Rae Zimmerman, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University

Author Note

This research was supported in part by the following grants:

1. Dynamic Resiliency Modeling and Planning for Interdependent Critical Infrastructures,” funded by the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Institute (CIRI), U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Number 2015-ST-061-CIRC01. This paper is based upon, incorporates portions of, and expands an unpublished research deliverable by Rae Zimmerman titled, “Infrastructure and Human Behavior” (January 31, 2019) supported by the U.S. DHS CIRI grant.

2. The National Science Foundation (Grant number 1444755) to Arizona State University lead—Urban Resilience to Extreme Weather-Related Events Sustainability Research Network (UREx SRN) to New York University.

Disclaimer: Any opinions, findings, views, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are the author’s and not to be interpreted as necessarily representing official policies, either expressed or implied, of the National Science Foundation or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Rae Zimmerman, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, New York, NY 10012. E-mail: rae.zimmerman@nyu.edu

Open Access Subject to Creative Commons Licensing

Abstract

Physical infrastructure services upon which society relies are often designed as fixed networks and flows, yet human perceptions of and behaviors toward these services may not always be based on an understanding of how these systems are structured or operate. Knowledge of this gap between perception and system characteristics is an important element in the design, planning, and operation of effective services. Selected interactions between human and physical infrastructure systems are identified for electric power, transportation, and water as a foundation for understanding perceptions of services. Alternative human behaviors pertaining to infrastructure use are defined based on potential perceptions, attitudes, and preferences of these services. Electric power examples are magnitude, timing, and type of power consumed reflecting cost, needs, and environmental concerns. Transportation examples include transit and vehicular routing, usage frequency, multi-modal connections (e.g., to enable side trips), environmental compatibility, safety, health, disability services, cost, accessibility, aesthetics, comfort and convenience (e.g., bypasses, transfers, flexible work trips). Water examples are amount and product type consumed in part reflecting cost, availability, accessibility and environmental considerations. Then, how physical infrastructures can respond to these behaviors are suggested.

Keywords: infrastructures services, human behavior, energy, transportation, water

Introduction

Society is heavily dependent upon the services that infrastructure provides, namely energy, transportation, water and wastewater, communication, and others, and this use has generally been increasing in part reflecting demand and need. Steady increases in automobile travel expressed as Vehicle Miles of Travel have been reported with a doubling between 1980 and 2016 (U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), September 2017). Between 1996 and 2018 rail transit ridership increased by over 77% (American Public Transportation Association (APTA), December 2018: 4). Electric power usage continues to increase (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA), April 2019: 2,3). The U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) (2018) reports a stable trend with respect to water withdrawals. Information technology has been increasing for some time. For example, CTIA (2018) noted the growth in wireless technology using various measures, e.g., messages, cell sites and subscriptions.¹

The demand for infrastructure as reflected by usage often varies depending on user preferences and needs which relate to underlying perceptions of characteristics of these services. The significance of understanding human perception and its connection to behavior is that where relationships between perception and behavior exist, they can guide the design and management of infrastructure systems to accommodate preferences as well as guide how service providers adapt to user needs.

A disconnect between what people experience and perceive with respect to these services and how the services are provided is an important consideration in how these services are delivered. This gap occurs for many reasons. There are functional distances, that is, users are not aware of what supports their services in part because there is an extensive set of physical and operational systems that are unseen to service users. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017) report card on the one hand indicates low grades overall for infrastructure. On the other hand, public opinion reveals other concerns, and whether they match and focus on the same issues is often difficult to tell.

In order to identify the relationship between the behavior of infrastructure users and characteristics of the infrastructure services, a typology of attributes to characterize behavior is presented with examples of how each one relates to infrastructure services. The typology is influenced by the “hierarchy of needs” proposed by Maslow (1943) and adapts the categories to perceptions of infrastructure services. Although the specific components of the typology vary by type of service, there are some commonalities. The broader categorization proposed here consists of behavioral elements in the form of actions or service choices such as: mode, route, time of day, or frequency of use. Determinants that are related to behavior include: cost, comfort, convenience, accessibility, availability, environmental, social and ethical compatibility and soundness, safety and security.

Background

An extensive literature exists as a foundation for understanding human behavioral factors in infrastructure choice. It tends to be divided among disciplines according to different types of services. Many factors affecting risk perceptions have been explored in the risk perception literature particularly referencing infrastructure. Some of these insights have been used as a basis for risk communication. Fischhoff, et al. (2000: 86-87) identified circumstances under which individuals potentially accept risk: they can personally exercise control over a situation or activity (e.g., automobile travel is deemed safer than air travel); are voluntarily exposed to the effects vs. being involuntarily exposed (e.g., drinking water exposure is considered involuntary since it is a necessity); and are exposed to events that are familiar, chronic not catastrophic, delayed in time, common rather than dreaded, nonfatal rather than fatal, known with certainty or precisely, and are known to science rather than unknown. Other attributes of behavior such as anchoring, numeracy, and perception biases are also important factors (summarized in Slovic, 2000). Anchoring refers to the tendency of people’s prior experiences to determine what they do in the future. Lichtenberg and Zimmerman (1999) for example found that water management choices by farmers, e.g., pesticide or non-pesticide control methods, were influenced by what they indicated as their prior health experiences related to pesticides. Numeracy refers to the ability of people to understand information that is expressed numerically (Slovic, 2010). Perception biases, for example, include the tendency of people to overestimate small risks and underestimate large risks (Slovic, 2000). Measures have been applied specifically to infrastructure. Flynn et al. (1994) provided analyses of perceptions to health risks for electric power and transportation.²

Acceptance of conditions and risks that threaten infrastructure services depends on a number of things, such as the source of the disruption and tradeoffs people make. Flooding of infrastructure, for example, is an important source of the disruption of many services simultaneously, particularly electric power and transportation. Examples of factors that can influence perceptions and behavior with respect to flooding are the personal tradeoffs people make between the threats and the benefits, such as living in floodplains versus the aesthetics of living near water (Ailworth & Holland, May 1, 2019) or the kind of information they have about the threat (Houston et al., 2019; Dolnicar, Hurlimann and Nghiem, 2010).

Approach and Methods

This work first constructs a typology of behavioral factors for major types of infrastructure services, namely electric power, transportation, and water based on insights from literature in these areas. It employs an extensive literature review across these three sectors and also relies on case histories to identify actual and formulated hypothetical categories of human behavior into the typology.

Results

As indicated earlier, generic categories for human behavior are cost, comfort, convenience, accessibility, availability, environmental, social and ethical compatibility and soundness, safety and security. Brief descriptions are given in Table 1 and several of these are described in detail using applications specifically to energy, transportation and water.

Table 1

Generic Categories of Factors that Motivate Human Behavior

*Note. These definitions are based on common dictionary definitions or concepts adapted to infrastructure. Security and safety are often differentiated based on the source of the threat (Garcia, 2008).

Definitions for Selected Generic Human Behavior Categories

Environmental Compatibility. As the environmental movement evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s, numerous studies that identified relationships between social characteristics and environmental attitudes and behavior emerged that related socio-economic characteristics, knowledge, education, experience, etc. to environmental attitudes (Dunlap and Mertig, 1992). Public opinion polls were a common way of assessing values connected with the environment (World Economic Forum, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2019). The Pew Research Center (2019) survey found that from 2013 to 2018, the percentage of respondents identifying global climate change as a top threat increased from 56% to 67% and similar increases occurred for the percentages for individual infrastructure categories. Human preferences for the quantity and types of products and services and their environmental impacts began to shape the direction of how infrastructure services were used. Moral commitment to the environment were among the key factors that were studied. (Sachdeva, Jordan, and Mazar 2015).³

Safety and Security. Safety and security for the protection of human life and property are important concerns given the historical and projected increases in natural hazards, human intentional acts including cyber security, and unintentional acts (accidents). These are often at the top of public concerns, in particular the concerns of infrastructure services users. Critical infrastructures have continued to be a target of cyber-attacks in particular for the electric power and communication sectors, revealed by an analysis of ICS-CERT data (Zimmerman, December 2017) and the problem may be escalating, at least government attention has been increasingly focused on the connection. For example, the creation of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) within U.S. DHS combined infrastructure and cyber security functions within the agency with the passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018 or Public Law 115-278 (U.S. Congress, November 16, 2018). It is unclear how users of infrastructures subject to such attacks react to security, that is, whether they avoid the services in light of potential service disruptions due to cyber intrusions. Also, safety issues in part reflected by accident statistics could potentially influence usage of services.

Infrastructure Value and Need or Necessity: Indications of Human Valuation of Infrastructure. Social behavior with respect to infrastructure can be reflected in the value placed on the services it provides. Although value is difficult to quantify for individuals, it has been quantified in dollar terms at more aggregated societal levels in the form of dollar values reflected in infrastructure investment, needs (ASCE, 2017) and assets. Capturing value can be challenging and such evaluations vary depending upon variable choice for valuation as Higgins (2016) shows in an analysis of property value impacts near transit lines.⁴

Application of the Typology to Energy, Transportation and Water User Behavior: Normal Conditions

Some examples of individual behavior with respect to infrastructure service choices are summarized in Table 2 for the three infrastructure areas (Zimmerman, January 31, 2019). Table 2 is organized by the generic choices infrastructure service users face (in column 1), similar to the list in Table 1, followed by behavior-based choices for usage for the three infrastructure sectors.

Energy.⁵ Energy behavior potentially related to how electric power is consumed. It can either be consumed directly or indirectly in terms of the consumption of products that use energy in their production, distribution or transport, and disposal, and the type of energy consumed.

Environmental Compatibility. Since 1950 (the earliest year of published statistics), the consumption of renewable energy has increased slowly, largely accounted for by hydropower followed by wind according to the U.S. DOE, EIA (April 2019: 176). Increasing consumption of renewables nationally reflects their popularity (U.S. DOE, EIA, April 2019: 173). Mode of travel choices are rooted in behavior toward the environmental impacts of fuel reflected in part in the increased use of renewables in the transportation sector (U.S. DOE, EIA, April 2019: 173) i.e., reliance upon biomass such as ethanol and biodiesel and non-fossil fuel-based vehicles such as EVs described in the transportation section. This trend also extends to public transportation where the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) (2018: 5) reported that between 2009 and 2017 the percentage share of electric/hybrid buses more than tripled. Energy conservation is also reflected in the purchase of energy efficient equipment. Puko (2018) indicates that trends toward increased use of renewable energy is occurring in the private industrial sector and in part can be contributed to declining costs of renewables. Environmental impacts of energy are believed to affect energy choices. Some researchers, however, have reported that knowledge of environmental impacts associated with energy choices might not affect consumption (Bartiaux, 2008).

Cost. Sexton analyzed how the way cost information is provided to consumers about their energy consumption levels can influence energy consumption. He found that automatic bill paying which discourages consumers from reviewing their bills “increases residential electricity consumption by 4.0% and commercial electricity consumption by as much as 8.1%” (Sexton, 2015: 229).

Table 2

Selected Human Behaviors for Infrastructure Services⁶

Transportation⁷

Economic Benefits. Economic benefits potentially contribute to transportation choices. One form of economic benefit is accrued to property values, often referred to as hedonic pricing. For transit, transit-oriented development (TODs) refers to transit benefits in the form of property values from proximity to transit access points. This is also expressed as willingness of people to pay higher property costs for these benefits (Chatman and Noland, 2013; Ferrell et al., 2013). The Higgins and Kanaroglou (2016) analysis of 60 studies in North America over 40 years, however, found that proximity may weaken the relationship. In addition to property values, job generation can benefit from proximity to transportation (Nelson, 2017; Zimmerman, August 2017). Cost benefits from trip route and mode choice appear in many different forms. Smith (January 25, 2019) for example reviews the still popular incentives of free fares and pirks such as free food and the provision of transit services.

Cost is also a function of type of energy used to power an automobile and how that energy is obtained. For electric vehicles, cost incentives have been developed depending on the time of charging of the vehicles. Boylan (April 13, 2019) reported savings from a “Time of Use” program where a 10 cents per kWh savings is obtained from charging a Tesla Model 3 electric car between midnight and 8 am. De Vos, Ettema, and Witlox, F. (2018) argued that transportation choices are influenced by residential choices.

Environmental compatibility. As indicated in the Energy section, the use of renewables in the transportation sector has been increasing, much of which is accounted for by ethanol used as fuel (U.S. DOE EIA, April 2019: 175). The Edison Electric Institute (June 2018) has reported a steady increase in electric vehicles between 2011 and 2018. In public transit, APTA (2019: 2) reported increases in energy efficiency in terms of vehicle miles (VMT) per kilowatt-hour, which over the past 30 years for heavy rail systems were increases of 24% and for light rail or street cars the increase was 33%.

Route choice. Selected beliefs and perceptions of need were linked to route choices in London by Guo (2011) and Guo and Wilson (2011). Guo (2011) traced preferences for transit route choices in Boston to factors other than mapped routes, and Guo and Wilson (2011) traced route choice to costs.

Safety. Trip safety especially in the context of the threat of natural hazards has become an important consideration in transportation choice, especially where evacuation is involved (Murray-Tuite et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2014). Additional safety factors include the history of safety breaches, and the extent to which services such as security cameras for public transit can minimize intrusions. Across the U.S. the use of these systems increased by 80% (APTA, 2018: 3), and can potentially influence behavior.

Comfort and convenience. Avoidance of congestion and crowding where possible is often a behavioral choice factor for both road and rail systems, particularly for route choice. The Texas Transportation Institute and INRIX routinely measure congestion for U.S. roads in terms of time delays and fuel waste in the case of auto travel.

Amenities contribute to comfort and convenience and include a wide-range of facilities and services that are considered important for public transit such as Wi-fi and bike support facilities, and APTA (2019: 16) reported that in 2018 free Wi-Fi was available on 18% of buses and exterior bike racks were available on 89% of buses. Elevator and escalator services are conveniences and they also can affect perception of safety.

Convenience can dictate what travel modes travelers choose, including where connections among different transportation systems are needed to improve convenience. Cherney and Purnell (January 29, 2019) observed connections being made for commuters to rail, that are being taken over as public-private connections, e.g. by ride-sharing services to bring travelers to rail and bus transit stations. Zimmerman et al. (2014) identified public transit sector connections at each NYC subway station between bus and subway systems, including those reaching outlying areas of New York City not served by rail transit. Increasing transit speed is an objective of many road and rail transit systems in order to reduce time of travel and hence user convenience. This strategy, for example, is used in NYC (MTA, January 21, 2019) as well as for other passenger rail and freight rail systems. Routes are often redesigned to increase bus performance by reducing circuitous routing (Transit Center, 2016).

Accessibility. Accessibility for public transit is reflected in the prevalence of rail systems, and where public transit systems exist, and stations and routes where people need them. APTA (2019: 2) reported that rail systems increased from 52 in 1995 to 88 in 2017. Increasing nodes for greater accessibility has taken the form of increasing the number of stations in the northern part of New York City (Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA, January 22, 2019) as well as citywide.

Water.⁸ The forms in which water is consumed and the amount of consumption can vary widely geographically and over time and is due to many different factors. The number of water products, for example, can be quite substantial, including tap water that is filtered or not and bottled water (from various sources and with different content). Factors that influence these choices include consumer knowledge and understanding of health impacts for example from biological and chemical contamination of water, environmental impacts associated with consumption rates exceeding water availability, and the cost of different options. Moreover, the quality and distribution of the products are regulated differently.

Environmental compatibility. Water quality is of critical concern to consumers. Waterborne disease outbreaks can act as signals that heighten concerns. Although many of these outbreaks are highly localized, the concerns can spread. The lead contamination incidents in Flint, MI and then identified in other waters systems throughout the country reflects such concerns and their impacts on consumption behavior. The State of Florida tracks public opinion on various drinking water issues. In the 2016 survey, water ranked second out of five issues with 81% indicating it was an important issue, and a third of the respondents indicating that they were not confident about water contamination (University of Florida, 2017). Incidents of waterborne disease related to water supplies are tracked by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (October 16, 2017) under The Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System. Human behavior with respect to these conditions vary hypothetically ranging from moving to another water source temporarily or permanently, cleaning the water supply, or moving to a different location altogether.

Another dimension of environmental compatibility is the impact of water consumption on the environment, especially under water shortage and drought conditions. A survey of southwestern U.S. households by Maas et al. (2017) concluded that environmental and social concerns were related in part to lowered water consumption compared with those who were concerned about cost. Water usage was also found to be related to hot arid climates and building age by Chang et al. (2017) for four U.S. cities.

Demographic characteristics also reveal water choices due to environmental compatibility. Household size, for example, was found by Ghavidelfar, Shamseldin and Melville (2018) in Auckland New Zealand to be a key determinant of water usage using a very large set of residential dwellers, and outdoor water use was higher for residents of detached houses.

User Behavior for Energy, Transportation and Water: Emergency Conditions

Figure 1 shows some of the hypothetical behaviors on the part of infrastructure users when an electric power outage affects infrastructure services not only for electric power but also for infrastructure services dependent on electric power. The elements portrayed are also applicable to other kinds of outages and infrastructure service disruptions.

• For electric power, users can shift to alternative energy sources, such as distributed energy, to the extent they are available.

• For transportation, transit users can shift to alternative routes or modes, not travel at all, or postpone travel. Workers can telecommute.

• For water, a shift to other water sources, water products (such as bottled water), and generally reducing consumption are options. Additional actions emerge over time range from doing nothing to relocating out of the affected area (Zhu and Zimmerman, 2017).

Figure 1. Human Behavior with Respect to Infrastructures Affected by an Electric Power Outage

Discussion and Conclusions

In order to understand what motivates people to use services the way they do, knowledge of the underlying perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding those services is needed and how these factors relate to behavior. The connections among these elements is not always very clear.

Examples of many factors that actually or potentially influence behavior have been presented in this paper as a typology in connection with the use of infrastructure services for energy, transportation, and water. These connections have varying degrees of certainty. More investigation is needed to capture the role of human behavior in using services in order to shape how these services are planned, designed and delivered to adapt to consumer preferences.

Infrastructure service providers can and do respond to user behavior. In non-emergency situations, providers can expand or redirect their services or provide alternatives to give users flexibilities. In emergencies, they can rely upon backup facilities and assistance outside of their organizations and service territories in the form of mutual assistance agreements, and such agreements are commonly used.

Given a longer time frame, new design and planning standards can be introduced to accommodate user behavior. Widely applicable design standards have emerged to protect infrastructure particularly to address environmental compatibility (Steiner et al., 2019). Many of these have been more locally based.

References

Ailworth, E., & Holland, J. (2019, May 2). Midwest city’s downtown is underwater after unusual flood-prevention plan failed. Wall Street Journal, p. A3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/midwest-citys-downtown-is-underwater-after-unusual-flood-prevention-plan-failed-11556743895

American Public Transportation Association (APTA). (2019, April). 2019 Public transportation fact book. Washington, DC: APTA. Retrieved from https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA_Fact-Book-2019_FINAL.pdf

American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). 2017 report card for America’s infrastructure. Washington, D.C.: ASCE. Retrieved from https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/; https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Full-2017-Report-Card-FINAL.pdf

Bartiaux, F. (2008). Does environmental information overcome practice compartmentalisation and change consumers’ behaviours? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(11), 1170–1180. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.08.013

Boylan, C. (2019, April 13). Saving money on Tesla model 3 charging with SmartcCharge NY — a hands-on review. CleanTechnica newsletter.

Chang, H., Bonnette, M. R., Stoker, P., Crow-Miller, B., & Wentz, E. (2017). Determinants of single family residential water use across scales in four western US cities. Science of the Total Environment, 596-597, 451-464. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.164 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.164

Chatman, D. G., & Noland, R. B. (2011). Do public transport improvements increase agglomeration economies? A review of literature and an agenda for research, Transport Reviews 31(6), 725-742.

Cherney, M., & Purnell, N. (Updated Jan. 29, 2019) Uber wants you to catch the bus or train—if they can drive you there. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-wants-you-to-catch-the-bus-or-trainif-they-can-drive-you-there-11548763669?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

CTIA (2018). The state of wireless 2018. Retrieved from https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CTIA_State-of-Wireless-2018_0710.pdf

De Vos, J., Ettema, D., & Witlox, F. (2018). Changing travel behaviour and attitudes following a residential relocation. Journal of Transport Geography, 73, 131-147.

Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., & Nghiem, L. D. (2010). The effect of information on public acceptance – the case of water from alternative sources. J. of Environmental Management, 91, 1288-1293.

Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1992). American Environmentalism. The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Edison Electric Institute. (2018, June). Electric Vehicle Trends & Key Issues. Retrieved from https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electrictransportation/Documents/EV_Trends_and_Key_Issues_June2018.pdf

Ferrell, C. E., Appleyard, B. S., Taecker, M., Allen, C., Armusewicz, C., & Schroder C. (2016). Livable transit corridors: methods, metrics, and strategies, Transportation Research Board, The National Academies.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. & Combs, B. (2000). How safe is safe enough? a psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The Perception of Risk, pp. 80-103. Sterling, VA and London, UK: Earthscan.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks, Risk Analysis, 14(4), 1101-1108.

Garcia, M. L. (2008). Design and Evaluation of Physical Security Systems. Second Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ghavidelfar, S., Shamseldin, A. Y., & Melville, B. W. (2018). Evaluating spatial and seasonal determinants of residential water demand across different housing types through data integration, Water International, 43(7), 926-942. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2018.1490878.

Guo, Z. (2011). Mind the map! The impact of transit maps on path choice in public transit. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45 (7), 625–639.

Guo, Z., & Wilson, N. H. M. (2011). Assessing the cost of transfer inconvenience in public transport systems: A case study of the London Underground. Transportation Research Part A, 45, 91–104.

Higgins, C. D., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2016). Forty years of modelling rapid transit’s land value uplift in North America: moving beyond the tip of the iceberg. Transport Reviews, 36, 610–34.

Houston, D., Cheung, W., Basolo, V., Feldman, D., Matthew, R., Sanders, B. F., Karlin, B., . . . . Luke, A. (2019). The influence of hazard maps and trust of flood controls on coastal flood spatial awareness and risk perception. Environment and Behavior, 51(4), 347–375.

Lichtenberg, E., & Zimmerman, R. (1999). Adverse health effects, environmental attitudes, and pesticide usage behavior of farm operators. Risk Analysis, 19 (2), 283-294.

Lu, Q.-C., Zhang, J., Peng, Z.-R., & Rahman, A. S. (2014). Inter-city travel behaviour adaptation to extreme weather events. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 148-153.

Maas, A., Goemans, C., Manning, D., Kroll, S., Arabi, M., & Rodriguez-McGoffin, M. (2017). Evaluating the effect of conservation motivations on residential water demand, Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 394-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.008.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370–96. doi:10.1037/h0054346.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). (2019, January 21). New York City Transit announces progress in campaign to safely speed up trains. Retrieved from http://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/mta-new-york-city-transit-announces-progress-campaign-safely-speed-trains

Murray-Tuite, P., Wernstedt, K., & Yin, W. (2014). behavioral shifts after a fatal rapid transit accident. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 24, 218-230.

Nelson, A.C. (2017). TODs Make a difference in job location. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 44 (4), 1079-1102.

Pew Research Center. (2019, February 10). Climate change still seen as the top global threat but cyberattacks a rising concern. Authors: Poushter, J., Huang, C. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org

Puko, T. (2019, January 30). From beer to casinos, businesses turn to solar, wind power. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-pushes-companies-to-buy-renewables-11548849602?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

Sachdeva, S., Jordan, J., & Mazar, N. (2015). Green consumerism: moral motivations to a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 60-65.

Sexton, S. E. (2015). Automatic bill payment and salience effects: evidence from electricity consumption. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2, 229-241.

Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Slovic, P. (2010). The Feeling of Risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Smith, S. (2019, January 25). The week in carrots: cities, countries try lures to get people to ride, next city. Retrieved from https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/the-week-in-carrots-cities-countries-try-lures-to-get-people-to-ride

Steiner, F., Weller, R., M’Closkey, K., & Fleming, B. (2019). Design with nature now. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Transit Center and NYC Bus Coalition. (2016). Turnaround: fixing New York City’s buses. Retrieved from http://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Turnaround_Fixing-NYCs-Buses-20July2016.pdf

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Center for Public Issues Education. (2017). What Floridians think about water quantity & quality. Retrieved from http://www.piecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/water-2016.pdf

U.S. Congress. (2018, November 16). Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018 Public Law 115-278. Retrieved from https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3359

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2019, April). Monthly Energy Review (MER). Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf. The MER is updated every month within the same URL.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. DHHS, CDC). (2017, October 16). The waterborne disease and outbreak surveillance system. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/surveillance/index.html

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2017, September). Highway statistics 2016. Annual vehicle miles of travel 1980-2016. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/pdf/vm202.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. (2018) Water use in the United States trends, -1950- 2015. Retrieved from https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wutrends.html

World Economic Forum. (2018). The global risks report 2018. 13th Edition, Geneva, Switzerland: WEF.

Zhu, Q., & Zimmerman, R. (2018, September 20). Dynamic resiliency modeling and planning for interdependent critical infrastructures. Champaign-Urbana, IL: U. of Illinois, Critical Infrastructure Resilience Institute, U. of Illinois webinar. Retrieved from https://go.illinois.edu/CIRIWebinarNYU

Zimmerman, R. (2017, August). The transit-jobs nexus: insights for transit-oriented development, Fordham Urban Law Journal, XLIV (4), 1131-1152. Retrieved from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol44/iss4/8

Zimmerman, R. (2017, December) the cyber and critical infrastructures nexus: interdependencies, dependencies and their impacts on public services, White Paper, New York: NYU Center for Cybersecurity. Retrieved from http://cyber.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Zimmerman-122717updateEdited-White-Paper-Cyber-and-Critical-Infrastructures.pdf

Zimmerman, R. (2019, January 31). Infrastructure and human behavior. Unpublished Background Paper, Deliverable 1. Submitted to the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Institute (CIRI), U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, for U.S. Department of Homeland Security Grant Award Number 2015-ST-061-CIRC0. New York: New York University, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

Zimmerman, R., Restrepo, C.E., Sellers, J., Amirapu, A., & Pearson, T.R. (2014). Promoting transportation flexibility in extreme events through multi-modal connectivity. U.S. Department of Transportation Region II Urban Transportation Research Center, New York, NY: NYU-Wagner, June 2014. Final report. Retrieved from: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/Final-NYU-Extreme-Events-Research-Report.pdf