greater attention to the development of resilience process
metrics, as well as comparison of resilience approaches in multiple engineering
contexts for the purpose of extracting generalizable principles.
A core problem here is that risk and resilience are two fundamentally different
concepts, yet are being conflated as one and the same. The Oxford Dictionary
defines risk as “a situation involving exposure to danger [threat],” while resilience
is defined as “the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties.” The risk frame con-
siders all efforts to prevent or absorb threats before they occur, while resilience is

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 3

I. Linkov, B. D. Trump, The Science and Practice of Resilience, Risk, Systems
and Decisions, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04565-4_1
4 1 Risk and Resilience: Similarities and Differences

focusing on recovery from losses after a shock has occurred. However, the National
Academy (2012) and many others define resilience as “the ability to anticipate,
prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover
rapidly from disruptions.” In this definition, adapt and recover are resilience con-
cepts, while withstand and respond to are risk concepts, thus risk component is
clearly added to the definition of resilience. Further, approaches to risk and resil-
ience quantification differ. Risk assessment quantifies the likelihood and conse-
quences of an event to identify critical components of a system vulnerable to specific
threat, and to harden them to avoid losses. In contrast, resilience-based methods
adopt a “threat agnostic” viewpoint.
We understand resilience as the property of a system and a network, where it is
imperative for systems planners to understand the complex and interconnected
nature within which most individuals, organizations, and activities operate. Risk-­
based approaches can be helpful to understand how specific threats have an impact
upon a system, yet often lack the necessary characteristic of reviewing how linkages
and nested relationships with other systems leave one vulnerable to cascading fail-
ure and systemic threat. Resilience-based approaches, which inherently review how
the structure and activities of systems influence one another, serves as an avenue to
understand and even quantify a web of complex interconnected networks and their
potential for disruption via cascading systemic threat. Such an approach is one of
increasing prominence and focus on the international level, where the need to better
protect complex systems from systemic threat becomes a matter not only of whether
a system can survive disruption, but importantly in what state would it exist within
the aftermath of such a disruption.
There are at least two important obstacles that have inhibited progress in resil-
ience measurement for complex systems. The first of these is the success of quanti-
tative risk assessment as the dominant paradigm for system design and management.
In infrastructure and disaster management, pervasive concepts of risk have
encroached upon the understanding of resilience. However, resilience has a broader
purview than risk and is essential when risk is incomputable, such as when hazard-
ous conditions are a complete surprise or when the risk analytic paradigm has been
proven ineffective. Therefore, resilience measurement must be advanced with novel
analytic approaches that are complementary to, but readily distinguishable from,
those already identified with risk analysis.
The second of these obstacles is the fragmentation of resilience knowledge into
separate disciplines, including engineering infrastructure, environmental manage-
ment, and cybersecurity. This balkanized approach will inevitably fail to meet
national resilience goals to manage “all hazards” by supporting only incremental
changes to known risks. Such an ambitious policy objective requires a generalizable
approach that is both applicable to a diverse array of systems and revealing of their
interconnectivity.
Despite the promise of resilience analysis to aid the improvement the safety and
security of the variety of industries mentioned, the field remains relatively new to
the risk management industry. One recurring complication is the lack of standard-
1 Risk and Resilience: Similarities and Differences 5

ization among the field, with practitioners employing a variety of definitions,

­metrics, and tools to assess resilience in differing applications. Another complica-
tion includes the sheer breadth of what resilience analysis may grow to assess, both
from the standpoint of methodology and case applications. These issues have moti-
vated us to review resilience and resilience analysis across various fields which
make use of its methods in an attempt to offer a snapshot of where the discipline
currently stands, how it is deployed in different disciplines, and how it may be
improved in a formal and unified manner.
To accomplish this goal, we break down our discussion of resilience into five
parts. In Chap. 2, we present a working definition of resilience and separate
resilience-­based approaches from those grounded in more traditional risk assess-
ment and management. We make use of a young yet burgeoning field of academic
inquiry regarding the similarities and differences of traditional risk analysis and the
developing field of resilience analysis, with the ultimate goal of identifying those
areas where resilience may be viewed as an “extension” of conventional methods.
Discussion of whether resilience and risk analysis are competing, conflicting, or
complementary processes is not merely an exercise but of importance to the field as
a result of existing paradigms of risk management alongside the social science para-
digms that compete for funding and attention at the national, state, and local levels
for a variety of risk applications (Kasperson 2012). For us, the approaches must be
considered complementary, where the benefits and prowess of one can directly ben-
efit the workings of the other.
In Chap. 3, a chapter coauthored with Dr. José Palma-Oliveira of the University of
Lisbon delves further into the relationship between resilience, systems, and panarchy
theory. Specifically, this chapter seeks to unpack a potential future direction of resil-
ience thinking and analysis that ties resilience to a systems focus that models interac-
tion effects between various infrastructures, social groups, informational assets, and
other critical actors and considerations. As described in Gunderson and Holling
(2002), the chapter frames panarchy as the interplay between these various assets and
actors. Further, this chapter outlines how modeling cascading effects within this
interplay or network is an essential exercise of panarchy-focused resilience thinking,
with the ultimate goal of identifying potentially brittle or problematic nodes whose
failure could trigger widespread harm to other directly or indirectly connected
groups, assets, infrastructures, or other systems and sub-systems in question.
In Chap. 4, we highlight how principles of resilience have been considered and
implemented for centuries. Specifically, we discuss how medieval Venice adopted a
mixture of risk-based and resilience-based approaches to combat the Black Death in
the mid-fourteenth century. Though such measures did not contain the disease to
Venice’s ports, it did provide a critical departure for Western public health authori-
ties to quarantine and assess the potential for contagion to spread due to interna-
tional transport of goods and peoples. Lessons from Venice are extended to modern
West Africa, which were forced to combat the spread of one of the most destructive
breakouts of the Ebola Virus in human history from 2013 to 2016.
6 1 Risk and Resilience: Similarities and Differences

In Chap. 5, we discuss the current state of resilience in different US government

agencies, as well as internationally, in order to provide discussion of what the field
needs in order to mature. Resilience analysis has been discussed as a complement to
traditional risk assessment by several federal agencies that seek to apply resilience
analysis methodologies to a variety of applications in severe or catastrophic risk.
However, such methods have been proposed or deployed in differing contexts with
various definitions, which clouds the overall understanding of the concept and its
potential to improve conventional risk governance paradigms. Also in this section,
we will review the recent history of the calls for resilience analysis by the Obama
Administration in its efforts to promote greater resilience to American infrastruc-
ture. Where Part I notes similarities and differences between resilience analysis and
conventional risk analysis, this section will further delve into the current practices
and applications of resilience in order to both discuss how the choice of method can
complement or amplify traditional risk assessment methods as well as how a lack of
clarity and uniformity in its current status may result in shortcomings or inefficien-
cies as it grows in the near future. Such an assessment will ultimately help discuss
the method’s existing issues and shortcomings, which serve as impediments to its
maturation and useful deployment in future risk management frameworks.
In Chap. 6, we describe budding methods at resilience quantification, and com-
pare and contrast their prospective advantages and weaknesses. Though resilience
analysis has yet to fully mature and develop as a widely utilized methodology, some
specific applications have been constructed to demonstrate its future usefulness.
These applications are generally case specific, yet reinforce the notion that while
resilience thinking may improve conventional methods of risk analysis, the methods
of both should be considered complementary. In other words, we intend to show
how resilience analysis and traditional risk analysis can be mutually symbiotic
when addressing highly uncertain and consequential risk to human and environ-
mental health or financial, industrial, military, and medical assets. Though these
early resilience-minded risk management tools are still being developed, their cur-
rent applications and proposed future use can illuminate where the field may be
going, and how it may benefit stakeholders as it matures.
In Chaps. 7–9, we review a variety of resilience analysis cases in fields ranging
from energy and cybersecurity to coastal, medical, and psychological resilience.
These case studies offer a view of both the wide-ranging appeal of resilience to com-
plement and improve upon existing risk-based approaches, yet also how the method
may be transformed and tweaked to fit the needs of some applications that may not be
relevant to others. In all cases, high uncertainty is directly connected with the poten-
tial for widespread and lasting damage to the given system, which could contribute to
highly negative social, economic, and political outcomes on a national level. While
many other applications exist for resilience analysis to address risk, these applications
represent those fields with the greatest academic attention for the early use of resil-
ience analysis as a method by which to judge risk to an expansive system plagued
with high uncertainty and the potential for hazard. These cases represent real-world
scenarios, and demonstrate how the methods described in Chap. 6 might be formally
used to guide and assess system resilience in a broad diversity of application areas.
1 Risk and Resilience: Similarities and Differences 7

Overall, such discussion will help begin the standardization process that resil-
ience needs in order to improve as a broader assessment framework and will help
incorporate such methods into the risk manager’s toolbox. It is our hope that readers
will gain an understanding of how traditional risk and novel resilience are symbiotic
rather than methodologically at odds with one another, where the user could choose
one or the other based upon the needs of a given situation. With this in mind, we
contend that resilience analysis symbolizes the future of high stakes systems-level
risk management for a variety of disciplines and industries across the world, where
resilience thinking is required for stakeholders to circumvent and actively prepare
for global existential events with the capability of drastically impacting the existing
environment. While no approach or framework is perfect in the grip of uncertainty,
resilience analysis allows its users to position themselves to recover from what oth-
erwise would be a crippling blow to existing capabilities.
Chapter 2
Resilience as Function of Space and Time

As a term, resilience has centuries of use as a descriptor in fields as diverse as mili-

tary operations, to psychology, to civil and environmental engineering. Its synonyms
are vast and varied, ranging from insinuations of toughness to elasticity. While it
pulls its roots from these early ideas, the modern application of resilience has cen-
tered upon analyzing how systems bounce back from disruption. This seems simple
enough at first glance, yet as this book will discuss, the methodological application
and analysis of how systems bounce back post-disruption can be quite challenging.
Resilience is a philosophy as much as a methodological practice that empha-
sizes the role of recovery post-disruption as much as absorption of a threat and its
consequences. Philosophically, this mindset is one that is grounded upon ensuring
system survival, as well as a general acceptance that it is virtually impossible to
prevent or mitigate all categories of risk simultaneously, and before they occur.
Methodologically, resilience practitioners seek to optimize limited financial and
labor resources to prepare their system against a wide variety of threats—all the
while acknowledging that, at some point in the future and regardless of how well
the system plans for such threats, disruption will happen. While the more conven-
tional practice of risk assessment and management is very concerned with account-
ing for systemic threats, this exercise is typically undertaken on a threat-by-threat
basis in order to derive a precise quantitative understanding of how a given threat
exploits a system’s vulnerabilities and generates harmful consequences. As will be
discussed later in this chapter, such an exercise works well when the universe of
relevant threats is thoroughly categorized and understood, yet develops limitations
when reviewing systemic risk to complex interconnected systems. Building from
this limitation, resilience complements traditional risk-based approaches by review-
ing how systems perform and function in a variety of scenarios, agnostic of any
specific threat.
The key question that resilience practitioners seek to answer is “how can I make
sure my system performs as optimally as possible during disruption, and recovers
quickly when disruption does occur” (Fig. 2.1)? This question is particularly salient
for the study of complex systems, where large organizations like hospitals rely upon

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 9

I. Linkov, B. D. Trump, The Science and Practice of Resilience, Risk, Systems
and Decisions, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04565-4_2
10 2 Resilience as Function of Space and Time

Fig. 2.1 Role of resilience in systems, emphasizing importance of combating disruptions

the smooth operation of various connected systems and sub-systems to function

properly (i.e., the energy grid, secure and efficient information systems, simplified
patient intake, medical supply chains, and various others). Resilience is also an
important question to tackle threats of very low probability yet disastrous conse-
quences, where no clear strategy exists to mitigate or prevent such threats from
happening in the first place. Regardless of the situation to which it is applied, resil-
ience requires one to think in terms of how to manage systemic, cascading threats,
where a disruption to one sub-system can trigger dramatic changes to other con-
nected systems. This is a complex task with few formalized answers, yet a helpful
beginning is to operationalize resilience in a meaningful and methodological focus.
A central theme of this book is the need to understand resilience as a function of
both time and space. We emphasize these considerations due to the multi-temporal
and cross-disciplinary view by which one must review systemic threats.

Stages of Resilience

With respect to time, resilience of a system is less of a singular moment when a

disruption incurs losses, but is instead a process of how a system operates before,
during, and after the threat arrives. No single definition has been formalized in this
Stages of Resilience 11

Fig. 2.2 Stages of resilience as proposed by NAS

area, yet the National Academy of Sciences’ 2012 report on Disaster Resilience
describes resilience as how a system plans and prepares for, withstands and absorbs,
recovers from, and adapts to various disruptions and threats (Fig. 2.2) (NAS 2012).
In this approach, system resilience is an ever-changing activity whereby a system’s
core functions are constantly shifting to deal with threats.
Most conventional, risk-based approaches emphasize the plan/prepare and with-
stand/absorb phases to identify, assess, and prevent/mitigate threat (Linkov et al.
2018a, b, c). Regardless of whether a specific threat is considered, these stages focus
upon (a) identifying and interpreting signals associated with threats to a system, (b)
exploring the structure and connections that a system has with others, and (c) iden-
tifying strategies that preserve a system’s core capacity to function regardless of the
disruption that occurs (Patriarca et al. 2018; Park et al. 2013). Signals include statis-
tics and other information that might indicate a pending systemic threat, i.e., early
reports of new and virulent disease as an indicator of a pending epidemic and public
health crisis (Scheffer et al. 2012). Signal detection is a difficult and recurring task,
but can be the only avenue to better understand the variety of systemic threats that
may arise at different points in the future. Likewise, mapping of the various connec-
tions and dependencies within one’s system can help identify critical functions that,
if taken offline, could generate cascading systemic failure.
If possible, system preparation and absorption of threat is accomplished via a pre-
vention-based approach where a threat is avoided altogether. However, when this is
not possible, emphasis is placed upon the capacity of a normatively beneficial system
to avoid total collapse. This can be accomplished by “graceful degradation,” where
the core operations of a system are prioritized over non-essential services for as long
as possible. By limiting the extent and scope of disruption to a system, it becomes
easier to keep system functions online. Often, this is accomplished by “hardening”
different functions of a system so that they will not break under pressure.
12 2 Resilience as Function of Space and Time

While the plan/prepare and absorb/withstand stages are important to help a sys-
tem address systemic threats before they occur and as they arise, resilience
approaches also must place importance upon how a system performs after the threat
has arrived. This includes (1) recovery and (2) adaptation. Recovery includes all
efforts to regain lost system function as quickly, cheaply, and efficiently as possible,
while adaptation centers upon the capacity of a system to change and better deal
with future threats of a similar nature. Recovery and adaptation serve as the particu-
larly novel additions by resilience to the broader fields of risk analysis, assessment,
and management, and force stakeholders to account for percolation effects due to
disruptions. The role of adaptation and recovery is discussed throughout this book
as a primary point of focus for any resilience analyst, where a system with a robust
capacity for recovery can efficiently weather serious disruptions that would other-
wise break even the most hardened of system components.

Domains of Resilience

Outside of the NAS’ stages of resilience, the spatial component of resilience requires
one to consider how a disruption to one system can trigger consequences in oth-
ers—including those that have indirect or inapparent linkages to the disrupted
system.
Alberts and Hayes (2003) identify four different Network-Centric Operation
(NCO) domains important to a system’s agility, or what Alberts later defines as
“the ability to successfully effect, cope with, and/or exploit changes in circum-
stances” (Alberts and Hayes 2006). While early in scope, this effort at resilience
thinking is intended to force its users to consider the wide breadth of characteris-
tics and decision inputs that may factor into system performance. Each domain is
impacted in a different yet equally important manner when a critical or disruptive
event arises, and success in one domain may not guarantee the same outcome in
other areas. Additionally, it is important to note that the greatest resilience and the
ability to recover from adverse events is achievable only when all domains are
considered and resolved in a resilience analysis policy problem. These domains
include (Hayes 2004; Alberts 2007):
1. Physical: sensors, facilities, equipment, system states, and capabilities
2. Information: creation, manipulation, and storage of data
3. Cognitive: understanding, mental models, preconceptions, biases, and values
4. Social: interaction, collaboration and self-synchronization between individuals
and entities
These domains are important to decision-making for complex systems in general
and resilience in particular (Roege et al. 2014; Collier and Linkov 2014). The physi-
cal domain represents where the event and responses occur across the environment
and is typically the most obviously compromised system in the midst and aftermath
of an external shock or critical risk event. Elements here can include infrastructural
Domains of Resilience 13

characteristics ranging from transportation (roads, highways, railways, airports,

etc.) to energy or cyber networks that deliver services to public and private entities
alike (DiMase et al. 2015). As such, the physical domain of resilience thinking gen-
erally includes those infrastructural factors that are most directly impacted by a
hazardous event, where the other domains include outcomes and actions that are a
response to damage to physical capabilities and assets. Threats to such infrastruc-
ture can range from environmental (i.e., a catastrophic storm) to anthropological
(i.e., terrorist violence or military attack). In this domain, the objective of resilience
analysis is to bring the infrastructural or systems asset back to full efficiency and
functionality for use by its original owner or user.
The information domain is where knowledge and data exists, changes, and is
shared. Such elements here can include public or private databases, which are
increasingly under potential attack from private hackers and other aggressive oppo-
nents (Osawa 2011; Zhao and Zhao 2010). Another growing target for information
domain-type risks includes stored online communications and e-mails, which if
acquired by a nefarious third party could generate individual embarrassment or even
national security risks (Murray and Michael 2014; Berghel 2015; Petrie and Roth
2015). Where such attacks are a growing reality in the Information Age (Kaur et al.
2015), adequately protecting against such risks and bolstering information systems
to be resilient and robust under attack is of paramount importance to government
agencies and private companies alike (Lino 2014). For this domain, the objectives
of resilience management are to prepare information assets for a variety of potential
attacks while also assuring that such systems will react quickly and securely to such
threats in the immediate aftermath. In this way, risk preparedness, risk absorption,
and risk adaptation make information and cybersecurity resilience a growing prior-
ity for a variety of governmental and business stakeholders (Linkov et al. 2013a;
Collier et al. 2014; Björck et al. 2015).
The cognitive domain includes perceptions, beliefs, values, and levels of aware-
ness, which inform decision-making (Linkov et al. 2013a; Eisenberg et al. 2014).
Along with the social domain, the cognitive domain is the “locus of meaning, where
people make sense of the data accessed from the information domain” (Linkov et al.
2013a). Such factors are easy to overlook or dismiss due to a reliance upon physical
infrastructure and communication systems to organize the public in response to a
disaster, yet such perceptions, values, and level of awareness of publics to strategies
to overcome shocks and stresses are essential to the successful implementation of
resilience operations (Wood et al. 2012). In other words, without clear, transparent,
and sensible policy recommendations that acknowledge established beliefs, values,
and perceptions, even the best-laid plans of resilience will fall to disrepair. A robust
accounting for the cognitive domain is particularly important for instances where
policymakers and risk managers may have a disconnect with the local population,
such as with international infrastructure development projects of health-based inter-
ventions. For such cases, sensible and common sense policy solutions to the policy-
maker or risk manager may be assumed to be robust, yet rejected by locals as
contrary to established custom or practice.
14 2 Resilience as Function of Space and Time

The social domain represents interactions between and within entities involved.
The social domain also provides an area to which careful attention should be paid in
overall community resilience. Social aspects of society have impacts on physical
health (Ebi and Semenza 2008). For example, individuals or communities can have
better recovery in the face of epidemic when they also have strong social support and
social cohesion. The social domain also ties into the information domain in regard to
trust in information. When the community does not trust the source of information,
they often do not trust the information or have to take the time to verify it, leading to
a need for community engagement by the authority or organization to increase their
social relations and therefore trust within the community (Longstaff 2005).
While the physical and cognitive domains gain a lot of attention in both overall
resilience and hazard-specific resilience, the information domain is of great impor-
tance for overall functioning. In more than just health events, information has a
huge impact on citizen response (Crouse Quinn 2008). Not all individuals under-
stand and interpret information the same way. This leads to a need for attention to
be paid on how to get information out effectively and in a timely fashion during a
crisis. Information is important to more than just the citizens, however. Adequate
information is crucial in real time for authorities to make informed and appropriate
decisions (Hsu and Sandford 2010). As important as information is, however, it is
equally important to account for the role of human decision-making. Specifically,
human interpretation of data is important as raw numbers can be misleading if not
considered in context of a given environmental setting or policy application. This
ties back into needing to disperse tailored information for understanding that places
data pertinent to a threat in a manner that is not convoluted for its recipient. How
authorities and citizens handle information should be evaluated with careful consid-
eration for the communities being discussed.
Social resilience within this context may apply to societies and communities of
various size, ranging from local neighborhoods and towns to more regional or
national governments. For smaller communities, organizations, and businesses, dis-
cussions of resilience may center on the ability of local governments and set com-
munities to address long-term concerns such as with the impact of climate change
(Berkes and Jolly 2002; Karvetski et al. 2011), ecological disasters (Adger et al.
2005; Cross 2001), earthquakes (Bruneau et al. 2003), and cybersecurity concerns
(Williams and Manheke 2010), as well as other man-made hazards such as transna-
tional wars, civil wars, terrorism, migration, and industrial hazards. For larger
­communities and governments, such concerns are similar yet often more complex
and varied in nature, where they involve hundreds to potentially thousands of stake-
holders and include the interaction of various infrastructural systems.
These domains often overlap and exist in all systems, such as for messages from the
information domain to be shared, infrastructure in the physical domain or interactions
in the social domain must support dissemination. At its core, a focus upon domains
ensures that a policymaker or risk manager acquires a holistic understanding of their
policy realm, and is able to understand how a shock or stress could trigger cascading
consequences that were previously difficult to comprehend. For example, the collapse
of Lehman Brothers triggered a worldwide economic recession in 2008 due to the
inherent interconnectivity of various economic and financial systems at that time.
Domains of Resilience 15

 isk Versus Resilience: The Difference Between System

R
Hardness and Recovery

Resilience as a formal method and disciplinary practices lacks the rich and exten-
sive history as complementary practices of risk analysis. Despite the lack of any
formal definition or methodological practice, the role of resilience in economic,
infrastructural, environmental, and social policy is a topic of growing interest and
equally rising uncertainty. Though it is ultimately the responsibility for high-level
policymakers and other key stakeholders to define and scope the practice of resil-
ience, this book offers one view that frames resilience as a differing yet complemen-
tary process to conventional risk assessment and management.
Risk analysis has decades of history as a collection of tools dedicated to espous-
ing and managing risk—generally through some synthesis of the threat in question,
the vulnerability of a system to that threat, and the consequences should the threat
arise. In this way, risk-based assessment and management approaches emphasize
the capacity of a system to absorb and withstand specific threats. Such an approach
is battle tested in various application areas and performs admirably in situations of
high clarity and robust opportunities to acquire data related to situational risk.
For government projects and interests, risk analysis, including risk assessment
and management, involves the systematic review of various infrastructural, environ-
mental, and organizational factors to identify potential areas where risk could arise
(National Research Council 1983; Linkov et al. 2005). This exercise has multiple
purposes, including (1) to identify and understand those areas where a certain haz-
ard is most likely to arise, (2) to gauge some value of the likelihood of this negative
event from occurring, (3) to understand the consequences if this risk would actually
occur, and (4) to provide some alternative policies or actions that could mitigate or
prevent such a scenario. Different tools provide a qualitative and/or quantitative
algorithm that addresses these needs, ranging from an unstructured ad hoc ­qualitative
panel discussion to a fully quantitative and reductive decision model to assess
expected losses in the form of financial, infrastructural, or human casualties.
In such an environment, the outcome of a risk is both uncertain and meaningful
to the relevant stakeholder. Risk presents the potential for both direct (i.e., human
health hazard) and indirect loss (reduction in reputation), and retains an element of
unpredictability that makes many risks difficult to fully prepare for over any time
frame or even to predict the full vector of risks that may arise. An additional concern
is the availability of resources to protect against risks, where policymakers are
required to conduct resource maximization exercises to best prepare various assets
for a universe of future risk events with limited annual budgets. Ultimately, this
means that the potential for some future hazard must be tolerated due to a lack of
resources or general inability to resolve the weakness that permits a negative out-
come. By and large, risk assessment exercises require the prevention and mitigation
of the most consequential and likely risk firsts, where more minor externalities and
very low-probability, high consequence events are, respectively, given less empha-
sis for risk preparation and mitigation. Of course, this exercise is at the discretion of
16 2 Resilience as Function of Space and Time

the stakeholder, where stakeholders and key decision-makers will have to decide
how to optimize limited funds and available manpower to achieve the greatest risk
preparation possible.
Along with considerations of outcomes, uncertainty, and overall risk tolerance,
stakeholders and policymakers are required to consider the passage of time. While
predicting what will happen tomorrow is already an inaccurate science, accounting
for risk over the course of years or decades can quickly become an impractical task
without some mechanism for decision support. Such an exercise includes the assess-
ment of an assortment of political, social, and industrial preferences. Shifting soci-
etal preferences alongside the degradation of infrastructure 5, 10, 20, or more years
into the future only increases the uncertainty of the hazards posed by external
shocks to environmental, industrial, commercial, and cyber systems. Conventional
risk assessment attempts to account for these issues by advising for protection
against the most egregious and harmful hazards over the extended term. However,
the recommendations given are generally the reflection of an intransigent system
with fixed preferences, and may not provide a clear or optimal path to recover from
serious adverse events that may dramatically alter or damage a given system.
Ultimately, most applications of risk analysis focus upon system preservation
based upon its capacity to prevent or mitigate risk by withstanding and absorbing a
specific threat or a collection of threats. This conclusion is generally a logical one—
we tend to want to prioritize our resources to address the problems that we know we
have—particularly those in the near future. While such an approach addresses many
of the challenges facing most individuals and organizations today, risk-based
approaches that emphasize withstanding or absorbing specific threats to specific
systems are less effective at addressing problems of high complexity or high uncer-
tainty. Simply put—a differing approach is likely needed to address subjects with
greater uncertainty, be they “known unknowns” or even “unknown unknowns.”
Resilience analysis fundamentally maintains much of the same philosophical
background as traditional risk assessment, but resilience analysis additionally
delves into the unknown. Resilience thinking requires its practitioners to ponder
potential future threats to system stability and develop countermeasures or safe-
guards to prevent longstanding losses, not just direct losses from historical threats.
Resilience analysis maintains one primary difference in its focus on outcomes,
where practitioners are directly concerned for the ability of the impacted organiza-
tion, infrastructure, or environment to rebound from its external shock. In other
words, where traditional risk assessment methods seek to mitigate and manage haz-
ards based upon a snapshot in time, resilience analysis instead seeks support system
flexibility and ultimately offers a “soft landing” for the organization or structure at
hand (Fig. 2.3). Simply put, resilience analysis is the systematic process to ensure
that a significant external shock—e.g., climate change to the environment, hackers
to cybersecurity, or a virulent disease to population health—does not exhibit lasting
damage to the efficiency and functionality of a given system. This elegant philo-
sophical difference is complex yet necessary to meet the growing challenges and
uncertainties of an increasingly global and interconnected world.
A Brief Note on the Omnipresence of Uncertainty 17

Fig. 2.3 Differentiating risk-based and resilience-based methodologies and philosophies

This section will include both an introductory review of resilience analysis and
how it compares and contrasts with existing risk analysis and management tools. In
discussing the calls for resilience analysis, we will consider the activities and needs
of individual US government agencies. Next, we will discuss those shortcomings in
conventional risk analysis methods that could be filled by resilience analysis, along
with any existing impediments or resistance to adopting this growing methodology.
As such, this chapter will provide the groundwork to understand the benefits of
resilience analysis in the risk management toolbox alongside those stakeholders
who have already called for its development and use.

A Brief Note on the Omnipresence of Uncertainty

This chapter has already touched on a key ingredient of any risk calculation—
uncertainty. Regardless of how familiar a situation or condition seems, from driving
a car on a familiar road to purchasing food at a local grocery store, a certain degree
of uncertainty exists regarding the potential for success or injury for a given activity.
It plagues individual and systemic activities alike, injecting the possibility of nega-
tive outcomes (however slight) that may arise in the midst of certain actions or
behaviors. In a general sense, uncertainty is omnipresent in all elements of daily
life, with individuals and systems making either deliberate or subconscious
18 2 Resilience as Function of Space and Time

cost-­benefit calculations to decide on future actions. In most daily decisions and

circumstances, a reliance upon past experience and historical information is ade-
quate for an ad hoc decision-making exercise, and formal decision tools and support
systems are not needed.
However, uncertainty within systems-level activities is particularly worrisome
for both traditional risk managers and now resilience analysts due to the ability of
unanticipated negative outcomes with widespread effects to cause extensive, costly,
and lasting damage. In such circumstances with “high uncertainty”—or the poten-
tial for costly and systems-wide risk—ad hoc decision-making and past experience
is neither a sufficient means of risk judgment nor generally an acceptable business
practice for virtually any industry. Instead, relevant managers make use of formal-
ized algorithms, decision aids, and decision support systems to address all critical
elements of an activity at hand. One example is supply chain management, where a
risk assessor would seek to list all of the potential problems that could arise within
each life cycle stage of production and address the likelihood of these threats aris-
ing, without limiting him or herself to only events that have happened in the past.
For less uncertain and lower risk activities, these decision support activities may be
relatively simple to perform, such as mapping or thought exercises by a few directly
involved decision-makers.
For more complex risks, high uncertainty may be mitigated by the deployment of
redundancies to reduce potential harms as well as data-gathering efforts to gain
more information regarding the risk’s likelihood of occurrence and magnitude if
realized. In such an environment of high uncertainty, the decision aids are likely to
be more rigorous, such as with the use of formalized decision software or extensive
information-gathering activities to unveil a more accurate cost-benefit trade-off for
a given scenario. However, Kasperson and Berberian (2011) note that such activities
may not always yield more beneficial or certain outcomes; instead the risk assessor
may encounter still further risks that had not yet been considered (Kasperson and
Berberian 2011). Per Kasperson, situations of extensive and deep uncertainty may
be initially addressed by several strategies, including:
1. Delay. Where possible, delaying potential action to gain additional information
regarding a particular action can reduce the spectrum of potential plausible out-
comes. An active approach here would be to make use of a Value of Information
method (Keisler et al. 2014). Decision-makers may assess the possible costs of
delaying to acquire improved information for a particular situation. Where costs
of risk-based interventions are outweighed by the benefits, delaying action is an
optimal course to follow (see, for example, similar declarations for synthetic
biology governance described in the President’s Commission on the Study for
Bioethical Issues in 2010 which described the need for synthetic biology to
mature before establishing new governance priorities or regulatory requirements
upon the field’s development; PCSBI 2010).
2. Prioritize. While a system may be faced with a slew of complex uncertainties in
a given decision problem, not all uncertainties are likely to generate similar lev-
els of risk or hazard. In other words, actively “ranking” perceived uncertainties
Other documents randomly have
different content
victims though made aware of the plot, were as tardy as possible in
taking any steps to baffle it. Fawkes continued his visits to the cellar
just as confidently as ever; and one would think that ultimately
detection was the object he had in view for he lurked about the
premises with such obstinate perseverance that his escape was
impossible. At length Suffolk, the Lord Chamberlain, took Monteagle
down to the House the day before the opening of Parliament, to see
that all was right, and they occupied themselves for several hours in
looking under the seats, unpicking the furniture of the throne to see
if anyone was concealed inside, and searching into every hole and
corner where a conspirator was not likely to secrete himself. Having
taken courage from the fact of there being no signs of danger, they
determined to go down stairs into the cellar, under pretence of
stopping up the rat-holes—for even in those early days rats found
their way into the House—and they had no sooner opened the door
than they saw in one corner a round substance, which they at first
took for a beer barrel. They approached it with the intention of
giving it a friendly tap, when the supposed barrel rose up into the
height of a water-butt.

Original Size
 Suffolk instantly got behind Monteagle, who stood trembling with
fear, when the phantom cask assumed the form of a "tall, desperate
fellow," who proved to be Fawkes, and the Chamberlain, affecting a
careless indifference, demanded his "name, birth, and parentage."
Guido handed his card, bearing the words G. Fawkes, and
announced himself as the servant of Mr. Percy, who carried on a
trade in coals, coke, and wood, if he could, in the immediate
neighbourhood. "Indeed," said Suffolk, "your master has a tolerably
large stock on hand, though I think there is something else screened
besides the coals, which I see around me." Without adding another
word, he and Monteagle ran off, and Fawkes hastened to acquaint
Percy with what had happened.
Poor Guido seems to have formed a most feline and most fatal
attachment to the place, for nothing could keep him out of the cellar,
though he knew he was almost certain of being hauled
unceremoniously over the coals, and he went back at two in the
morning to the old spot, with his habitual foolhardiness. He had no
sooner opened the door than he was seized and pinioned, without
his opinion being asked, by a party of soldiers. He made one
desperate effort to make light of the whole business, by setting fire
to the train, but he had no box of Congreves at hand, and he
observed, with bitter boldness, in continuation of a pun which he
had made in happier days, that he had at last found his match and
lost his Lucifer. Poor Guy Fawkes, having been bound hand and foot,
was taken on a stretcher to Whitehall, having been previously
searched, when his pocket was found filled with tinder, touch-wood,
and other similar rubbish. Behind the door there was a dark
lanthorn, or bull's-eye, that had cowed the soldiers at first glance, by
its glazed look, but it seemed less terrible on their walking resolutely
up to it. Fawkes was taken to the king's bedroom, at Whitehall, and
though his limbs were bound and helpless, he spoke with a thick,
bold, ropy voice that terrified all around him. His tones had become
quite sepulchral, from remaining so long in the vault, and when
asked his name, he scraped out from his hoarse throat the words
"John Johnson," which came gratingly—as if through a grating——on
the ears of the bystanders. He announced himself as John the
footman to Mr. Percy, and he threw himself into an attitude—which
was rather cramped by his pinions—which he found anything but the
sort of pinions that would enable him to soar into the lofty regions of
romance to which he had aspired. He nevertheless boldly announced
his purpose, with the audacity of a stage villain; and with that sort of
magnanimity which lasts, on an average, about five minutes in the
guilty breast, he refused to disclose the names of his accomplices.
One of the Scotch courtiers, who had a natural feeling of
stinginess, asked how it was that Fawkes had collected so many
barrels of gunpowder, when half the quantity would have done.
Upon which Fawkes replied, that his principal had desired him to
purchase enough to blow the Scotch back to Scotland. "Hoot, awa,
mon!" rejoined the Scot; "but ken ye not that ye might have bought
half the powder, and put the rest of the siller in your pocket?"
Fawkes sternly intimated that though he would have blown up the
Parliament, he would not defraud his principal. "Hoot, mon!" cried
the Scotchman, who loved his specie under the pretence of loving
his species, and who, it is probable, belonged to the Chambers;
"Hoot, mon!" he whined, "dinna ye ken that there are times when
you mun just throw your preencipal overboard?" *

* A fact!

On the 6th of November Fawkes was sent to the Tower, with

instructions to squeeze out of him whatever could be elicited by the
screw, which was then the usual method of scrutiny. For four days
he would confess nothing at all; but his accomplices began to betray
themselves by their own proceedings. Several of them fled; but
Tresham exhibited the very height of impudence by coming down to
the Council and asking if he could be of any use in the pursuit of the
rebels. Nothing but the effrontery of the boots which ran after the
stolen shoes, crying "Stop thief," and have never returned to this
very hour, can be compared with the coolness of Tresham in offering
to aid in effecting the capture of the conspirators.
 Catesby and Jack Wright cut right away to Dunchurch, Percy filled
his purse, and Christopher Wright packed up his kit, to be in
readiness for making off when occasion required, while Keyes made
a precipitate bolt out of London the morning after the plot was
discovered.

Original Size

Rookwood, who had ordered relays of fine horses all along the
road, went at full gallop through Highgate, and never slackened his
pace till he reached Turvey, in Bedfordshire, where he came
tumbling almost topsy-turvy over the inhabitants. Arriving at Ashby,
St. Legers, with a légèrete quite worthy of the race for the St. Leger
itself, he had already travelled eighty miles in six hours; but he
nevertheless pushed along on his gallant steed—a magnificent dun—
who always ran as if he had a commercial dun at his heels, to
Dunchurch. Here he found Digby, enjoying his otium cum dig.—with
a hunting party round him; but the guests guessed what was in the
wind, and fearing they might come in for the blow, had vanished in
the night-time. When Digby sat down to breakfast the next day, his
circle of friends had dwindled to a triangle, consisting of Catesby,
Percy, and Rookwood, who, with their host, now become almost a
host in himself, took speedily to horse, and rode a regular steeple-
chase to the borders of Staffordshire. Here they arrived on the night
of the 7th of November, at Holbeach, where they took possession of
a house; but by this time Sir Richard Walsh, the sheriff of Worcester,
who had got writs out against them all, was close upon them with
his officers.
In the morning their landlord, one Littleton, having been let into
their secret, let himself out of his bedroom window through fear, and
Digby decamped under pretence of going to buy some eggs to suck
for breakfast, as well as to look for some succour. Digby had hardly
shut the street door when its bang was echoed by a bang up stairs,
occasioned by Catesby, Percy, and Rookwood having endeavoured to
dry some gunpowder in a frying pan over the fire. Catesby was burnt
and blackened, besides being blown up for having been the chief
cause of the accident; and shortly afterwards, to add to their
misfortunes, the sheriff, with the posse comitatus, surrounded the
dwelling. The conspirators endeavoured to parry with their swords
the bullets of their assailants, but this was a hopeless job, and
keeping up their spirits as well as they could, they exclaimed at
every shot fired on the side of the king, "Here comes another dose
of James's powder." Catesby, addressing Thomas Winter, roared out,
"Now then, stand by me, Tom!" and Winter, suddenly taking a spring
to his friend's side, they were both shot by one musket. Their
attendants, not being able to get the bullet out, issued a bullet-in to
say they were both dead, and the brothers Wright were not long left
to bewail the fate of their accomplices. Percy, who had persevered to
the last, got a wound which wound him up, and Rookwood had
received such a home-thrust in the stomach from a rusty pike, that
the pike rust sadly disagreed with him. Digby, whose feelings had
run away with him, was overtaken, caught, and made fast, because
he had been too slow, while Keyes came to a dead-lock, and the
prisoners being all brought to London, were lodged in the Tower.
 Tresham, who had never left town, but was strutting about with all
the easy confidence of a man with "nothing out against him," was
suddenly nabbed, in spite of his remonstrances, conveyed in
exclamations of "What have I done?"
"La! bless me! there must be some mistake!" and other appeals of
an ejaculatory but useless character.
Poor Guido Fawkes was examined by Popham, Coke, and Wood,
whose names may now for the first time be noticed as appropriate
to the business they were entrusted with. Popham is surely
emblematical of the series of pops, bangs, and explosions that would
have ensued from the Gunpowder Plot; while Coke and Wood are
obviously symbolical of the combustibles required for fuel. In vain
did these sagacious persons attempt to get anything from Guido,
who said "he belonged to the Fawkes and not to the spoons, who
might perhaps be made to convict themselves by cross questioning."
Popham popped questions in abundance; Coke tried to coax out the
truth; and Wood, if he could, would have got at the facts; but
neither threats nor promises could prevent Fawkes from showing his
metal.
Posterity, in altering his name to Guy Fox, has happily hit upon an
appropriately expressed the cunning of his character. He confessed
his own share in the business readily enough, but resolutely refused
to betray his associates. "I will not acknowledge that Percy is in the
plot," he cried; which reminds us of an intimation made by a
gentleman just arrested, to his surrounding friends, that "he did not
wish the bailiff pumped upon." A nod is as good as a wink in certain
cases; and like winking the sheriff's officer was submitted to a
course of hydropathic treatment. In the same manner the
declaration of Fawkes that "Percy had nothing to do with it—oh, dear
no, nothing at all!" was quite enough to put the authorities on the
right scent had any such guidance been required.
 Original Size

Poor Fawkes was so fearfully damaged by the torture he had

undergone, that his handwriting was entirely spoiled; and specimens
of his mode of signing his name after the torture, contrasted with
the copy of his autograph before the cruel infliction, present the
reverse of the result which writing-masters of our day boast of
producing by their six lessons in penmanship.
Guido Fawkes, however, confessed nothing specifically beyond
what the Government already knew, but Tresham and Catesby's
servant Bates, a man remarkable for his bêtise, confessed whatever
the authorities required. Tresham being seized with a fatal illness in
prison, retracted his confession, which he declared had been
extorted or "extortured"—as Strype has it—from him, and he died
after placing his recantation in the hands of his wife to be given to
Cecil. The surviving conspirators were brought to trial after some
delay, and though they all pleaded not guilty, as long as there was a
chance of escape, they were no sooner convicted beyond all hope
than they began boasting of their offence, and were all "on the high
ropes" when they came to the scaffold. Garnet the Jesuit was served
up by way of garniture to the horrible banquet that the vengeance of
the Protestants required. This brilliant character shone with
increased lustre as the time for his execution approached, and
however glorious had been his rise, the setting was worthy of Garnet
in his very brightest moments.
Besides those who were executed for an avowal, or at least, a
proved participation in the Gunpowder Plot, several persons were
punished very severely, in the capacity of supplementary victims,
who might, or might not, have been implicated in the conspiracy.
Lords Mordaunt and Stourton, two Catholic nobles, were fined,
respectively, £10,000 and £4000 because they did not happen to be
in their places in Parliament, to be blown up, had Fawkes succeeded
in accomplishing his object. The Earl of Northumberland was sent to
the Tower for a few years, and mulcted of £30,000, because he had
made Percy a gentleman pensioner, some years before; but no
trouble was taken to show how this could have rendered him
afterwards a rebel, nor how Northumberland could be responsible,
even if such a result had really arrived. But it was urged by the
apologists for this severity, that the Gunpowder Treason would have
been fatal alike to the good and the bad, and that as the
punishment should correspond with the offence, an indiscriminate
dealing out of penalties among the guilty and the innocent was quite
allowable.
 CHAPTER THE SECOND. JAMES THE
FIRST (CONTINUED).

HE Parliament that was to have been dissolved in

thin air on the 5th of November, leaving nothing
behind but a report in several volumes of smoke, met
for the despatch of business on the 21st of January,
1606. Laws were passed against the Papists in a most
vexatious spirit, and by one enactment they were
positively prohibited from removing more than five
Original Size miles from home without an order signed by four
magistrates. If a Catholic had got into a cab, and the horse had run
away, without the driver being able to pull up within the fifth mile,
the fare would have been most unfairly sacrificed.
James, who saw the advantage Scotland would derive from an
alliance with England, began to urge the Union, but the English
naturally objected to such a very unprofitable match; for Scotland
had nothing to lose, nothing to give, nothing to lend, and nothing to
teach, except the art of making bread without flour, joke-books
without wit, reputation without ability, and a living without anything.
James felt that the sarcasms on the Scotch were personal to himself,
and he told the Parliament they ought not to talk on matters they
did not understand; but it was thought that to restrict them to
subjects which they did understand would be equivalent to depriving
them of liberty of speech on nearly every occasion.
James had become somewhat popular on account of the attempt
to blow him up sky-high with all his ministers, and a rumour of his
having been assassinated, sent him up a shade or two higher in the
affections of his people. It is a feature in the character of the English
that they always take into their favour any one who seems to be an
object of persecution; and there is no doubt that if in a crowd there
is any one desirous of rising in public esteem, he has only to ask a
friend to give him a severe and apparently unmerited blow on the
head, in order to render him the idol of the surrounding multitude. If
there had been no Gunpowder Plot, it would have been worth the
while of James to have got one up, for the express purpose of
increasing his popularity. His qualities, as shown in his way of life at
this time, do not warrant the esteem in which he was held; for he
divided his time between the pleasures of the table, the excitements
of the chase, and the blackguardism of the cock-pit. When
remonstrated with on the lowness of his pursuits, he declared that
his health required relaxation; and he would declare that he would
rather see one of his Dorking chickens win his spurs, than witness
the grandest tournament. These pursuits, which were expensive,
caused him to do many acts of meanness to obtain the necessary
supplies: and among other things he went to dine with the
Clothworkers as well as with the Merchant Tailors, among both of
whom the royal hat was sent round at the close of the banquet.
At the second of these entertainments his own beaver had just
made the circuit of the table with considerable effect, when,
encouraged by the liberality of the company, he shoved on to the
social board a cap, in the name of his son, Prince Henry. The
collection for the child was not very ample, for many of the guests
objected to being called upon for a trifle towards lining the pockets
of the young gentleman's new frock, more especially when it was
obvious that James fully intended to clutch the whole of the
additional assets.
 Original Size

Among other disreputable methods he took of procuring money,

was the institution of the order of Baronets, whose titles he sold at a
thousand pounds each, without regard to the merit of the
purchasers. The antiquity of a baronetcy is therefore not much in its
favour, and those who can trace the possession of such a distinction
in their family down to the first establishment of the rank, do
nothing more than prove the possession, either honestly or
dishonestly, of a thousand pounds by one of his ancestors. Seventy-
five families took advantage of this traffic in dignities to obtain a sort
of spurious nobility, founded on the necessities of the sovereign. The
only qualifications required of candidates wishing to be elected to
the order were "cash down," to pay the fees, and an ability to trace
a descent from at least a grandfather on the father's side; so that
semble, as the lawyers say, the maternal ancestors might have been
utterly hypothetical and purely anonymous. The arms of the
baronets have always included those of Ulster, because the money
they contributed was designed for the relief of that province—a
proof that Ireland has been a drain upon England for a long series of
centuries. The emblem of Ulster is a bloody hand, which was only
too appropriate to the place; and the symbol being called in the
language of heraldry a hand gules—or gold—in a field argent—or
silver—was also characteristic of the metallic source from which the
baronets derived their titles.
Prince Henry, the heir to the throne, had long been looked upon
as a pleasing contrast to his odious father, and the people were
anticipating the former's reign with an assurance that the amiable
and accomplished son would compensate for the infliction they had
endured in the ignorance, pride, and selfishness of the parent.
Death, however, that sometimes seizes first on the best, and leaves
the worst till the last—on the principle of the boy who began by
picking all the plums out of the pudding—took the youthful prince
before appropriating his papa, and caused the latter sinfully to exult
in being the survivor of his own offspring. He forgot the maxim that
"Whom the gods love, die young," and the remarks he made upon
his own comparative longevity proved that he at least was one of
those whom the gods had not been anxious to adopt at the earliest
opportunity. The young prince died of a malignant fever, on the 5th
of November, 1612, and his father, whose harsh conduct—especially
to Sir Walter Raleigh and other great men—had been criticised by his
heir, allowed no mourning to take place, but made the unnatural and
blasphemous boast that "he should outlive all who opposed him."
Though having little or no affection for his own children, James
delighted in having about him some low and sneaking favourite who
would flatter his ridiculous vanity, and help to cheat him into the
belief that he was a good and amiable character. As no one of spirit
and honesty would consent to become the despicable parasite that
James required, some mean and unprincipled vagabond was of
necessity selected as the depositary of that confidence which a son,
with the feelings of a gentleman, could not of course participate.
Henry had therefore been excluded from that free communication
which should exist between child and parent in every station, and an
uneducated humbug named Robert Carr had wormed his way into
the heart, or rather into the favour of James, who was drawn toward
the other by a sympathy with congenial littleness. Carr was such a
wretched ignoramus as to be unable to speak ten consecutive words
of grammar, and it flattered the egregious vanity of James to be able
to impart some of that education of which he had just about enough
to enable him to show his superiority over his most unlettered pupil.
Carr played his cards so successfully that he was soon not only
knighted but created Viscount Rochester; and though his future
career proved him worthier of the rope, he actually obtained the
Garter.
It was to be presumed that this disreputable scapegrace would
soon do something or other to prove how far James had been right
or wrong in the selection of a friend, adviser, companion, and
favourite. The necessities of Carr were so well supplied by sponging
on his royal patron that it was not necessary for the former to
commit any pecuniary swindle; but he very rapidly got into a most
disgraceful connection with the Countess of Essex, a vile person who
obtained a divorce from her own husband, to enable her to marry
Rochester. The latter had a friend named Sir Thomas Overbury, who
advised him to have nothing to do with the profligate woman in
question. This so irritated the countess that she persuaded her
paramour to join her in poisoning the party who had given the
advice, and after trying the homoeopathic principle for some weeks
without effect, they at length gave him one tremendous dose which
did the atrocious business. Carr had received the title of Earl of
Somerset on his infamous marriage, but the favourite was getting
already a little out of favour when the affair of the murder
happened. James being one of those who promptly turned his back
on those who were "down in the world," and had smiles for those
only who were prosperous, began to estrange himself from
Somerset, and to transfer his worthless friendship to George Villiers,
afterwards Duke of Buckingham.
The king first saw this young scamp at the Theatre Royal,
Cambridge, where a five-act farce called Ignoramus was being
represented by a party of distinguished amateurs, with the applause
that usually attends these interesting performances. Villiers was
appointed cupbearer—a grade immediately under that of bottle-
holder—to the king, and the influence of the new favourite was soon
felt by the old, who found himself arrested one fine morning on the
charge of having been concerned in Sir Thomas Overbury's murder.
The steps taken for the punishment of this atrocity were perfectly
characteristic of the period. By way of a preliminary offering to
Justice, some half dozen of the minor and subordinate parties to the
crime were executed off-hand, while the two principal delinquents,
Somerset and his countess, having been tardily condemned, were
immediately afterwards pardoned. The infamous couple
subsequently received a pension of £4000 a year from the king, who
no doubt felt that Somerset could show him up, and was just the
sort of scoundrel to do so unless he could be well paid for his
silence. The annuity allowed to the ex-favourite must be looked
upon as hush-money, rendered necessary by the mutual rascalities
of the donor and the recipient, who, being in each other's power,
were under the necessity of effecting a compromise. The fall of
Somerset was followed by the rise of Villiers, who rushed through
the entire peerage with railroad rapidity, passing the intermediate
stations of Viscount, Earl, and Marquis, till he reached the terminus
as Duke of Buckingham.
Poor Raleigh, who had been thirteen years in the Tower, where he
was writing the History of the World, began to feel a very natural
anxiety to get out of his prison, and describe, from ocular
demonstration, the subject of his gigantic labours. He accordingly
spread a report that he knew of a gold mine in Guiana where the
stuff for making guineas could be had only for the trouble of picking
it up, and the king was persuaded to let him go and try his luck in
America. Raleigh had no sooner got free than he published a
prospectus and got up a company with a preliminary deposit
sufficient to start him off well on his new enterprise. He proved with
all the clearness of figures—which the reader must not think of
confounding with facts—that a hundred per cent, must be realised;
and the shares in Raleigh's gold mine rose to such a height that he
was enabled to rig a ship after having rigged the market. Plans were
published, with great streaks of gamboge painted all over, to
represent the supposed veins of gold that were waiting only to be
worked; and through the medium of these veins the British public
bled very rapidly.
The extent of the mining mania got up by Sir Walter may be
imagined when we state that he arrived with twelve vessels at
Guiana, a portion of which had already been taken possession of by
Spain; and the English speculators declared with disgust, that they
had come for the gold, and had not expected to meet the Spanish.
The town of St. Thomas being already in the possession of the latter,
was boldly attacked and ultimately taken, but instead of finding a
mine there were only two ingots of gold in the whole place, which
Raleigh clutched, exclaiming "These are mine," immediately on
landing. It was evident to the whole party that Raleigh's story of the
gold mine was a mere "dodge" to get himself released from the
Tower; and when they came to look for the boasted vein, they found
it was literally in vain that they searched for the precious metal. A
mutiny at once broke out, and as Raleigh deceived them in his
promise of introducing them to abundance of gold, they made him
form a very close connection with a large quantity of iron. They in
fact threw him into fetters, a species of treatment that, had it been
applied to every projector of a bubble company during the railway
mania of 1846, would have hung half the aldermen of London in
chains, and linked society together by a general concatenation of
nearly every rank as well as every profession. Poor Raleigh arrived
safe in Plymouth Sound, but he found a proclamation out against
him, accusing him of a long catalogue of crimes, and inviting all the
world to take him into custody.
The Spanish ambassador was at the bottom of this affair, for the
Spaniards had a score of old scores against Sir Walter, who had no
sooner landed at Plymouth than he was made a prisoner. With
considerable ingenuity he pretended to be very ill, and even feigned
insanity; but the latter was a plea that could not so easily be
established in the time of Raleigh as it has been in our own days,
when it has been found a convenient and effective excuse for those
who, having committed murder, escape on the ground of their being
given to eccentricity. Raleigh tried it on very hard, by talking
incoherently, playing the fool, dancing fandangos in his prison,
sending a potato to his tailor to be measured for a new jacket, and
feigning other acts of madness, but to the writ de lunatico
inquirendo, there was no other return than nullum iter, or no go,
when the investigation into his state of mind was concluded. In
order to save the trouble and expense of a fresh conviction, the old
outstanding judgment was again brought up, and it was determined
to kill him by a bill of reviver—if such an anomaly could be
permitted. He grew ponderously facetious as his end drew nigh, and
made one or two jokes that might have saved him had they been
heard in time, for they gave evidence of an amount of mental
imbecility that should have released him from all responsibility on
account of his actions. Among other lugubrious levities of Raleigh
before his death, was the well-known but generally-execrated
remark in reference to a cup of sack which was brought to him:
"Ha!" said he, "I shall soon have the sack without the cup;" an
observation that elicited, as soon as it was known, an immediate
order for his execution. "That head of Raleigh's must come off,"
cried the king, "for it is evident the poor fellow has lost the use of
it." On the 29th of October, 1618, poor Raleigh joked his last, upon
the scaffold, where he stood shivering with cold, when the sheriff
asked him to step aside for a few minutes and warm himself. "No,"
said Sir Walter, "my wish is to take it cool;" and then looking at the
axe, he balanced it on the top of his little finger—some say his chin
—and observed, "This is a great medicine, rather sharp, but it cures
all diseases." At this the headsman, no doubt irritated by the
maddening mediocrity of the intended witticism, let fall the fatal
blade, and Raleigh, with his head cut off, never came to—or rather
never came one—again.
We ought, perhaps to shed a tear over the fate of this great,
though unprincipled man; but it is not so easy to turn on the main of
sentiment to the fountains of pity, after the water has been cut off
during more than two centuries by Time, in the capacity of turncock.
Besides, in going through the history of our native land there are so
many victims, all more or less worthy of a gush of sympathy, that we
should literally dissolve ourselves in tears before we had got half
through our labours, if we began giving way to what old King Lear
has ungallantly termed a woman's weakness.
On the 16th of June, 1621, James, being "hard up," and finding
that the circulation of the begging-box produced no effect, was
compelled to summon a Parliament. Some cash to go on with was
voted to the king, but the Commons then proceeded to investigate
some cases of gross corruption that had been discovered among the
Ministers. The Testes, the Cubieres, and other official swindlers of
modern France, who, in the midst of meanness, deception, and
theft, were still blatant about their "honour," might have found, in
the England of 1621, a precedent for their venal rascality. Sir John
Bennet, Judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and Field,
Bishop of Llandaff, were convicted of bribery. Yelverton, the
Attorney-General, was found guilty of having aided in an extensive
swindle in the Patent Office, and Bacon, the great "moral
philosopher," was found to have been fleecing the public in the Court
of Chancery, to such a degree, that he might have stuffed the
woolsack over and over again from the produce of the shearing to
which he submitted the flocks of suitors who appealed to him. He
would take bribes in open court, and he would pretend to consider,
that as all men should be equal in the eye of the law, the equality
could only be achieved by emptying the pockets of every party that
came into court, as a preliminary to giving him a hearing. It has
been said by his apologists, that though he took bribes, his decisions
were just, for he would often give judgment against those who had
paid him for a decree in their favour. The excuse merely proves that
he was sufficiently unscrupulous to follow up one fraud by another,
and to cheat his suitors out of the consideration upon which they
had parted with their money. Bacon endeavoured to effect a
compromise with his accusers by a confession of about one per cent,
of his crimes, but the Peers insisted on making him answerable in
full for all his delinquencies. He then acknowledged twenty-eight
articles, which seemed to satisfy the most ravenous of his enemies,
who were hungering to see his reputation torn to pieces by the
million mouths of rumour. The great seal was taken away from a
man of such a degraded stamp, he was flned £40,000—a mere
bagatelle out of what he had bagged—was declared incapable of
holding office or sitting in Parliament, and was sent off to the Tower.

Original Size

There were thoughts of beheading him, but happily for England,

her Bacon was saved to devote the remainder of his life to literary
compositions, which have greatly redeemed his name from obloquy.
We must regard the character of our Bacon as streaky, for the dark
is intermingled with the fair in the most wonderful manner. "Bacon
was undoubtedly rash, but he might have been rasher," says the
incorrigible Strype, whose name is continually suggestive of the
lashing he merited.
 The Commons having been instrumental in bringing to light a
considerable quantity of corruption, seemed determined to continue
on the same scent, and every one who had a grievance was invited
to lay it at once before Parliament. The waste-paper baskets of the
House were of course soon overflowing with popular complaints, for
there is scarcely a man, woman or child that cannot rake up a
grievance of some kind, upon the invitation of persons professing to
be able and willing to supply a remedy. James, fearful that his
prerogative would be entrenched upon, wrote a letter to the
Speaker, advising the Commons not to form themselves into an
assembly of gossips, to listen to all the tittle-tattle that an entire
nation of scandal-mongers would be ready to collect; but the House
would not be diverted from its honest purpose by the sneers or
threats of the sovereign. A good deal of polite and other letter-
writing ensued between the king and the Parliament, until the latter
entered on its journals a protestation, claiming the freedom of
speech and the right of giving advice as the undoubted "inheritance
of the subjects of England."
James was furious at what had occurred, and ordering the
Journals of the Commons to be brought to him, he contemptuously
tore out the page; and then, sending back the book, advised the
House to turn over a new leaf as soon as possible. "Tell your
master," said Coke, in a whisper that nobody heard, "tell him he will
do well to take a leaf out of our book, but not in the style in which
this leaf has been taken." Parliament was first prorogued, and then
dissolved by the king, who declared it would do no good as long as it
lasted, and Coke, who was charged with adding fuel to the
Parliamentary fire, was sent to the Tower with several others. On the
day of the dissolution James nearly met with his own dissolution, for
while taking a ride on a spirited horse, who had perhaps a certain
instinctive sympathy with the popular cause, he was thrown into the
New River.
 Original Size

This was on the 6th of January, 1622, when the water was frozen;
and James had just been saying to himself, "I'm glad I have made
the plunge, and broken the ice with these turbulent Commons,"
when he found himself plunging and breaking the ice after another
fashion. Fortunately his boots were buoyant—perhaps they had cork
soles—and Sir Richard Young, seizing a boat-hook, which he
converted for the moment into a boot-hook, drew the sovereign by
the heels from what he afterwards declared was decidedly not his
proper element.
Buckingham, as we have already seen, was the sole successor to
Somerset in the office of royal favourite; but Charles, the Prince of
Wales, had taken rather an aversion than otherwise to the person
whom his father patronised. The friends of the latter were generally
so disreputable, that his son could not go wrong in avoiding them;
but Buckingham beginning to look upon Charles as the better
speculation of the two, resolved on making himself as agreeable as
possible to the more faithful and therefore more promising branch of
royalty. The duke being fond of scampish adventure, proposed a
plan better suited to be made the incident of a farce, than to be
ranked as an event in history. He suggested that Charles and himself
should travel to Spain under the assumed names of Jack Smith and
Tom Smith, in order that the prince might introduce himself to the
Infanta of Spain, whom it had been proposed he should marry. For
such a wild-goose scheme to succeed, an Infanta of Spain must
have been much more accessible in those days than in ours; for
though Jack Smith and Tom Smith might find their way into a public-
house parlour, and make love to the landlord's daughter, they would
assuredly never be allowed to carry their gallantries into any
European palace, or even to obtain admittance into any respectable
private family. James, when the scheme was proposed to him,
discouraged it at first, but being taken by the scapegrace couple in
"a jovial humour," which means when the trio happened to be
disgracefully drunk, the consent of the king was given to the farcical
enterprise.
Having arrived at Madrid, the two hopeful youths rode up on
mules to the door of Sir Thomas Digby, the British ambassador, and
sent in the names of John and Thomas Smith; but Digby, knowing
no less than half a hundred Smiths, declined seeing the "party"
unless a more special description was sent up to him. Without
waiting for further formality, Buckingham—alias Tom Smith—walked
with his portmanteau straight into the ambassador's presence, after
a series of scuffles on the staircase and in the passages,
accompanied by shouts of "Keep back, fellow!"
"You can't come up!" and other exclamations that had prepared
Digby to give Tom Smith a reception by no means encouraging.
When tne ambassador recognised his visitor, his manner completely
changed, and his politeness knew no bounds, when in Jack Smith,
who entered next, Digby saw no less a person than the heir to the
throne of England. The incognito was of course at an end in an
instant, and the next day Buckingham and the prince were
presented to the royal family of Spain, though the farce of the
disguise was still kept up to a certain extent; and the Infanta was
sent out in her father's carriage, "sitting in the boot," says Howell,
"that Charles might get a sight of her." The position of a young lady
looking from the boot of a carriage could not have been very
becoming, and she does not seem to have made a particularly
favourable impression on her intended suitor. He nevertheless
expressed his readiness to have another look at her, and he played
the part of lover at Buckingham's instigation, for the purpose of
getting a variety of presents from the young lady's family.
Her brother Philip was anxious for the match, and did everything
to encourage it, by giving some valuable article to Charles whenever
he evinced anything like affection for the young Infanta. One day he
pretended to be in a particularly tender mood, and at every piece of
gallantry he displayed Philip gave him something costly to take away
with him. By a series of smirks, leers, and pretty speeches, he
secured some original pictures by Titian and Correggio, but when he
rushed up to the Infanta with amorous playfulness, pinking her in
the side with his cane, and giving the Spanish version of "Whew, you
little baggage!" the queen of Spain was so delighted that she
emptied her reticule, which was full of amber, into the pocket of the
Prince, while the word "Halves" was whispered in a sepulchral tone
into his ear by the crafty and avaricious Buckingham.
When they had got all they could out of the Spanish royal family,
the English prince and his companion made up their minds that the
Infanta was a failure, and that they had better get home with all
possible celerity. Buckingham began treating Philip with the most
disrespectful familiarity, slapping him boisterously on the back,
alluding to him curtly, but not courteously, as Phil., ana otherwise
offending the royal dignity. At length Prince Charles and his
companion called to take leave, when the former played his old part
of a devoted lover, beating in the crown of his hat, stamping on the
floor, and giving the numerous signs of devotion that a practice of
several weeks under a popular actor had made him completely
master of. He had no sooner turned his back upon Madrid, and
commenced moving towards home, than he made up his mind to cut
the matrimonial connection; and he announced his determination by
a messenger, who was instructed to say to Philip, that, for the good
of both parties, and decidedly for the happiness of one, the
abandonment of the marriage was much to be desired. Philip, upon
whom the Infanta was a drag he would have been glad to get off his
hands, became angry at the tampering that had taken place with the
young lady's affections; but as these were no doubt pretty tough,
the damage was not material.
A proxy had been left in the hands of Digby, Earl of Bristol, the
British Ambassador at Madrid, and the royal family sent nearly every
day, with their compliments, begging to know when the proxy was to
be acted upon; but finding at last, that, notwithstanding the proxy,
there was no approximation to a satisfactory result, a most
unpleasant feeling was created. Bristol, who was a man of honour,
felt very uncomfortable at the evasive replies he was compelled to
give, and was not sorry to return to England; though he had, as he
naturally observed, "not bargained for the warrant which, in the
most unwarrantable manner, awaited his arrival, and sent him
straight to the Tower." He was soon afterwards released, but was not
allowed by Buckingham, the favourite, to approach the king, and a
recommendation to Bristol to go to Bath, or to retire to his country
seat, was the only reply the ex-ambassador could obtain to his
solicitations to be allowed to offer explanations to his sovereign.
Charles had given the Infanta scarcely time to recover from the
jilting she had just undergone, when, with a cruel disregard of that
young person's feelings, he made up to Mademoiselle Henrietta of
France, and a marriage with the latter was speedily concluded. The
dowry, amounting to about £100,000, was paid partly down, but the
nuptial ceremony was performed by proxy; and the English
Government wrote over to say that there was no hurry about the
bride, provided some of the cash was transmitted to England as
speedily as possible.
With some of the cash thus obtained, and with money squeezed
out of the people, an expensive engagement was formed with Count
Mans-feldt, an adventurer from the Low Countries, who undertook to
recover the Palatinate, if an English army of twelve thousand men
were placed under him. The troops were put at his disposal, and
embarked at Dover; but on reaching Calais the governor had no
orders to let them pass, and in consequence of the loss of the city in
Mary's time, the free list, of which the English had been in the habit
of taking advantage, was of course suspended. In vain did Mansfeldt
inform the door-keeper that it was all right, and insist that the name
of Mansfeldt and party should have been left with the authorities; for
the man resolutely declared he had a duty to perform, which
prevented him from admitting the earl and his followers. While they
were waiting outside the bar of Calais, several of the troops suffered
severely from sea-sickness, and being obliged to go round by the
back way, they had become so attenuated, that instead of being fit
for marching into the Palatinate, they were much better adapted for
marching into Guy's Hospital.
The failure of this expedition was the last event of importance in
the reign of James, who was fast sinking under gout and tertian
ague, produced by a long indulgence in rums, gins, brandies, and
other compounds. He died, at the age of fifty-nine, on the 27th of
March, 1625, having reigned upwards of two-and-twenty years,
during which he showed himself fully deserving of the title bestowed
on him by Sully, who said of James the First that he was the "wisest
fool in Europe." He was learned, it is true, but his acquirements,
such as they were, became a bore, from his disagreeable habit of
thrusting them at most inappropriate times upon all who approached
him. He was weak, mean, and pusillanimous, while his excessive
vanity caused him to select for his companions those pitiful
sycophants who would affect admiration for those miserable
qualities, which, had he cultivated the friendship of honest and
intelligent men, he might have been eventually broken of. He lost,
and indeed he did not desire the society of his children, because
they could not sympathise with those littlenesses of character which,
the older they grew, their judgment caused them more and more to
despise and deplore in their unfortunate parent.
Happily only two out of seven survived to endure that alienation
which must have been painful while it would have been unavoidable;
and they were thus spared the humiliation of seeing a father vain,
selfish, and unrepentant to the last, while their deaths in rapid
succession gave him happily no uneasiness. For his eldest son he
had, as we have already seen, prohibited the wearing of mourning,
thus giving a proof of combined malice and stupidity, since his
insults to the dead were of course as impotent as they were wicked
and infamous. He was suspicious in the extreme, and always fancied
he was going to be done or done for. To guard against the latter
contingency he wore a quilted doublet that was proof against a
stiletto, and under the apprehension of being taken advantage of, he
obstinately excluded every one from his confidence. The result was
that he never had a friend, through his constant dread of an
imaginary enemy. It has been said of him by one of his historians,
that he was fond of laughing at his own conceits; but the wretch
who can even smile at a joke of his own must be such a libel upon
human nature that not even Hume-an(d) Smollett (ha! ha! mark the
pun) shall make us believe that an individual so abject could ever
have existed.
Though the sovereign himself was not calculated to inspire
respect, there were many events in his reign which rendered it
useful if not glorious. Sir Hugh Middleton commenced at Amwell that
now venerable New River, by dabbling in which he swamped himself
and secured a stream of health and prosperity to those who came
after him. The immortal Hicks finished his memorable Hall; Lord
Napier invented logarithms, to the extreme disgust of the school-
boys of every generation; and Dr. Harvey made the magnificent
discovery that the blood is a periodical enjoying the most unlimited
circulation. Two Dutch navigators contrived to double Cape Horn;
which the reader must not imagine was twice its present size before
that operation was performed, for Cape Horn, like any other cape, is
not larger when doubled. Bill Baffin, an Englishman (you all know Bill
Baffin) discovered Baffin's Bay in the year 1616, and a patent for the
fire engine, granted two years afterwards, has been stated as a
proof that steam power was first known in England in 1618, though
upon inquiry we are inclined to think there was more of smoke than
steam in the invention spoken of.
The wealth and extravagance of the nobles, among whom
corruption and bribery were practised "wholesale, retail, and for
exportation," may be imagined from the statement, that on the
marriage of the French king, the horse of the English ambassador
wore silver shoes so loosely fastened on, that they fell off, and were
instantly replaced, for distribution among the populace. We can
scarcely believe that any English horse could have walked in these
silver shoes or slippers in the time of James, however skilfully they
could have substituted sliding for walking, since the Wood Demon,
coming to London, caused the introduction of wooden pavements.
The luxury and display that stand prominently forward among the
characteristics of the period, were discountenanced by James when
seen in others, though he would have spared nothing tor the selfish
gratification of his own extravagance. Bacon, whose tendency to
flattery justifies the popular analogy between butter and bacon,
remarked of the king that he would recommend the country
gentlemen to remain at their seats, by saying to them, "In London
you are like ships in a sea, which show like nothing; but in your
country villages you are like ships in a river, which look like great
things." * This, after all, was a funny idea, but a bad argument; for
a ship in a river, like a storm in a puddle, is somewhat out of its
element. Many would prefer being wrecked in the ocean of a busy
but tempestuous life, to remaining aground in the dismal swamp of
rural obscurity. The thing to be desired, is the art of keeping a
steady course, and steering in the right direction; but it is mere
pusillanimity to accept a recommendation to shirk the voyage.
Among the inventions of the reign of James, we must not omit to
mention the sedan, a contrivance of the lazy and luxurious
Buckingham. On its first appearance in public, the mob hooted the
machine as it passed, declaring that their fellow-creatures should not
do the service of beasts; but the "fellow-creatures," being paid for
and liking the job, were the first to beat off their friends, the people.
The friends of humanity were, however, not content till they had
broken in the top and knocked out the bottom of the machine,
leaving Buckingham to walk home in a most uncomfortable case,
with his head peering out at the top, and his feet appearing at the
bottom of his novel equipage.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com