A systematic literature review of infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics: infrastructure types, failure causes and resilience dimensions Open Access

Humanitarian logistics is a cornerstone of disaster response and recovery, ensuring the timely delivery of essential goods and services to affected populations under extreme conditions (Kashav and Garg, 2025). The global frequency and severity of disasters have increased significantly due to climate change, rapid urbanization and geopolitical instability, affecting billions of people and causing substantial economic losses (Rojas Trejos et al., 2023; Shrivastav and Bag, 2024). In such contexts, delays in logistics operations can result in loss of life and prolonged suffering, underscoring the critical importance of resilient infrastructure (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012; Shakibaei et al., 2024).

Infrastructure resilience is fundamental to the success of humanitarian logistics because transportation networks, communication systems, utilities and storage facilities form the backbone of relief operations (Goncalves and Chang, 2026). When these infrastructures fail, cascading disruptions occur across supply chains, delaying aid and increasing operational costs (Overstreet et al., 2011; Fekete et al., 2021). Real-world examples illustrate these vulnerabilities. For example, the 2010 Haiti earthquake paralyzed logistics networks due to collapsed roads, bridges and communication lines (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012; Shakibaei et al., 2024), the 2019 Cyclone Idai in Zimbabwe, inadequate infrastructure severely constrained relief operations (Chari et al., 2021), while the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake caused catastrophic damage to infrastructure and logistics networks, destroying roads, bridges, hospitals and utilities, while severely disrupting supply chains, fuel distribution and humanitarian aid delivery across both countries (Ahmed, 2023). These cases highlight the urgent need for proactive resilience strategies that address both physical robustness and institutional coordination (Mutebi et al., 2025).

Despite its importance, existing literature on infrastructure resilience remains fragmented. Many studies focused narrowly on technical robustness, such as structural integrity of roads or bridges, or on specific disaster types, while neglecting systemic interdependencies and governance dimensions (Mostafavi and Inman, 2016; Paciarotti et al., 2021). Furthermore, resilience frameworks often adopt reactive approaches, emphasizing post-disaster recovery rather than anticipatory planning (Nateghi, 2018; Imbriale, 2026). Few works provided a holistic synthesis of infrastructure types, failure causes and resilience strategies within humanitarian logistics, leaving a critical gap in both theory and practice (Sonesson et al., 2021; Kashav and Garg, 2025). This gap limits the ability of policymakers and practitioners to design integrated resilience strategies that address multi-dimensional vulnerabilities.

This study addresses these gaps by conducting a systematic literature review of 41 peer-reviewed articles to examine infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics. Specifically, it categorizes infrastructure types, identifies root causes of failure and synthesizes resilience dimensions to develop a comprehensive framework for strengthening humanitarian logistics. The novelty of this research lies in its system-of-systems and dynamic capability theories (Teece, 2007; Eusgeld et al., 2011), which bridge technical and institutional domains to conceptualize resilience as a dynamic, multi-layered capability rather than a static attribute (Osei-Kyei et al., 2021; Shishodia et al., 2023). By integrating academic insights with real-world cases, this study advances theory and offers actionable strategies for strengthening preparedness, response and recovery.

The objectives of this study are to provide a comprehensive understanding of infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics by classifying the types of infrastructure critical to humanitarian logistics, identifying and analyzing the major causes of their failure and synthesizing resilience dimensions into an integrated framework. By doing so, the study seeks to bridge technical and institutional perspectives, offering both theoretical insights and practical guidance for strengthening preparedness, response and recovery in humanitarian supply chains.

The remainder of this study is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews prior literature; Section 3 outlines the methodology; Section 4 presents the results; Section 5 discusses findings and provides theoretical and practical implications; and Section 6 concludes with the main findings, limitations and directions for future research.

Infrastructure is a fundamental enabler of humanitarian logistics, shaping the capacity of organizations to respond effectively to crises (Fekete et al., 2021). It includes both physical components (e.g. roads, bridges, airports, seaports, storage facilities) and digital systems that support communication and coordination (Daousis et al., 2024). The performance of humanitarian supply chains is closely tied to the condition and accessibility of these infrastructures, especially in disaster-prone or conflict-affected regions (Damoah, 2022). Without reliable infrastructure, humanitarian supply chains face severe delays, increased costs and operational inefficiencies, ultimately compromising the effectiveness of disaster response (Overstreet et al., 2011; Fekete et al., 2021). Table 1 presents different scholarly definitions of infrastructure from selected studies, highlighting how the concept has been conceptualized across various disciplines, including humanitarian logistics, disaster management and urban planning. Each definition emphasizes different aspects of infrastructure, reflecting its multidimensional nature.

The ability of systems to withstand shocks, adapt to changing conditions and recover functionality while sustaining essential services is called infrastructure resilience (Goncalves and Chang, 2026). As illustrated in Figure 1, this concept is underpinned by five interrelated general dimensions: robustness, adaptive capacity, network and interdependency management, information visibility and sensing and governance and preparedness. Robustness ensures physical strength and protection against hazards, whereas adaptive capacity enables flexibility and operational reconfiguration during crises. Network and interdependency management addresses connectivity and mitigates cascading failures across interconnected systems. Information visibility and sensing provide timely, accurate data for informed decision-making, while governance and preparedness emphasize proactive planning and coordinated action among multiple stakeholders. Collectively, these dimensions position resilience as a dynamic, multi-layered capability rather than a static attribute, consistent with established frameworks in disaster logistics and broader resilience research (Bruneau et al., 2003; Christopher and Peck, 2004; Mostafavi and Inman, 2016; Shishodia et al., 2023).

In humanitarian logistics, resilience is vital because infrastructure breakdowns can propagate disruptions throughout supply chains, delaying relief and amplifying human suffering (Osei-Kyei et al., 2021; Anjomshoae et al., 2022). This capability integrates structural robustness, operational agility and adaptive management to maintain continuity under stress (Shishodia et al., 2023). Practical examples include modular warehouses, mobile clinics and flexible transport networks that enable rapid deployment and reconfiguration during emergencies (Croope and McNeil, 2011; Morshed et al., 2021). Beyond physical assets, digital and organizational dimensions strengthen resilience through real-time communication systems, predictive analytics and internet of things (IoT)-enabled monitoring, which enhance situational awareness and optimize resource allocation (Papadopoulos et al., 2017; Habibi Rad et al., 2021; Abushaikha et al., 2025). Governance mechanisms such as multi-agency coordination and equity-focused recovery strategies further reinforce resilience by aligning priorities and ensuring inclusive restoration (Mostafavi and Inman, 2016; Sonesson et al., 2021).

Recent literature underscores the importance of anticipatory strategies that extend beyond reactive recovery (Abushaikha et al., 2026). Scenario-based stress testing, redundancy planning and proactive maintenance of aging infrastructure are critical for mitigating systemic risks before disasters occur (Nateghi, 2018; Nasrazadani et al., 2025). Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain offer opportunities for predictive risk modeling and transparent coordination, though their success depends on reliable enabling systems like power and communication networks (Habibi Rad et al., 2021; Younis et al., 2024). Taken together, these insights highlight that infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics requires integrated approaches combining technical robustness, adaptive capacity and governance agility to sustain operations in increasingly complex and uncertain environments.

Infrastructure failure represents one of the most critical vulnerabilities in humanitarian logistics, often resulting in delayed aid delivery, increased operational costs and heightened risks for affected populations. Failures can stem from natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and volcanoes, which damage transportation networks, utilities and communication systems, creating disruptions across supply chains (Cimellaro et al., 2019; Bi et al., 2023). For example, the destruction of key routes during the 2010 Haiti earthquake severely constrained logistics operations and delayed the arrival of essential supplies (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012; Shakibaei et al., 2024). Similarly, during the 2019 Cyclone Idai in Zimbabwe, damaged roads and communication failures significantly disrupted aid delivery, highlighting the vulnerability of logistics systems to infrastructural breakdowns (Chari et al., 2021).

Man-made disruptions compound these challenges, including cyberattacks, terrorism and operational errors that compromise critical infrastructure functionality. Cybersecurity threats targeting control systems can cripple communication networks, undermining coordination and situational awareness during emergencies (Kuraganti et al., 2020). Social unrest and economic shocks also exacerbate fragility by destabilizing supply chains and limiting resource availability for infrastructure maintenance and recovery (Hecht et al., 2019). These failures are particularly severe in low-income or conflict-affected regions, where chronic underinvestment and institutional fragmentation hinder resilience-building efforts (Chester et al., 2021; Shrivastav and Bag, 2024).

Beyond acute shocks, systemic weaknesses such as aging infrastructure, interdependencies and governance gaps magnify the impact of failures. Underinvestment in maintenance leaves transportation and utility networks vulnerable to collapse even under moderate stress (Chester et al., 2021). Interdependencies among systems, such as electricity powering water pumps and traffic management, mean that localized failures can escalate into regional crises (Eusgeld et al., 2011; Dasuni et al., 2025). Communication and coordination failures further delay recovery, as fragmented responsibilities and siloed decision-making impede rapid response (Papadopoulos et al., 2017; Sonesson et al., 2021). These insights underscore that infrastructure failure in humanitarian logistics is not merely a technical issue but a multidimensional challenge requiring integrated resilience strategies across physical, digital and institutional domains.

Although research on humanitarian logistics has grown, several gaps remain. First, most studies focus on planning and descriptive reviews rather than integrating resilience concepts across preparedness, response and recovery phases (Overstreet et al., 2011; Leiras et al., 2014). Second, the complex, multi-actor nature of humanitarian operations is acknowledged but rarely addressed through frameworks that link technical infrastructure resilience with governance and coordination (Tatham and Houghton, 2011; Leiras et al., 2014). Third, standards and interoperability, critical for coordination, are inconsistently applied, creating fragmentation during surge operations (Overstreet et al., 2011; Paciarotti et al., 2021). Fourth, accessibility constraints and network vulnerabilities are underrepresented in resilience models, limiting strategies for intermodal and redistribution planning (Leiras et al., 2014; Rojas Trejos et al., 2023). Fifth, procurement strategies rarely embed resilience considerations beyond cost and lead time, weakening upstream readiness (Overstreet et al., 2011; Bhusiri et al., 2021). Sixth, insights from broader supply chain resilience research are seldom adapted to humanitarian infrastructure contexts, reducing theoretical and practical consistency (Leiras et al., 2014; Shishodia et al., 2023). Finally, while digital technologies are emerging as enablers, evidence remains fragmented and lacks assessment of infrastructure dependencies such as power and connectivity (Paciarotti et al., 2021; Shrivastav and Bag, 2024).

These gaps highlight the need for a comprehensive framework that addresses both technical and institutional dimensions of infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics. This study responds by classifying critical infrastructure types and their interdependencies to overcome fragmentation and accessibility challenges, identifying and synthesizing the root causes of infrastructure failure across disaster phases to develop phase-aware resilience strategies and proposing multidimensional resilience dimensions, covering structural, operational, adaptive and governance aspects, that integrate technical robustness with coordination, procurement and digital enablers. By bridging these gaps, the study seeks to provide a holistic, actionable framework that strengthens preparedness, response and recovery in humanitarian supply chains.

The system-of-systems theory refers to a class of complex systems composed of multiple, independent and operationally autonomous systems that interact to deliver emergent capabilities not achievable by individual components alone. In the context of critical infrastructure, the system-of-systems theory emphasizes autonomy, interdependencies, interoperability and cascading effects, explaining how disruptions in one system can propagate across others and generate systemic failure (Eusgeld et al., 2011; Ouyang, 2014). Infrastructure systems supporting humanitarian logistics such as transportation, utilities, communication, logistics facilities and social services fit this definition, as they are governed independently yet become tightly coupled during disaster response. Prior infrastructure and logistics research demonstrated that resilience outcomes are shaped by these cross-system interactions rather than by individual asset robustness alone (Mostafavi and Inman, 2016; Cimellaro et al., 2019). Accordingly, the system-of-systems perspective provides a theoretical foundation for conceptualizing infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics as a system-level property emerging from coordinated performance across multiple infrastructures.

By contrast, dynamic capability theory focuses on how organizations and institutions build and sustain performance under conditions of change by continuously adapting their resources and processes. Dynamic capabilities are commonly defined as the abilities to sense emerging threats and opportunities, seize appropriate responses and reconfigure assets and routines to remain effective in turbulent environments (Teece, 2007). In supply chain and humanitarian logistics research, this theory has been used to explain how organizations develop resilience through preparedness planning, rapid adaptation during crises and post-event learning rather than through static buffers alone (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009). More recent resilience studies further emphasized that dynamic capabilities manifest through coordination, learning, governance mechanisms and strategic flexibility (Pettit et al., 2010; Shishodia et al., 2023). Within this study, dynamic capability theory underpins the interpretation of infrastructure resilience dimensions as adaptive, managerial and institutional capabilities, explaining how resilience evolves across preparedness, response and recovery phases and complementing the system-of-systems view of systemic interdependence.

This study used a systematic literature review approach guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) framework to ensure methodological rigor and transparency (Moher et al., 2009). The SLR method was chosen for its ability to synthesize fragmented research systematically and transparently, ensuring rigor and reproducibility (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Agarwal et al., 2020), while PRISMA was selected to provide a structured process for identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion, thereby minimizing bias and enhancing clarity (Moher et al., 2009; Mishra and Mishra, 2023; Samawi et al., 2026). Searches were conducted across two major databases, Scopus and Google Scholar, selected for their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary literature (Rojas Trejos et al., 2023; Shishodia et al., 2023; Younis et al., 2024); Scopus offers high-quality indexed journals, whereas Google Scholar captures additional scholarly works including gray literature, thus ensuring the inclusivity and comprehensiveness essential for research on humanitarian logistics and infrastructure resilience research (Agarwal et al., 2020; Rojas Trejos et al., 2023).

The literature search was conducted using Scopus and Google Scholar, adopting a conceptually consistent yet database-specific search process to account for differences in indexing scope and search functionality. The timeframe was restricted to 2010–2025 to capture contemporary developments in resilience theory and practice. The same core search string, combining the keywords “infrastructure”, “resilience” and “humanitarian logistics,” was used in both databases to ensure conceptual alignment and replicability. However, the execution of the search was not identical. In Scopus, the search string was applied to titles, abstracts and keywords, leveraging the database’s advanced filtering options and curated journal coverage. By contrast, Google Scholar was used to perform a broader search across full texts due to its inclusive indexing approach and limited field-specific search controls. This differentiated but conceptually equivalent approach is consistent with PRISMA-guided systematic literature reviews and established practices in humanitarian logistics research (Moher et al., 2009; Agarwal et al., 2020; Mishra and Mishra, 2023).

When the finalized search strings were applied, 92 records were retrieved from Scopus and 148 records from Google Scholar, yielding a total of 240 records at the identification stage. The results from each database were first screened separately and then aggregated into a single data set for further analysis (Rojas Trejos et al., 2023). Because articles indexed in Scopus are typically also indexed in Google Scholar, a structured duplicate removal procedure was applied during screening. Duplicates were identified based on matching titles, authors, publication year and journal outlet. When identical records appeared in both databases, the Scopus-indexed version was retained due to its verified indexing and bibliographic reliability, while Google Scholar-only records were retained when they met all inclusion criteria and were not indexed in Scopus. This procedure was explicitly incorporated into the exclusion criteria to prevent double counting while maintaining comprehensive coverage of relevant literature, in line with best practices in systematic reviews within humanitarian logistics and supply chain research (Rojas Trejos et al., 2023; Shishodia et al., 2023).

Inclusion criteria focused on studies addressing infrastructure types, failure causes and resilience dimensions in humanitarian contexts, while exclusion criteria eliminated non-scholarly sources, technical reports and studies outside the scope of logistics resilience. This systematic approach ensured the retrieval of high-quality, relevant literature for subsequent screening and analysis (Moher et al., 2009; Agarwal et al., 2020; Rojas Trejos et al., 2023).

The PRISMA-based screening process, depicted in Figure 2, began with the identification of 240 records from Scopus and Google Scholar databases using the search string. Following an initial refinement to include only peer-reviewed articles and conference papers, 167 records remained, after which 94 non-scholarly articles were excluded, leaving 73 records for further review. Subsequent screening eliminated 26 technical articles, resulting in 47 full-text articles assessed for eligibility. Of these, six were excluded due to irrelevance to the study scope, yielding a final selection of 41 studies included in the review. This multi-stage process minimized bias and ensured that the review captured high-quality, representative literature for subsequent data extraction and analysis.

To ensure rigor and transparency, data extraction followed a structured protocol aligned with best practices in systematic literature reviews (Moher et al., 2009; Paciarotti et al., 2021; Younis et al., 2026). A standardized extraction form was developed to capture key attributes from each study, including publication details, humanitarian context, infrastructure types, identified failure causes and resilience dimensions (Mottahedi et al., 2021; Sathurshan et al., 2022; Mishra and Mishra, 2023; Rojas Trejos et al., 2023). The coding process was iterative and guided by resilience frameworks proposed in prior research, emphasizing robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness and rapidity as core dimensions (Morshed et al., 2021; Shishodia et al., 2023). Thematic analysis was used to synthesize findings across studies, grouping them into three overarching categories: infrastructure types, failure causes and resilience dimensions (Osei-Kyei et al., 2021; Nasrazadani et al., 2025). Cross-comparison techniques were applied to identify patterns, gaps and interdependencies among these categories, enabling the development of an integrated conceptual framework for infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics (Mostafavi and Inman, 2016; Papadopoulos et al., 2017). To enhance reliability, coding decisions were validated against definitions and classifications from established resilience literature, ensuring consistency and minimizing subjectivity (Nateghi, 2018; Habibi Rad et al., 2021). This systematic approach allowed for a comprehensive synthesis of fragmented knowledge and provided a robust foundation for subsequent analysis and discussion.

An analysis of the 41 studies highlighted the growing importance of infrastructure resilience within the humanitarian logistics sector. To support this investigation, we developed a web-based word cloud generator (https://sites.google.com/view/wordcloudgenerator/word-cloud-generator) to identify the most frequently used keywords in this field. A total of 198 keywords were analyzed, with the resulting word cloud (shown in Figure 3) emphasizing some dominant terms: “Resilience,” “Critical infrastructure” and “Infrastructure.” These findings reflected the effectiveness of our identification and screening process in capturing the core themes relevant to this research.

Humanitarian logistics relies on a diverse set of infrastructures that collectively enable the timely delivery of aid and essential services during crises. The reviewed literature revealed various infrastructure types, classified by function in Table 2. These infrastructures can be grouped into six functional categories: transportation networks, utilities, communication and information systems, logistics and storage facilities, social and public services and production and supply networks. Transportation networks, including roads, bridges, airports and seaports, are indispensable for moving relief goods and facilitating evacuations, yet they are highly vulnerable to disruptions from natural hazards and systemic failures (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012; Polater, 2020; Gerges et al., 2022). Utilities such as electrical grids and fuel systems sustain critical operations, while water and cooling systems support health services and vaccine storage (Chester et al., 2021). Communication and information infrastructures, including traffic management and information and communication technology (ICT) platforms, enable real-time coordination among stakeholders, which is essential for synchronizing multi-agency efforts during emergencies (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Day et al., 2012). Similarly, logistics hubs, such as warehouses, distribution centers and food banks, facilitate pre-positioning and rapid dispatch of supplies, reducing lead times and improving response efficiency (Balcik and Beamon, 2008; Duran et al., 2013). Social and public service infrastructures, such as hospitals and educational facilities, provide emergency care and shelter, while production and supply systems, including agriculture and manufacturing, ensure continuity of essential goods in prolonged crises.

A critical insight from the literature is the high degree of interdependence among these infrastructures, which amplifies systemic vulnerability during disasters. Transportation systems, for example, depend on electricity for traffic control and fuel for mobility, while communication networks require stable power and data connectivity to function effectively (Jaller et al., 2015). Failures in one sector can cascade across others, as illustrated by the 2012 Hurricane Sandy’s impact on New York, where power outages disrupted transportation, fuel distribution and health services simultaneously (Cimellaro et al., 2019). This system-of-systems dynamic underscores the need for integrated resilience planning that accounts for functional, spatial and operational linkages among infrastructures (Eusgeld et al., 2011; Dasuni et al., 2025). Temporary solutions such as modular logistics hubs and mobile clinics can partially mitigate these vulnerabilities, but long-term resilience requires proactive investment in adaptive and redundant systems capable of maintaining continuity under stress (Morshed et al., 2021). Recognizing these interdependencies is essential for policymakers and humanitarian actors to prioritize interventions that prevent cascading failures and strengthen the overall robustness of humanitarian logistics networks.

The resilience of humanitarian logistics infrastructures is undermined by a complex interplay of disruptive causes, both acute and chronic. A synthesis of the 41 peer-reviewed articles revealed six overarching categories of contributing causes: natural disasters, manmade disasters, aging and deteriorating infrastructure, infrastructural interdependencies, communication and coordination failures and other contextual factors such as funding shortages, institutional rigidity and topographic barriers. These categories are visually represented in the fishbone diagram (also called an Ishikawa diagram or cause-and-effect diagram), shown in Figure 4. A fishbone diagram visually maps potential causes of a specific problem (the “effect”) by categorizing them into main branches leading to the problem’s head (Ilie and Ciocoiu, 2010; Goetsch and Davis, 2014). Figure 4 illustrates the causes and the references in brackets. It should be noted that some causes were mentioned by a large number of references, specifically, the natural disasters. The citation of the references in this case took into consideration the distribution of the references over the causes such that all references are mentioned at least once.

Natural disasters remain the most frequently studied trigger events for infrastructure failure. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and snowstorms are among the most prominently discussed hazards. For instance, the 2012 Hurricane Sandy’s cascading effects on transportation, power and fuel networks in New York highlighted how storm surges and flooding can paralyze multiple systems simultaneously (Cimellaro et al., 2019). Climate change has further exacerbated the frequency and intensity of such hazards, increasing the vulnerability of infrastructures worldwide (Habibi Rad et al., 2021; Bi et al., 2023). Volcanic hazards, though less commonly addressed, were examined by Weir et al. (2024), who demonstrated how lahars and ashfall disabled water pipelines and electricity lines, reinforcing the need for hazard-specific resilience strategies.

Man-made disruptions constitute another critical category of infrastructure vulnerability. Terrorism, cyberattacks and operational mistakes can cripple communication networks, transportation systems and utilities. Cybersecurity threats targeting control systems have been shown to undermine coordination and situational awareness during emergencies (Kuraganti et al., 2020). Social unrest, riots and economic shocks further destabilize supply chains and limit resource availability for infrastructure maintenance and recovery (Day, 2014; Hecht et al., 2019). Unlike natural hazards, which often follow predictable geographic patterns, man-made threats introduce uncertainty and require robust security protocols, redundancy measures and contingency planning to safeguard critical infrastructure.

Beyond sudden shocks, chronic issues such as aging and deteriorating infrastructure represent persistent sources of fragility. Underinvestment in maintenance and modernization leaves transportation and utility networks susceptible to collapse even under moderate stress (Chester et al., 2021). Bridges, roads and pipelines that are not adequately maintained often fail during disasters, compounding the effects of natural or man-made hazards. This slow-onset deterioration is predictable yet frequently overlooked, highlighting the need for proactive investment in resilient design and preventive maintenance (Nateghi, 2018). The literature consistently emphasizes that resilience cannot be achieved without addressing the chronic fragility of aging infrastructure systems.

Interdependencies among infrastructures amplify systemic vulnerabilities and contribute to cascading failures. For example, electricity outages can disrupt water supply systems, communication networks, transportation operations and healthcare services simultaneously, demonstrating the system-of-systems nature of infrastructure resilience (Eusgeld et al., 2011). These interdependencies can be functional, spatial or physical, meaning that localized damage can rapidly escalate into regional crises (Dasuni et al., 2025). The 2010 Haiti earthquake and 2019 Cyclone Idai in Zimbabwe both illustrated how interdependent failures paralyzed humanitarian logistics, delaying aid and increasing human suffering (Chari et al., 2021; Shakibaei et al., 2024).

Communication and coordination failures further exacerbate infrastructure breakdowns. Fragmented responsibilities, poor cross-sector communication and siloed decision-making often delay recovery efforts and paralyze response operations (Papadopoulos et al., 2017; Sonesson et al., 2021). For example, Sonesson et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of having a central actor to steer cross-sector collaboration, highlighting that without effective coordination, infrastructural interdependencies remain unmanaged and recovery is delayed. These failures are particularly severe in humanitarian contexts, where rapid coordination among multiple agencies is essential to minimize human suffering.

Contextual factors such as funding shortages, institutional rigidity and topographic barriers also contribute to infrastructure failures. Funding constraints often prevent investment in resilient infrastructure or limit recovery to “like-for-like” replacement of damaged assets, ignoring opportunities to improve resilience (Chester et al., 2021). Institutional rigidity, such as inflexible procurement policies or fragmented governance structures, further undermines adaptive responses (Leiras et al., 2014). Topographic barriers, including mountainous terrain or flood-prone regions, exacerbate accessibility challenges and delay humanitarian logistics operations (Shrivastav and Bag, 2024). These contextual constraints highlight that resilience is not only a technical issue but also a socio-political challenge requiring integrated solutions.

Taken together, these six categories of failure causes demonstrate that infrastructure vulnerability is multi-dimensional and systemic. While disasters act as immediate triggers, the underlying condition of infrastructure and its governance systems ultimately determines the scale and duration of disruption. Addressing these causes requires holistic resilience strategies that integrate technical robustness, adaptive management and institutional coordination. By situating these insights within system-of-systems and dynamic capability theories, this study underscores the need for proactive, multi-layered approaches to strengthen infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics.

As the previous section discussed the causes of infrastructure failure, it is crucial to address the factors that strengthen infrastructures and reduce their vulnerability before, during and after disasters. Table 3 demonstrates the dimensions of infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics grouped into four main categories: structural and systematic features, operational and functional capabilities, adaptive and management capacities and institutional and governance mechanisms. Each dimension is defined by its role in sustaining infrastructure performance, its stage of occurrence and the codified strategies that represent it. This categorization reflects resilience as a dynamic, multi-layered capability rather than a static attribute (Mostafavi and Inman, 2016; Shishodia et al., 2023). By integrating these dimensions, humanitarian logistics can better anticipate risks, sustain operations under stress and accelerate recovery (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009). The subsequent sections explain each category of these infrastructure resilience dimensions.

Structural and systematic features form the foundation of resilience by ensuring physical durability and continuity under stress. Robustness refers to the ability of infrastructure to resist damage against hazards (e.g. floods, earthquakes or hurricanes) through strength and design (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012; Twumasi-Boakye and Sobanjo, 2019). Redundancy, meanwhile, emphasizes substitutability, allowing infrastructures to maintain functionality when primary systems fail. This can occur through preventive maintenance before disasters or reactive substitution during and after disasters (Morshed et al., 2021). For example, a two-way multi-laned road can be flexibly converted into a one-way evacuation route during emergencies, while rerouting strategies can mitigate blocked transport corridors (Croope and McNeil, 2011). These features are essential because they provide the physical backbone upon which other resilience dimensions depend (Overstreet et al., 2011).

The distinction between redundancy during and after disasters is critical. In slow-onset disasters (e.g. droughts, pandemics), substitution is more likely to occur during the event, while in sudden-onset disasters (e.g. earthquakes, floods), substitution takes place afterward. This temporal differentiation highlights the importance of proactive planning and flexible infrastructure design (Morshed et al., 2021). For instance, modular bridges or temporary shelters can be deployed during floods, while permanent reconstruction follows afterward. Such strategies illustrate how structural resilience must be both anticipatory and reactive, aligning with system-of-systems theory that emphasizes interdependencies across infrastructures (Eusgeld et al., 2011; Dasuni et al., 2025).

Operational and functional capabilities complement structural resilience by enabling rapid restoration of services after disruptions. Dimensions such as rapidity, recoverability and restorative capacity ensure that critical infrastructure functions are restored as quickly as possible, minimizing humanitarian suffering (Esmalian et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). Rapidity is characterized by the time to initiate restoration, restoration speed and clearance activities such as debris removal (Esmalian et al., 2022). Recoverability ensures that infrastructures return to their original or improved state after disruption, reducing long-term vulnerability (Michel et al., 2023). These capabilities are particularly vital in humanitarian contexts, where delays in restoring transport or communication systems can directly translate into loss of life and prolonged suffering (Tatham and Houghton, 2011; Leiras et al., 2014).

The operational dimension also emphasizes the importance of logistics hubs and storage facilities, which enable pre-positioning of critical supplies and rapid deployment during crises (Balcik and Beamon, 2008; Duran et al., 2013). When operational resilience is compromised, humanitarian supply chains face bottlenecks that hinder aid distribution and exacerbate human suffering (Shrivastav and Bag, 2024). Thus, operational resilience is not only about restoring physical assets but also about ensuring continuity of humanitarian logistics functions under extreme conditions.

Adaptive and management capacities are equally critical for coping with uncertainty and dynamic disaster environments. Resourcefulness refers to the ability to mobilize and use resources effectively, including skilled professionals, financial capacity and efficient scheduling (Sathurshan et al., 2022). Scenario planning further strengthens resilience by anticipating potential hazards and preparing contingency strategies (Nateghi, 2018). These adaptive capacities align with dynamic capability theory, which emphasizes the continuous reconfiguration of resources to sustain performance in uncertain environments (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Teece, 2007; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009).

Adaptive resilience also involves leveraging emerging technologies. Habibi Rad et al. (2021) argued that AI-based communication tools can improve situational awareness by extracting information from multiple sources and providing early warnings about potential hazards. IoT-enabled monitoring systems can track infrastructure performance in real time, allowing rapid adjustments during crises (Papadopoulos et al., 2017). These technologies enhance flexibility and resourcefulness, but they also introduce new vulnerabilities due to their dependence on stable power and communication networks (Kopanaki, 2022). This “resilience paradox” underscores the need for balanced strategies that integrate digital innovation with redundancy and governance mechanisms.

Institutional and governance mechanisms underpin the effectiveness of all other resilience strategies. Effective governance mechanisms address coordination, communication and equity-focused recovery through ensuring multi-agency collaboration, reducing duplication and delays in humanitarian operations (Papadopoulos et al., 2017; Sonesson et al., 2021). Communication systems, enhanced by emerging technologies such as AI and IoT, improve situational awareness and coordination among relief actors (Habibi Rad et al., 2021). Equity-focused governance ensures that vulnerable populations are prioritized in recovery, reinforcing humanitarian principles (Aldrich, 2012; Dargin and Mostafavi, 2020). These institutional dimensions are critical because even the most robust infrastructures can fail without effective coordination and inclusive governance (Overstreet et al., 2011; Kashav and Garg, 2025).

Institutional resilience also requires addressing systemic inefficiencies such as fragmented responsibilities and siloed decision-making. Previous studies showed that governance gaps often delay recovery and exacerbate vulnerabilities (Tatham and Houghton, 2011; Leiras et al., 2014). By embedding resilience into governance frameworks, humanitarian organizations can ensure that technical and operational capacities are effectively mobilized. This integration highlights that resilience is not merely a technical attribute but a socio-institutional capability that requires inclusive and coordinated action (Mostafavi and Inman, 2016).

Taken together, the infrastructure resilience dimensions are mutually reinforcing. Structural robustness provides the foundation for operational continuity, adaptive capacities enable flexibility in reconfiguring logistics during crises and governance mechanisms ensure coordination across actors. This interrelationship reflects the dynamic capability view of resilience, where organizations must continuously integrate and reconfigure resources to sustain performance under uncertainty (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009). By situating these insights within system-of-systems theory, this study advances both academic understanding and practical guidance for strengthening humanitarian logistics resilience (Eusgeld et al., 2011; Ouyang, 2014).

This study systematically reviewed 41 peer-reviewed articles to consolidate fragmented knowledge on infrastructure resilience within humanitarian logistics. This systematic review underscores the interconnectedness of infrastructure systems in humanitarian logistics and highlights how resilience dimensions mitigate cascading disruptions. Our analysis identified six infrastructure types, namely, transportation networks, utilities, communication and information systems, logistics and storage facilities, social and public services and production and supply systems. These types of infrastructure were found to be highly interdependent. For example, transportation networks depend on utilities for fuel and electricity, while communication systems require stable power and data connectivity (Grigoli et al., 2024; Kashav and Garg, 2025). Failures in one sector often propagate across others, as seen during the 2012 Hurricane Sandy, where power outages disrupted transportation and health services simultaneously (Cimellaro et al., 2019; Michel et al., 2023). These findings reinforce the system-of-systems perspective, which emphasizes integrated resilience planning across multiple infrastructures (Eusgeld et al., 2011; Ouyang, 2014; Mostafavi and Inman, 2016).

The analysis also determined six root causes of infrastructural vulnerabilities, including natural hazards, man-made disruptions, aging infrastructure, systemic interdependencies and communication failures, among others. It is important to note that certain types of infrastructure exhibit heightened vulnerability to particular modes of failure, with susceptibility often determined by their structural characteristics, operational demands and environmental exposure (Zarghami and Gunawan, 2020; van den Adel et al., 2022). For example, roads and bridges are particularly susceptible to flooding and earthquakes, while communication networks are more vulnerable to cyberattacks and coordination breakdowns (Papadopoulos et al., 2017; Dubey, 2019). Institutional rigidity, such as fragmented governance and funding shortages, exacerbates these vulnerabilities by limiting adaptive responses (Tatham and Houghton, 2011; Leiras et al., 2014). These causal pathways highlight that infrastructure failures are not only triggered by external shocks but also embedded in chronic systemic deficiencies, extending supply chain resilience theories into the humanitarian infrastructure domain (Pettit et al., 2010).

Four resilience dimensions emerged: structural and systematic features, operational and functional capabilities, adaptive and management capacities, as well as institutional and governance mechanisms. These dimensions are mutually reinforcing; structural robustness underpins operational continuity, adaptive capacities enable reconfiguration during crises and governance mechanisms ensure coordination across actors (Morshed et al., 2021; Sathurshan et al., 2022). For instance, redundancy in logistics hubs enhances operational rapidity, while adaptive scenario planning strengthens flexibility in resource allocation (Michel et al., 2023). This interrelationship reflects the dynamic capability view of resilience, where organizations must continuously integrate and reconfigure resources to sustain performance under uncertainty (Christopher and Peck, 2004; Teece, 2007; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009).

Despite advances in technical resilience, governance and equity-focused strategies remain underexplored. Social capital and institutional trust play a pivotal role in recovery, as communities with stronger networks recover more effectively (Aldrich, 2012; Dargin and Mostafavi, 2020). Equity-focused resilience ensures that vulnerable populations are not excluded from recovery processes, reinforcing humanitarian principles (Overstreet et al., 2011; Sonesson et al., 2021). Linking resilience to governance theories highlights that infrastructure resilience is not merely about physical robustness but also about institutional agility and inclusivity, which are critical for equitable disaster recovery.

Emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain and IoT offer opportunities to enhance situational awareness and proactive resilience planning (Habibi Rad et al., 2021; Younis et al., 2026). However, these innovations also introduce new vulnerabilities, as their effectiveness depends on stable power and communication infrastructures (Kopanaki, 2022). This “resilience paradox” underscores the need for balanced strategies that integrate digital innovation with redundancy and governance mechanisms. Empirical evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent climate disasters demonstrates how misalignment between technical and institutional systems amplifies cascading failures (Agarwal et al., 2020; Ta’Amnha et al., 2021; Bi et al., 2023). Thus, resilience must be redefined as a dynamic, multi-layered capability evolving across preparedness, response and recovery phases.

Building on the categorization of infrastructure types, failure causes and resilience dimensions, this study integrates these elements into a comprehensive conceptual framework that is explicitly operationalized in Table 3, which positions infrastructure resilience as a system-of-systems capability evolving across preparedness, response and recovery phases. The framework strengthens system-of-systems theory by empirically demonstrating how functional interdependencies among transportation, utilities, information and social infrastructure generate cascading risks that must be managed holistically rather than asset by asset (Eusgeld et al., 2011; Mostafavi and Inman, 2016). Simultaneously, the findings reinforce dynamic capability theory by showing that resilience depends on the continuous sensing, seizing and reconfiguring of infrastructure-related resources through adaptive management, governance coordination and learning mechanisms rather than static robustness alone (Teece, 2007; Shishodia et al., 2023).

From a practical perspective, the review highlighted actionable strategies across disaster phases: in preparedness, investments in redundancy, modular infrastructure, preventive maintenance and scenario-based stress testing enhance absorptive capacity (Nateghi, 2018; Morshed et al., 2021). For example, prior to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, limited redundancy in transport networks meant that collapsed roads and bridges immediately paralyzed aid delivery, underscoring the need for modular warehouses and anticipatory planning to sustain operations (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012; Shakibaei et al., 2024). During response, rapid restoration of transport access, deployment of mobile logistics hubs and real-time information sharing improve operational continuity, as evidenced in 2012 Hurricane Sandy, where widespread power outages and fuel shortages disrupted relief efforts; stronger interagency coordination and mobile hubs could have mitigated cascading failures across utilities and transport systems (Cimellaro et al., 2019; Dargin and Mostafavi, 2020). Similarly, in the 2019 Cyclone Idai, damaged roads and communication breakdowns delayed humanitarian response, highlighting the importance of agile logistics and digital platforms for situational awareness (Chari et al., 2021). In recovery, adaptive reconstruction, equity-oriented prioritization and cross-sector governance enable faster and more inclusive system recovery, as seen in the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake, where destroyed hospitals, utilities and transport networks required coordinated reconstruction strategies to restore critical services equitably across affected regions (Sonesson et al., 2021; Ahmed, 2023). By situating these strategies within an integrated framework, the study provides a structured foundation for future empirical research to test resilience pathways, develop phase-specific metrics and examine how institutional and technical capabilities jointly shape humanitarian logistics performance under extreme disruption.

This study makes four key theoretical contributions to the understanding of infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics. First, it examines the distribution of 41 reviewed papers across infrastructure types, failure causes and resilience dimensions. Through a synthetic analysis, the research connects these variables to explain why and how these variables interact. Particular attention is given to the interdependencies and causal pathways that emerge, offering novel insights that are not present in any single source. Second, the study operationalizes the system-of-systems and dynamic capability theories by mapping critical infrastructure interdependencies and integrating technical, operational and governance dimensions into a unified framework. Third, it bridges fragmented literature by connecting structural resilience (e.g. redundancy, robustness) with institutional mechanisms (e.g. coordination, equity). Fourth, it introduces a phase-based framework that conceptualizes resilience as a dynamic capability rather than a static attribute. The findings extend existing supply chain resilience models by highlighting interdependencies among infrastructure systems and introducing anticipatory strategies such as scenario-based planning and predictive analytics. These contributions provide conceptual clarity for future research, enabling scholars to explore resilience pathways, develop standardized metrics and examine socio-technical interactions that shape humanitarian logistics under complex disruptions.

Additionally, the findings of this study offer actionable guidance for humanitarian organizations, policymakers and infrastructure planners seeking to strengthen resilience in disaster contexts. Investments should prioritize adaptive and redundant infrastructure systems, such as modular warehouses, mobile clinics and alternative transport routes, to ensure continuity during disruptions. Enhancing cross-sector coordination and stakeholder engagement is critical to overcoming institutional silos and fragmented decision-making that often delay response efforts. Emerging technologies, including AI, IoT and predictive analytics, can improve situational awareness and enable proactive risk management, but their deployment must be supported by reliable power and communication networks. Furthermore, equity-focused recovery strategies should be integrated into resilience planning to ensure vulnerable populations receive timely assistance. Finally, proactive maintenance of aging infrastructure and scenario-based stress testing can help preempt systemic failures, enabling humanitarian supply chains to remain agile and effective under increasingly complex and uncertain conditions.

This study set out to address three interrelated research objectives concerning infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics. First, the review systematically classified the types of infrastructure critical to humanitarian logistics, identifying six core categories: transportation networks; utilities; communication and information systems; logistics and storage facilities; social and public services; as well as production and supply systems. The findings demonstrated that humanitarian performance is inherently dependent on the functionality and accessibility of these interconnected infrastructures rather than on isolated assets. Transportation and utilities emerged as particularly critical enablers, while communication, logistics hubs and social infrastructure play essential supporting roles across disaster phases. Importantly, the review highlighted that these infrastructure types form a tightly coupled system-of-systems, where disruptions in one category propagate rapidly across others, amplifying logistical breakdowns and humanitarian consequences.

Second, the study identified and analyzed the major causes of infrastructure failure affecting humanitarian logistics. Six dominant categories were synthesized: natural disasters, man-made disasters, aging and deteriorating infrastructure, systemic infrastructure interdependencies, communication and coordination failures and other contextual constraints such as funding shortages and institutional rigidity. The findings revealed that while hazards often act as triggering events, the scale and duration of disruption are largely shaped by chronic vulnerabilities embedded in infrastructure design, maintenance and governance arrangements.

Third, by synthesizing the literature on infrastructure resilience dimensions, the study integrated structural, operational, adaptive and institutional mechanisms into a unified resilience framework. This framework conceptualizes resilience as a dynamic, multi-layered capability that evolves across preparedness, response and recovery phases, rather than as a static attribute. By linking infrastructure types, failure causes and resilience dimensions, the framework informs both theory, by extending system-of-systems and dynamic capability perspectives and practice, by offering a structured foundation for designing phase-based, coordinated and equity-aware strategies to strengthen humanitarian logistics.

While this study provides a comprehensive synthesis of infrastructure resilience in humanitarian logistics, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The review was limited to peer-reviewed articles, excluding gray sources such as industry reports and policy documents that could offer valuable practical perspectives. Additionally, most analyzed studies focused on sudden-onset disasters, leaving gaps in understanding resilience strategies for slow-onset crises. Future research should address these gaps by incorporating diverse data sources, including practitioner perspectives, developing standardized resilience metrics for cross-study comparisons and exploring decentralized and climate-adaptive infrastructure solutions. Moreover, investigating the role of emerging technologies, such as blockchain for supply chain transparency and machine learning for predictive risk modeling, can advance anticipatory resilience frameworks and strengthen humanitarian systems against increasingly complex disruptions.