Humans as a Critical Infrastructure: Public-Private Partnerships Essential to
Resiliency and Response
Joshua Barnes
James Madison University, Institute for
Infrastructure and Information Assurance
barnesjj@jmu.edu
Abstract
Considerable expense and resources have been
dedicated to the analysis, maintenance, and security of
the critical infrastructures. However, additional effort
should be expended in the consideration of humans as a
critical infrastructure. Human interpersonal networks,
intelligence, capacity for innovation, and characteristics
as a resilient complex system are only a few examples of
how humans are not only an integral component of the
traditional infrastructures, but also are infrastructures in
and of themselves.
One of the implications of viewing humans as a
critical infrastructure is a need to ensure their security.
Public-private partnerships and community level efforts
to foster individual and community resiliency offer
tangible measures of ensuring the security of this
overlooked critical infrastructure.
1. Introduction
Both physical and cyber critical infrastructures serve
as the backbone, the core, and the driving force behind
the operations of societies nationally and globally.
Attributing such strong language to the critical
infrastructures hardly reflects both the breadth and the
depth of the critical infrastructures impact upon an
individual’s life. Understanding the burdens of the
infrastructures and their complex interdependencies, the
United States Government has expended considerable
resources in efforts to fortify and improve the foundation
upon which the nation rests. In February 2003, President
George W. Bush issued The National Strategy for The
Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key
Assets. This National Strategy identified the following as
critical infrastructures; agriculture and food, water, public
health, emergency services, defense industrial base,
telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and
Kenneth Newbold
James Madison University, Institute for
Infrastructure and Information Assurance
newbolkf@cisat.jmu.edu
finance, chemical industry and hazardous materials, and
postal and shipping. These infrastructures are undeniably
critical, yet one infrastructure was not recognized.
Humans are another critical infrastructure. Humans are at
the core of the aforementioned infrastructures, without
their intelligence and ingenuity all would cease to
function. Humans also serve as a critical infrastructure
because of their relationships within organizations,
between organizations, and as communities. This paper
will illustrate not only why humans are a critical
infrastructure, but how public-private partnerships serve
as the medium through which that infrastructure functions
and protects itself.
2. Humans as a Critical Infrastructure
Humans are at the core of the interdependencies
among the traditional critical infrastructures. This point
is easy to overlook, after all, it is logical to assume that
people are an inherent part of the infrastructures.
However, such an assumption can be dangerous for the
management, security, and recovery of said
infrastructures. Dismissing the significance of the human
element in the critical infrastructures ignores a highly
variable characteristic. In particular, the human,
organizational environment in which the infrastructures
operate is highly complex due to public policy,
ownership, and legal issues [1]. In addition to being a
key determining factor in developing the environment,
humans serve as a link in the interdependencies of the
critical infrastructures. Rinaldi, Peerenboom, and Kelly
defined “interdependency” as, “A bidirectional
relationship between two infrastructures through which
the state of each infrastructure influences or is correlated
to the state of the other” [p 14]. Considering humans as
an interdependent critical infrastructure occurs in three
relationships.
First, people need infrastructures for the services they
provide. Naturally, without the infrastructures modern
society would resemble that of the Middle Ages without
electric power, running water, reliable food supplies, or
healthcare. The advancements in developing the complex
systems of systems have quite visibly become a defining
characteristic of daily life.
The second relationship is that infrastructures need
people for the function of the infrastructure itself and the
innovation that people develop. Mentioned earlier, it is
easy to overlook the human role in the basic operations of
the traditional critical infrastructures. Also, humans serve
as critical elements within traditional infrastructures not
only in the organizational sense and the operational sense,
but also the intelligence sense. Existing and
advancements in technology have been an invaluable
resource for both physical and cyber infrastructures. In
particular the use of radio frequency identification (RFID)
and supervisory control and data acquisition systems
(SCADA) technologies have provided vital advance
warning and monitoring functionality to existing
infrastructures [2]. The role of human intelligence adds
the vital capability of analysis, decision making, and
information reporting [3]. Humans, as intelligent beings,
have the ability to disseminate, understand, and produce
conclusions from both abstract and concrete information.
This process occurs countless times every day as people
identify, assess, and act on situations. Technology is
currently incapable of this function. This is where the
human element as a critical infrastructure is a vital
dependency the infrastructures have of humans. An
example of this dependency is the role of the Air Traffic
Controller (ATC) [4]. There are approximately 40,921
operational facilities staffed by approximately 36,349
employees [2]. The command and control capacity that
the ATC’s provide to the transportation infrastructure
allowed the almost 7 million air traffic movements during
January and February of 2002 to occur [2]. Another
example of the role of intelligence within the scope of
infrastructures is the public. The role of human
intelligence as a function of the public is the Amber Alert
system. Developed by the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, the nationwide system relies
entirely on individual reports from people who identify a
missing child. Though this system is not explicitly an
infrastructure, the function of the public in taking
individual action is an important example of the civilian
implementation of human intelligence [5].
The third relationship developing the
interdependencies of humans as a critical infrastructure is
the role of people in facilitating the communication and
cooperation among other interdependent infrastructures.
Flaws in internal and external communications of key
people can easily render any infrastructure vulnerable and
operationally ineffective [6]. Communication, being
essential in any relationship, is particularly important
when it comes to the delivery of critical services. For
example, the telecommunications infrastructure is largely
dependant on the electrical infrastructure [1]. This
interdependency occurs via both direct and indirect
channels. Directly, the telecommunications infrastructure
needs the energy supplied by the electrical infrastructure
to power its switches. Indirectly, telecommunications
needs the water for cooling, heat, fuel, and shipping
services provided by other infrastructures. These
infrastructures would be incapable of supplying these
services without the electrical infrastructure [1]. Should
inadequate organizational communication between any of
these infrastructures, services will inevitably suffer.
Another excellent example of the impacts of a flaw in
communications occurred during the response effort of
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The 9/11
Commission Report identified “command and control” as
one of the key hindrances during the emergency response
[7]. Additionally, the McKinsey Report specifically
identifies situations that arose during the response
showing a breakdown in communication. One such
situation was when emergency medical service (EMS)
units went directly to Ground Zero of the World Trade
Center to render any assistance possible. Though noble
and genuine in their intentions, their actions left the
emergency operations center (EOC) without a clear
picture as to what units were on scene. So, when the
Trade Towers collapsed, it was difficult to assess how
many people were still in there [8].
Humans are infrastructures in and of themselves. The
USA PATRIOT Act defines critical infrastructures as,
“systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital
to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of
such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact
on security, national economic security, national public
health or safety, or any combination of those matters” [9].
Considering humans as a critical infrastructure
themselves is not inherently obvious based on this
definition. However, Rinaldi, Peerenboom, and Kelly
identify some key characteristics of infrastructures that
play into interdependencies.
Two of these characteristics that most interestingly
apply in considering humans as their own infrastructure
are spatial scales and organizational considerations. In
traditional infrastructures, spatial scales are considered to
be a hierarchy of elements. Perrow identifies a taxonomy
of, “part,” “unit,” “subsystem,” “system,”
“infrastructure,” and “interdependent infrastructure” [10].
An example of the application of this taxonomy could be
the electrical infrastructure, where the power lines,
transformers, substations, power plants, and the entire
infrastructure show the increase in spatial scale. The
human infrastructure easily conforms to the spatial scale
characteristic. Where the individual person is the
smallest unit, the institution is the infrastructure, and the
community is the interdependent infrastructures. The
second characteristic of interest is the organizational
considerations. As mentioned earlier, it is the policy,
ownership, and legal environment that play a very
powerful role on the management, function, and security
of the traditional infrastructures. These organizational
considerations play an equally powerful role on the
human infrastructure. People are subject to the laws and
policy that they create. We are bound by the
organizational environment that has developed over time.
Perhaps the strongest defining characteristic of an
infrastructure is that as a complex system. Complex
systems are, “complex collections of interacting
components in which change often occurs as a result of
learning processes” [1]. Humans as an infrastructure are
best explored as a complex system by the scholarly fields
of sociology and psychology. Sociology explores subject
matter like “complex mobility’s” where Urry points out
that, “Emergent, unintended and non-linear consequences
are generated within such systems, consequences that are
patterned by unpredictable, distant in time and/or space
from where they originate and involving potential system
bifurcation” [11]. Anyone who has tried to
mathematically predict the outcome of a Presidential
election months in advance knows these non-linear
consequences well. The human infrastructure, or for
sociologists, society in general is undoubtedly a highly
complex system. Psychologists explore the complex
interpersonal and behavioral actions of individuals with
much intensity. For example, Basu, et.al. explore
complex quantitative models that attempt to understand
the interactions between people in conversational settings.
Humans are a critical infrastructure in and of themselves
not only because their characteristics are quite similar to
those of traditional infrastructures, but also because on
both the macro and micro levels, human interactions and
behaviors result in an exceptionally complex system [12].
The implications of introducing humans as their own
critical infrastructure are significant. One such
implication is the shift would demand a policy change to
consider how humans as an infrastructure can be
maintained and secured. Another implication is in
mapping and understanding the necessary interactions of
including the human infrastructure with the traditional
infrastructures. Figure 1 identifies a sample of the
possible interactions.
Admittedly, Figure 1 does a not do an adequate job of
fully exploring all of the connections that exist among
these infrastructures to satisfactorily portray their
relationships. Despite its roughness, it should not be
overstated that the position of the human infrastructure in
the center of the figure is significant. As stated earlier all
of the traditional infrastructures depend heavily on the
support, maintenance, innovation, and organizational
environment produced by the human infrastructure. With
its vital place acknowledged, what policy changes would
need to result to respond to this paradigm shift? In the
Water1
Electric2
Human3
Food5
Oil4
Figure 1: Human infrastructure interactions*
1= Water infrastructure supplies water for cooling,
emissions reductions, production, and drinking for other
infrastructures. It receives power for pumps and control
stations, and human support and maintenance.
2= Electrical infrastructure supplies energy to other
infrastructures operations it receives fuel, cooling material,
and human support and maintenance.
3=Human infrastructure supplies intellectual operation
of other infrastructures, innovation for increased
efficiency, security, and organizational environment. It
receives end product services from all other
infrastructures.
4= Oil infrastructure supplies fuel for other
infrastructures. It receives cooling material, energy for
pumps and operation, and human support and
maintenance.
5=Food infrastructure supplies food to human
infrastructure to sustain its function, and supplies raw
materials for alternative fuels. It receives energy, water
for irrigation, fuel for equipment, and human support and
maintenance.
* Adapted from Rinaldi, Peerenboom, and Kelly, 2001
post-9/11 world, the security of the critical infrastructures
is the prevailing course that much funding and research is
taking [13]. The security and protection of the human
infrastructure is in many ways already at the core of the
critical infrastructure protection efforts. Adding health
systems and emergency services as a critical
infrastructure is an example of how a critical
infrastructure not only is designed to protect another
infrastructure but also requires its own forms of
protection. The health systems and emergency services
are charged with the protection of life and the response
and recovery to events that threaten homeland security.
However, additional efforts are necessary to protect the
human infrastructure.
 As any critical infrastructure, the human infrastructure
is vulnerable. Naturally, the vulnerabilities of the human
infrastructure are much more organic than those of the
physical and virtual infrastructures. The human
infrastructures are vulnerable physically, mentally, and
emotionally. Recent research has indicated that the
development of individual and community resiliency is a
positive way of protecting and enabling people, the
human infrastructure [14] [15] [16]. In developing the
resiliency of a population before, during, and after a
disaster the populous is better equipped to manage the
situation. Monday and Myers emphasize that the
approach towards resiliency work in tandem with
community sustainability efforts where a balanced
approach is vital. For example, Monday and Myers
suggest that relying on insurance and building codes is
not developing resiliency or sustainability, only
vulnerability [16]. Another method in the development of
resiliency in the operational sense can be considered is
through the implementation of public-private
partnerships.
3. Public-Private Partnerships
There are inherent advantages for the human
infrastructure to engage in partnerships. Considerable
efforts have been made to solicit the specialized
knowledge and experience of the private sector by the
government [17]. The role of partnerships between
industry and government has a long history in the United
States. Typically the role of public-private partnerships
has been in the implementation of economic development
initiatives [18] [19]. Private firms find engaging in
partnerships with government for the purposes of
economic development to be a worthwhile engagement
for a few reasons. The primary reason is the economic
development of an urban area creates a more fertile
environment in which the firm can prosper [18]. Better
roads, better schools, and less crime result in more
efficient business activity and a higher quality labor pool
[18] [20]. In addition to the philanthropic activities and
job creation of the private firm, an additional benefit in
partnering with government is an expansion of both
private and public roles in society. Government evolves
from being tax-collector and service provider to taking on
additional roles such as real estate developer, lending
entity, and labor pool developer. The expansion of the
role the private firms takes is in the form of job-trainer
and downtown revitalization among others [18].
However, there is a third entity in the private-public
partnerships that cannot be ignored, the role of the
university.
The university plays a very unique, yet critical role in
the development of private-public partnerships. Kysiak
identifies two specific cases involving Northwestern and
Yale Universities where the needs for additional
resources and funding necessitated the participation of the
universities in local economic development initiatives
[21]. In these situations, each university independently
acknowledged a need to not be exclusively focused on
internal development. Much like how private firms have
acknowledged the numerous positive externalities by
partnering with government to create fertile business
environments, the universities recognized potential for
growth through partnerships [18]. Partnerships and
strategic alliances are also beneficial among universities
where costs can be contained, academic programs can be
strengthened, and positive public policy can arise [22].
Johnston and Noftsinger point out that the idea of
partnerships among universities is not a new phenomenon
because their roots can be traced as far back as the 19th
century [22]. The long history of partnerships among
private industry, government, and universities illustrate a
very critical point for the protection of the critical, human
infrastructure. Partnerships and strategic alliances reduce
overall costs and produce numerous positive externalities
in their mission to address problems that are too big for a
single organization to tackle.
The protection of critical infrastructures is a
formidable task. The financial, organizational, and policy
burdens are considerable. The weight of this burden has
been acknowledged by both the President and Congress
through funding towards research and development for
the securing of critical infrastructures. An example of
this acknowledgment comes in the form of George Mason
University and James Madison University’s participation
in the Critical Infrastructure Protection Project (CIP
Project) [23]. Because of the weight of the needs to
protect the critical infrastructures, given what is known of
the capabilities of private-public partnerships, the best
method of addressing the vulnerabilities of the critical
infrastructures comes in the form of alliances among
industry, government, and universities. This method also
applies to the securing of the human infrastructure. One
of the interesting aspects is that the development of
partnerships is not only a means of securing the human
infrastructure, but it also serves as the structural base for
the infrastructure itself. See Figure 2 for a diagram
indicating the partnering players and their contributions to
the establishment of the human infrastructure. Figure 2
adds a fourth player to the previous discussion, the role of
the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). An NGO,
much like the other players are institutions of people who
share an organizational goal of some kind [24]. The
significance of Figure 2 is it shows that each of the
players contribute a very important resource to the
development of the individual and the institution alike by
encouraging communication within organizations,
between organizations, and in the development of
communities. These developmental resources are crucial

Academia
-Research
-Build
Relationships
-Grants
Industry Individual and Government
-Physical, Institution -Infrastructure
Human Capital -Within orgs -Response
-Support -Between orgs -Assess need
response -Communities -Coordinator
NGO’s
-Human capital
-Support
response
Figure 2: Human infrastructure structural
base
in securing of the human infrastructure. By enabling
communication and coordination in the development of
resilient communities, the human infrastructure as a
whole on the macro and micro scale becomes more
resilient to threats [25].
A partnership among these four players, academia,
government, NGO’s, and industry should be explored in
greater detail to fully understand the significance of the
role the partnership plays in securing the critical
infrastructure. First, academia plays the important role as
being a source of very strong, highly trained labor. The
contribution of high-end research from the universities
allows industry and government to address other
necessary functions. Academia also can serve as an
intermediary between industry and government. The
university’s position as the researcher suggests that at
some point it will produce new and innovative ideas or
technologies. As the researcher, however, the university
does not necessarily have the experience or the resources
to implement and field test its products. This is where the
university can play a strong role in soliciting support from
industry for development, and support from government
for implementation. Also, the university can serve as a
vehicle for Federal and state funding that could be
otherwise unavailable to industry and local governments.
This way industry and local governments have additional
incentive to contribute to the partnership for the return of
external funding.
Second, government’s role, as indicated by
Davis needs to evolve beyond the tax-collector and
service provider [18]. In the context of protecting the
human infrastructure, the role of government in the
partnership would be the contribution of identifying the
infrastructures, identifying response roles, assessing local
needs for response and resiliency, and coordinating with
local leadership to implement infrastructure protection.
The identification of the infrastructures is an effort that
has been undertaken since the Clinton administration with
Executive Order 13010 in 1996 [2]. However, to
adequately protect the human infrastructure
supplementary identification is necessary to identify key
elements of the infrastructure such as communication
networks, human organizational patterns, and intra-inter
infrastructure interactions. The identification of response
roles is an effort currently being undertaken by the
Department of Homeland Security through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. For example, the
National Response Plan [NRP] has resulted in the
amendment of the Virginia Emergency Services and
Disasters Laws of 2000 requires the 140 jurisdictions in
the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt new emergency
operations plans (EOP) [26]. This legislation will require
both the state and local governments within Virginia to
identify response roles to threats against the human
infrastructures.
Third, industry plays a very critical role in the securing
of the critical infrastructures. One of the prevailing
reasons for this critical role is the fact that the vast
majority of the physical and cyber infrastructures are
owned and maintained by the private sector [27]. In
addition to industry’s place as owner and investor in the
infrastructures, its role is also expanded from job-training
and a source of tax revenue to contributing both physical
and human capital to the securing of the infrastructure.
The physical capital can come in the form of technology
to improve communications. For example, industry
support of local first responders could have better enabled
fire fighters and police officers to communicate during
the September 11th terrorist attacks [8] [7]. Industry also
has the capacity to contribute human capital in the form
of training in the operation of technologies and in
consulting capacities to study governmental operations
[4]. There is also a very powerful “good will” externality
that industry stands to reap with the partnership with the
other players to secure the human infrastructure. An
example of a display of such good will would be for a
local or even national restaurant firm to contribute food to
disaster relief operations. An intuitive and preferred way
of supporting the human infrastructure is in developing its
resiliency against natural and man-made threats [16]. A
crucial means of doing this is in creating an environment
where the people can feel most “at home.” A good cup of
coffee or a sandwich from a local restaurant could be a
small but effective means to contributing to such an
environment.
Finally, the role of the NGO’s in the four player
partnership is very important. An excellent example of
the role the American Red Cross has played in disaster
response and prevention since its inception in 1881 [28].
Annually, the American Red Cross utilizes over a million
volunteers to support the response and recovery
operations of over 67,000 local disasters [29]. This
contribution to the nationwide response effort is a prime
example of the role that NGO’s can fill in contributing
experience and human capital in the form of volunteers to
help support response and recover operations. A recent
example of the implementation of the human capital from
an NGO and volunteers in response and recovery was the
2003 arrival of Hurricane Isabel in Virginia. The
Virginia Department of Emergency Management trains
and coordinates Community Emergency Response Teams
(CERT). During and immediately after Isabel impacted
Virginia, approximately 11 CERT teams were used to
support the response and recovery in areas such as,
Hampton, VA, Colonial Heights, VA, and Virginia
Beach, VA. [30]. The implementation of the CERT
teams during a disaster is an example of how the
augmentation of human capital from non-governmental
and governmental organizations can contribute strongly
to the resiliency of a community against threats.
4. Partnerships Developing Human
Infrastructure Resiliency
The partnering of these four institutions would result
in a collaborative effort that has the potential to not only
develop economic benefits, and community benefits, but
a genuine effort at developing the resiliency of the human
infrastructure. However, much like the past public-
private partnerships, a very clearly defined objective must
exist for each party to be able to identify specifically why
participation is worthwhile. The aforementioned
examples of how the individual parties contribute to
partnerships toward resiliency development would need
to be focused towards a singular goal. One such goal is
the local development of Homes Away from Home. The
Home Away from Home is a new emergency sheltering
concept that is specifically designed to focus institutional
participation for the development of shelters that
contribute to individual and community resiliency.
The Homes concept is an operational extension of the
public-private partnership to strengthen the human
infrastructure. Utilizing the government’s understanding
of local needs for sheltering, consortia would develop,
much like the Project Impact of the Central Shenandoah
Planning District Commission (Virginia) to bring
government, industry, academia, and NGO’s together to
collaborate on local issues [31] [16]. Drawing from local
and possibly state resources, the community would
develop shelters that have equipment and materials
specifically designed to address individual resiliency.
Materials that could be effective towards this end are
communications equipment, physical activity options, and
facilities for survivor’s pets. Many devices exist that
helps develop and environment where the survivor can
feel more “like home” the greater the individual resiliency
[14]. The use of human capital contributed from industry,
government, and NGO’s would be highly effective in the
response and recovery operations of the Homes. For
example, the implementation of Community Emergency
Response Teams (CERT) volunteers to help with local
response operations could offer an effective means of
enabling the local population to cope with the disaster at
hand [32].
A technological resource that could prove effective in
developing community resiliency is a Sheltering GIS
developed by James Madison University, Harrisonburg,
Virginia. This GIS collects emergency sheltering data
from local emergency managers and local officials. This
data is then portrayed on a GIS in conjunction with
demographic data. The Sheltering GIS is hoped to
eventually become a near real-time device that would
show the public specific where shelter locations are, and
what facilities the shelter may have to accommodate their
needs. Research indicates that though disaster survivors
tend to avoid emergency shelters, those that do seek them
tend to find them by accident [33] [34]. The integration
and implementation of the Homes concept would provide
local and regional populations with information that
would not only be vital to their survival but also in
supporting their higher needs through resiliency.
Ultimately, the development of resiliency on both the
individual and community level carries a few key
benefits. Benefits related to developing individual
resiliency come in the context of developing individual
accountability for security and recovery. The
Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert programs are
excellent examples of this development [5]. Also, by
contributing to an individual’s resiliency, when a threat
upon the human infrastructure [community] is perceived
the individual is psychologically more enabled to do
something about the threat [14]. This results in fewer
victims and more facilitators in the protection and
recovery effort. Also, the resilient individual will be
better equipped to hasten the recovery operations of
damage to both the physical and human infrastructures.
The benefits of community wide resiliency development
through public-private partnerships are the aggregate of
all the individual resiliencies. This translates into a faster
recovery, less long term damage, and a healthier
community in general [14]. A resilient human
infrastructure (community) is one that is more likely to
work together, thus becoming more effective at
mitigating threats.
A lesson learned from identifying the significance of
human infrastructure collaboration is that when people
working together towards a common goal are more likely
to be successful [22] [24]. This is not to say that every
individual within an organization requires a deep breadth
of knowledge about every aspect of the functions towards
the common goal. But, every member of the
infrastructure should have an understanding of the other
functions, and most importantly, how their individual role
is part of the master plan. An example of this need for a
response wide understanding of the “master plan” is the
basis for the development of the High Consequence Event
Decision Matrix [35]. The High Consequence Event
Decision Matrix identifies the biological, nuclear,
incendiary, chemical, and explosive (B-NICE) weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) and then attributes the
necessary emergency response roles and public protective
actions necessary to address each WMD. This Matrix is
an example of an operational extension of the
understanding that people work better together with a
clear understanding of need and responsibility. These
needs were also echoed by the conclusions arrived at by
the 9/11 Commission [7].
5. Humans as a critical infrastructure,
where to go from here
The human infrastructure is a robust and exceedingly
complex system. Its parallels with the traditional
infrastructures make a very compelling case for why the
human infrastructure should be considered critical among
the existing critical infrastructures. Some of these
parallels are the fact that without the human presence and
intelligence both the operation and security of the
traditional critical infrastructure would undoubtedly fail.
The role of human communication networks and response
plans are examples of how the human infrastructure is as
interdependent as the other critical infrastructures. One
of the implications of considering humans to be a critical
infrastructure in and of themselves is the need to
adequately secure that infrastructure. Because of the
enormity of the problem of securing such a complex and
dynamic system such as the human infrastructure, public-
private partnerships are best equipped to manage the
issues surrounding the security. One possible means of
providing a focal point for academia, government,
NGO’s, and industry to collaborate is the development of
Homes Away from Home. The Homes concept focuses
on the development of individual and community
resiliency which ultimately is the best means of
protecting and hastening the response and recovery of the
human infrastructure. Public-private partnerships
inherently facilitate the development of the human
infrastructure, which in-turn can lead to the development
of its resiliency. The foundational concept in this premise
is that people work better collaboratively and with an
understanding of the “master plan.” Given the
establishment of humans as a critical infrastructure, and
the methodology to secure the infrastructure through
resiliency development the next step is to organize, fund,
and motivate the public-private partnerships that stand the
greatest chance of making strides in developing
resiliency. Securing the human infrastructure, could be a
partnership effort with benefits not yet seen or
experienced.
6. Bibliography
[1] Rinaldi, Steven M., James P. Peerenboom, and Terrance K.
Kelly. “Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing Critical
Infrastructure Interdependencies.” IEEE Control Systems
Magazine. December (2001): pp. 11-25.
[2] Moteff, John, Claudia Copeland, and John Fischer. “Critical
Infrastructures: What Makes an Infrastructure Critical?”
“Congressional Research Service: Library of Congress.”
Updated January 29, 2003: pp. 1-17.
[3] Jiang, Guofei, George Cybenko, and Dennis McGrath.
“Infrastructure Web: Distributed Monitoring and Managing
Critical Infrastructures.” 5939-7 Chen Ch18 R1 061504: pp.
305-326.
[4] Lewis, James A. “Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism,
Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats.” Center for Strategic and
International Studies. (December 2002): pp. 1-12.
[5] National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2005.
Annual Report. [Online]. National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children. [cited on 29, May 2005]. Available from the
World Wide Web at:
(http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeS
ervlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&).
[6] EPA. “LEPCs and Deliberate Releases: Addressing Terrorist
Activity in the Local Emergency Plan.” Environmental
Protection Agency, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office: (August, 2001): pp. 1-6.
[7] National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United
States. “The 9/11Commission Report: Final Report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States: Executive summary.” National Commission on Terrorist
Acts Upon the United States. 2004.
[8] McKinsey and Company. 2002. McKinsey Report Increasing
FDNY’s Preparedness. [Online]. New York City Fire
Department. [cited on 23, July 2004]. Available from the World
Wide Web at:
(http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/mck_report/ems_response.pdf)
[9] Office of Homeland Security. “The National Strategy for
Homeland Security.” Office of Homeland Security: (July
2002).
[10] Perrow, C. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk
Technologies. New York: Basic Books, 1984, pp. 89-100.
[11] Urry, John. “Mobile Sociology.” British Journal of
Sociology Vol. No. 51 Issue No. 1 (January/March 2000) pp.
185–203.
[12] Basu, Sumit, Tanzeem Choudhury, Brian Clarkson, and
Alex (Sandy) Pentland. “Learning Human Interactions with the
Influence Model.” MIT Media Laboratory Vision and Modeling
Technical Report #539 (June, 2001).
[13] GAO. Critical Infrastructure Protection: Federal Efforts
Require a More Coordinated and Comprehensive Approach for
Protecting Information Systems. [Online]. United States General
Accounting Office. [cited on 26 June, 2005]. Available from
the World Wide Web at: (http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-02-474).
[14] Echterling, L. G., Presbury, J., & McKee, J. E. Crisis
intervention: Promoting resilience and resolution in troubled
times. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. 2005.
[15] Stallings, Robert A. and E. L. Quarantelli. 1985. Emergent
Citizen Groups and Emergency Management. Public
Administration Review, Vol. 45, Special Issue: Emergency
Management: A Challenge for Public Administration: pp. 93-
100.
[16] Monday, Jacqueline L. and Mary Fran Myers. “Coping
with Disaster by Building Local Resiliency.” Dealing with
Disaster: Issues and Ideas Presented During a PERI Internet
Symposium. (1999): 9-14.
[17] OMB. Budget of the United States Government, FY 2006.
[Online]. Office of Management and Budget. [cited on 13 June,
2005]. Available from the World Wide Web at:
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/defense.html).
[18] Davis, Perry. “Why Partnerships, Why Now?” Proceedings
of the Academy of Political Science. Vol. 36. No. 2, Public-
Private Partnerships: Improving Urban Life. (1986): 1-3.
[19] Woodside, William S. “The Future of Public-Private
Partnerships.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science.
Vol. 36. No. 2, Public-Private Partnerships: Improving Urban
Life. (1986): pp. 150-154.
[20] Gifford, James P. “Partnerships and Public Policy
Advocacy.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science
Vol. 36, No. 2 Public-Private Partnerships: Improving Urban
Life. (1986): 74-86.
[21] Kysiak, Ronald C. “The Role of the University in Public-
Private Partnerships.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political
Science. Vol. 36. No. 2, Public-Private Partnerships: Improving
Urban Life. (1986): pp. 47-59.
[22] Johnston, Susan Whealler and John B. Noftsinger Jr.
“Getting a Grip On Strategic Alliances.” AGB Trusteeship (July-
August, 2004): pp. 15-19.
[23]. The Tech Center, 2005. Critical Infrastructure Protection
Project [Online]. George Mason University, The Tech Center.
[cited on 25, May 2005]. Available from the World Wide Web
at: (http://techcenter.gmu.edu/programs/cipp.html).
[24] Mohr, Lawrence B. “The Concept of Organizational Goal.”
The American Academy of Political Science Review. Vol. 67.
No. 2 (June 1973): 470-481.
[25] Monday, Jacquelyn L. “Building Back Better: Creating a
Sustainable Community After Disaster.” Natural Hazards
Informer. Num. 3 (January 2002). pp. 1-12.
[26] Code of Virginia, 44-146.19. Commonwealth of Virginia,
USA [cited on 1 June, 2005]. Available from the World Wide
Web at: (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-
bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-146.19).
[27] Moteff, John D. “Critical Infrastructures: Background and
Early Implementation of PDD- 63.” Congressional Research
Service (Updated June 19, 2001).
[28] American Red Cross. American Red Cross - History
Timeline.[Online]. The American National Red Cross. [cited on
8 September, 2004]. Available from the World Wide Web at:
[http://www.redcross.org/museum/briefarc.html)
[29] American Red Cross. American Red Cross – About Us.
[Online]. The American National Red Cross. [cited on 8 May,
2005]. Available from the World Wide Web at:
[http://www.redcross.org/)
[31] Franke, Mary E. and David M. Simpson. “Community
Response to Hurricane Isabel: An Examination of Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) Organizations in Virginia.”
Center for Hazards Research, University of Louisville. 2003.
[31] CSPDC. Shenandoah Valley Programs. [Online]. Central
Shenandoah Planning District Commission. [cited on 25 June,
2005]. Available from the World Wide Web at:
(http://www.cspdc.org/index.cfm?section=programs&page=Proj
ect_Impact)
[32] Emergency Management Institute. CERT Frequently Asked
Questions. [Online]. Emergency Management Institute –
Federal Emergency Management Agency. [cited 22 June, 2005].
Available from the World Wide Web at:
(http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CERT/certfaq.asp#certbenefi
t)
[33] Drabek, Thomas E. and Keith S. Boggs. “Families in
Disaster: Reactions and Relatives.” Journal of Marriage and
the Family, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1968): 443-451.
[34] Zeigler, Donald J., Stanley D. Brunn, and James H.
Johnson, Jr. “Evacuation from a Nuclear Technological
Disaster. “ Geographical Review, Vol. 71, No. 1 (1981): pp. 1-
16.

[35] Barnes, Joshua and Christan P. Humphries. “Methodology

and Description of High Consequence Event Decision Matrix.”
Journal of Emergency Management, (May-June 2005): pp. 33-
43.