Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
IMPROVER D2.3 Evaluation of resilience concepts applied to criticalinfrastructure using existing methodologies
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6436-0393
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3019-5510
University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway.
University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)Report (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The current Deliverable of the IMPROVER H2020 project is the third and last in the project’s Work Package 2. While it draws heavily on previous work and deliverables, it shows the direction for the following workpackages, helping in their task to develop an approach for critical infrastructure (CI) resilience assessment which is applicable across Europe and to different infrastructure sectors as well as being compatible with the EU Risk Assessment guidelines.

 

The current report combines the work done most notably in Task 2.4 and Task 2.5 as defined in the project’s work plan. These tasks aim to evaluate the contribution of individual resilience concepts to the resilience of critical infrastructure and to compare a number of existing methodologies for implementation of resilience concepts to critical infrastructure.

 

In short, a set of existing, relevant, resilience analysis or assessment approaches were identified that. Based on well-defined criteria, three of the approaches were selected for more detailed comparison. In Chapter 1, these three approaches are concisely presented and reviewed. In Chapter 2, a set of several individual indicators that are widely used in resilience analysis are selected to be used as ‘test’ indicators to discuss their use vis-à-vis the selected three approaches. Chapter 3 presents four fictional scenarios, based on the projects living labs and representing different sectors of critical infrastructure in different countries. In Chapter 4, the use of the selected set of indicators is illustrated both vis-à-vis the three selected approaches and the four scenarios. Chapter 5 goes deeper in this discussion, and demonstrates how each of the approaches could be used against the four scenarios. Finally, in Chapter 6 the three critical infrastructure resilience analysis or assessment approaches are evaluated and their relative performance compared, identifying their pros and cons based on the author’s experiences from using the methodologies for the illustrations and demonstration. A more detailed, qualitative, comparison of the functioning of the three methodologies against the chosen criteria is also given.

 

The feedback from illustrations and demonstrations of the three selected methodologies shows that all approaches have pros and cons. Moreover, there seems not to be any strict objective way to evaluate the approaches, but much depends on what one wants to do with a resilience analysis or assessment approach, and how much one is ready put effort and time to it, and who is doing it.

 

These notions lead to the conclusion that, first, in the subsequent phases the IMPROVER project should aim at combining – in so far it is possible and commensurable – the identified/perceived pros while avoiding the identified/perceived cons. Second, the IMPROVER project should aim at developing a CI resilience assessment approach which can utilise the strengths of the analysis methods shown taking into account the idiosyncrasies of different type of CI and its operators. Such an assessment approach should take the form of a framework that combines a resilience analysis and a resilience evaluation methodology and is compatible with the EU Risk Assessment Guidelines.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016.
Keywords [en]
resilience, evaluation, critical infrastructure, IMPROVER
National Category
Infrastructure Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-38989OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-38989DiVA, id: diva2:1323340
Funder
EU, Horizon 2020, 653390Available from: 2019-06-12 Created: 2019-06-12 Last updated: 2019-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

IMPROVER D2.3(3363 kB)6 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 3363 kBChecksum SHA-512
cd078e58de895de9bb9b4130eaf591dd59a4ce0702db123aff7efae53a80a54c12fb7b699bd7f349daf4640e0faa21d55ae8fa29be4911ec015313876df811c8
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Reitan, Nina KristineStoresund, KarolinaLange, David
By organisation
SP Fire Research AS, NorgeBrandmotstånd
Infrastructure Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 6 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 8 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf