Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • 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
Evaluation of resilience assessment methodologies
UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6436-0393
RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3019-5510
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Safety and Reliability - Theory and Applications - Proceedings of the 27th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2017, CRC Press/Balkema , 2017, p. 1039-1052Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

There are a wide range of different frameworks and methodologies for analysing Critical Infrastructure (CI) resilience, covering organisational, technological and social resilience. However, there is a lack of a clear methodology combining these three resilience domains into one framework. The final goal of the ongoing EU-project IMPROVER, ‘Improved risk evaluation and implementation of resilience concepts to Critical Infrastructure,’ is to develop one single improved and easy-to-use critical infrastructure resilience analysis tool which will be applicable within all resilience domains and to all types of critical infrastructure. This article presents part of this work, in which IMPROVER comprehensively evaluated, by demonstration and comparison, a selection of existing resilience methodologies in order to integrate their best features into the new methodology. The selected methodologies were The Benchmark Resilience Tool (BRT) (Lee et al., 2013), Guidelines for Critical Infrastructures Resilience Evaluation (CIRE) (Bertocchi et al., 2016) and the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Index (CIRI). The latter was developed within the consortium (Pursiainen et al., 2017). The results show that it is hard to evaluate and compare the different methodologies considering that the methodologies are not aiming to achieve the same thing. However, this evaluation shows that all the methodologies have pros and cons, and that the IMPROVER project should aim at combining, in so far as is possible and commensurable, the identified pros while avoiding the identified cons into a Critical Infrastructure resilience assessment framework compatible with the current guidelines for risk assessment in the Member States. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, London.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
CRC Press/Balkema , 2017. p. 1039-1052
Keywords [en]
Public works, Reliability theory, Risk assessment, Safety engineering, Analysis tools, Assessment methodologies, Eu projects, Infrastructure resiliences, Organisational, Risk evaluation, Critical infrastructures
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-38101DOI: 10.1201/9781315210469-133Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85058128990ISBN: 9781138629370 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-38101DiVA, id: diva2:1294881
Conference
27th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2017, 18 June 2017 through 22 June 2017
Available from: 2019-03-08 Created: 2019-03-08 Last updated: 2019-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Reitan, Nina KristineStoresund, KarolinaLange, David

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Reitan, Nina KristineStoresund, KarolinaLange, David
By organisation
Fire Research NorwaySafety
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 25 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • 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
v. 2.35.7