Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Defining resilience using probabilistic event trees

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of resilience and various aspects related to resilience enhancement and resilience calculus are addressed in the context of the broader theme of reliability and disaster mitigation. A definition of resilience is proposed, based on the assessment of event trees and the statistical determination of risks. Essentially, we apply standard probabilistic models with conditional probabilities, event trees and fault trees, where faults are not limited to technological ones, but cover lack of personnel as well, to define the resilience in a systematic manner. An essential aspect of the approach is the estimation of the probability of recovery in a specified time frame. The time to recovery and the level of recovery play key roles in the definition. The main assumptions underlying the calculations are discussed. A synthetic resilience indicator is introduced to offer a short, easy to grasp clue on the resilience level, with the aim to facilitate planning for resilience. An analysis methodology is suggested under general conditions, and several examples of applications are given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Eisenberg DA et al (2014) Resilience metrics: lessons from military doctrines 5(I5):76–87

  • Asprone D, Jalayer F, Simonelli S, Acconcia A, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013) Seismic insurance model for the Italian residential building stock. Struct Saf 44:70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auld H (2007) Disaster risk reduction under current and changing climate conditions: important roles for the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services, Fifteenth World Meteorological Congress, Geneva, 24 May 2007. Also WHO, Meteo World, June 2008. http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/meteoworld/archive/june08/auld_en.html. Accessed Aug 24 2014

  • Azzaro R, D’Amico S, Peruzza L, Tuvè T (2013) Probabilistic seismic hazard at Mt. Etna (Italy): the contribution of local fault activity in mid-term assessment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 251:158–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE, Rocco CM (2013) Resilience-based network component importance measures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 117:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B (1991) Software risk management: principles and practices. IEEE Softw 8(1):32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno G (2004) Loss, trauma, and human resilience have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am Psychol 59(1):20–28. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BS 25999-2 (2007) Business continuity management. Nov 2007 (Superseded, Withdrawn) replaced by: BS EN ISO 22301:2014. http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030169700&rdt=wmt. Accessed 28 Aug 2014

  • Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies M, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COBRA (2013) Community based resilience assessment (CoBRA). Conceptual framework and methodology. Commissioned by UNDP drylands development centre. Under the framework of Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department of the European Commission’s. Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan. Version: 4 April 2013. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/sustainable_land_management/CoBRA/cobra-conceptual-framework.html

  • Criscimagna N (2005) Risk management and reliability. J Reliab Inf Anal Cent 13(2). http://www.theriac.org/DeskReference/viewDocument.php?id=36. Accessed 16 Aug 2014

  • Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foote A (2003) Is probabilistic risk assessment the answer? J Reliab Inf Anal Cent 11:(1). http://www.theriac.org/DeskReference/viewDocument.php?id=107. Accessed 16 Aug 2014

  • Francis F, Bekera B (2014) A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121:90–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier TG, Thompson CM, Dezzani RJ, Butsick D (2013) Spatial and temporal quantification of resilience at the community scale. Appl Geogr 42:95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SW (2010) Disaster resilience: a guide to the literature. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NIST, NIST Special Publication 1117, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Sep 2010. http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOAA_related_docs/NIST/special_publication/sp_1117.pdf

  • Gregory R, Mendelsohn R (1993) Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Anal 13(3):259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry D, Ramirez-Marquez JE (2012) Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 99:114–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, England, p 410

    Google Scholar 

  • IFRC (2015). http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-disasters/definition-of-hazard/. Accessed 16 Feb 2015

  • Kandel A, Tamir D, Rishe N (2014) Fuzzy logic and data mining in disaster mitigation, Chapter 11. In: HN Teodorescu, A Kirschenbaum, S Cojocaru, C Bruderlein (eds) Improving disaster resilience and mitigation—IT means and tools (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security), Springer, Sep 2014, pp 169–186

  • Keane R et al (2010) A method for mapping fire hazard and risk across multiple scales and its application in fire management. Ecol Model 221(1):2–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiker G, Bridges T, Varghese A, Seager T, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1(2):95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschenbaum A, Rapaport C (2014) Organizations under siege: innovative adaptive behaviors in work organizations, Chapter 2. In: HN Teodorescu, A Kirschenbaum, S Cojocaru, C Bruderlein (eds) Improving disaster resilience and mitigation—IT means and tools (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security), Springer, Sep 2014, pp 23–43

  • Klinke A, Renn O (2002) A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Anal 22(6):1071–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager TP, Kiker G, Bridges T (2004) Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In: Linkov I, Ramadan A (eds) Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 15–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I et al (2013) Measurable resilience for actionable policy. Environ Sci Technol 47:10108–10110

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I et al (2014a) Changing the resilience paradigm. Nat Clim Change 4:407–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I et al (2014b) Risk and resilience lessons from Venice. Environ Syst Decis 34:378–382. doi:10.1007/s10669-014-9511-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthar S, Cicchetti D, Becker B (2000) The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev 71(3):543–562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merkhofer MW (1987) Decision science and social risk management. In: A comparative evaluation of cost-benefit analysis, decision analysis, and other formal decision-aiding approaches, Risk, Governance and Society, vol 2. D. Reidl Pub. Co., Springer, Dordrecht, Holland

  • Mustafa D, Ahmed S, Saroch E, Bell H (2011) Pinning down vulnerability: from narratives to numbers. Disasters 35(1):62–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutaz AA (2007) Health assessment of wastewater reuse in Jordan. Wastewater reuse—risk assessment, decision-making and environmental security, NATO Series. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 385–392

    Google Scholar 

  • NERA (2012) Network of European research infrastructures for earthquake risk assessment and mitigation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/nera.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2014

  • NUREG (2012) Modeling potential reactor accident consequences. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0359, Revision 1, Dec 2012. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0359/. Accessed 12 Sept 2014

  • Orwin KH, Wardle DA (2004) New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biol Biochem 36(11):1907–1912

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 27(2–3):183–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1998) Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. J Risk Res 1(1):49–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D, Pielke R Jr, Keykhab M (2003) Vulnerability and risk: some thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Anal 23(4):610–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SHARE (2014) Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe, Grant No. 226967, Project SHARE. http://www.share-eu.org/, http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/17615/1/SHARE_Deliverable_3-7a%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2014

  • Stamatelatos M (2000) Probabilistic risk assessment: what is it and why is it worth performing it? NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance. 04/05/2000. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/qnews/pra.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2014

  • Stucchi M et al (2013) The SHARE European earthquake catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899. J Seismol 17:523–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamir DE, Rishe ND, Last M, Kandel A (2014) Soft computing based epidemical crisis prediction. In: Yager RR, Reformat MZ, Alajlan N (eds) Intelligent methods for cyber warfare, Studies in Computational Intelligence Series, vol 563. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Teodorescu HN, Kirschenbaum A, Cojocaru S, Bruderlein C (2014) Improving disaster resilience and mitigation—IT means and tools. NATO Series C: Environmental Security, Springer Science & Business Media Dordrecht 2014

  • Thompson CM, Frazier TG (2014) Deterministic and probabilistic flood modeling for contemporary and future coastal and inland precipitation inundation. Appl Geogr 50:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Manen SM (2014) Hazard and risk perception at Turrialba volcano (Costa Rica); implications for disaster risk management. Appl Geogr 50:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vastveit KR, Eriksson K, Nja O (2014) Critical reflections on municipal risk and vulnerability analyses as decision support tools: the role of regulation regimes. Environ Syst Decis 34:443–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner M, Chhetri N, Sturm M (2014) Adaptive capacity in light of Hurricane Sandy: the need for policy engagement. Appl Geogr 50:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Yang JB, Sen P (1995) Safety analysis and synthesis using fuzzy sets and evidential reasoning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 47:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman M (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper makes use of some of the knowledge gained at the NATO ARW (Advanced Research Workshop) on “Improving disaster resilience and mitigation” (see Teodorescu et al. 2014) and relies on the conclusions drawn at that ARW. Partially, this research was supported by the multi-annual NATO Grant SPS 984877. I am grateful to four anonymous referees who essentially contributed to the improvement of the paper.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science of the Romanian Academy (Iasi Branch), Bd. Carol I, No. 8, Iasi, Romania

    Horia-Nicolai L. Teodorescu

  2. “Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Str. D. Mageron 64, Iasi, Romania

    Horia-Nicolai L. Teodorescu

Authors
  1. Horia-Nicolai L. Teodorescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Horia-Nicolai L. Teodorescu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teodorescu, HN.L. Defining resilience using probabilistic event trees. Environ Syst Decis 35, 279–290 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9550-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9550-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation