Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 184–194 | Cite as

Resilience certification for commercial buildings: a study of stakeholder perspectives

  • Barbara J. Jennings
  • Eric D. Vugrin
  • Deborah K. Belasich
Article

Abstract

Infrastructure resilience has become a primary objective for homeland and national security organizations over the past decade. Recent initiatives have focused on resilient building design, and one approach under consideration is a voluntary resilience certification program for commercial buildings. The intent of this program would be to encourage the adoption of resilient design practices in construction and planning of the buildings. While resilience may be a frequently discussed concept within the security communities, its level of awareness within the construction, design, insurance, and building owner communities is not well known. Given the voluntary nature of the certification program under consideration, program development requires a comprehensive understanding of resilience as defined by the commercial building stakeholders. Toward this end, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a study of stakeholder perspectives on resilience to ascertain factors that would serve as motivation for participation in the resilience certification program. This paper describes how Sandia performed the study and the resulting conclusions. One of the key conclusions that the study found is that the term resilience is unfamiliar to many and inconsistently defined across the industries. Those familiar with the term frequently linked it to sustainability concepts. The study also found that increased participation in the resilience certification program is very likely affected by demonstrable returns on resilience investments and a public–private partnership model for program administration.

Keywords

Resilience Building certification program Infrastructure resilience Grounded Theory Method Sustainable 

References

  1. Aon Benefield (2012) Annual global and climate catastrophe report. http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/ThoughtLeadership/Documents/20120110_if_annual_global_climate_cat_report.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2012
  2. Bodeau D, Graubart R (2011) Cyber resiliency engineering framework (MITRE technical report MTR1-10237). MITRE Corporation, BedfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K, Wallace WA, von Winterfeldt D (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 19(4):737–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. California Seismic Safety Commission (1999) Earthquake risk management: mitigation success stories. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1349_SSC199905RiskSuccess.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2013
  5. Charmaz K (1991) Good days, bad days: the self in chronic illness and time. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  6. HSAC (Homeland Security Advisory Council) (2006) Report of the critical infrastructure task force. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. HSAC (Homeland Security Advisory Council) (2011) Community resilience task force recommendations. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. DHS (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) (2010) Transportation systems sector-specific plan: an annex to the national infrastructure protection plan. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nipp-ssp-transportation-systems-2010.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2012
  9. Factory Mutual Insurance Company (2005) Protecting value through risk improvement. http://www.fmglobal.com/assets/pdf/P0541b_OceanSpray.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2012
  10. Fiksel J (2006) “Sustainability and Resilience: Toward a Systems Approach”, sustainability: science. Pract Policy 2(2):14–21Google Scholar
  11. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Co., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldman H (2010) Building secure, resilient architectures for cyber mission assurance (MITRE technical report 10–3301). MITRE Corporation, BedfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Goulding C (2002) Grounded Theory: a practical guide for management, business and market researchers. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  14. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lanahan, Lawrence (2011) “The Disaster Tab”. One Magazine, Fall/Winter 2011. Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  16. Madni AAm, Jackson S (2009) Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering. IEEE Syst J 3(2):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McAdam R, Leonard DJ, Henderson J, Hazlett S (2008) A grounded theory research approach to building and testing TQM theory in operations management. Omega 36(5):825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGraw Hill Construction (2011) Recommendation to congress, the administration, and the private sector to mitigate impacts of disasters by planning and building for resiliency, http://construction.com/market_research/FreeReport/Mitigating_Impacts/Natural_Disaster_Mitigation_White_Paper_2011.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2013
  19. National Building Museum (2010) Designing for disaster: partnering to mitigate the impact of natural disasters, insights drawn from the National Building Museum’s Industry Council for the Built Environment, Washington, DC, National Building MuseumGoogle Scholar
  20. National Infrastructure Advisory Council (2009) Critical Infrastructure resilience: final report and recommendations. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. National Institute for Building Sciences (2013) Building Innovation 2013, http://www.nibs.org/?page=conference. Accessed 8 Feb 2013
  22. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2012) Extreme weather 2011: a year for the record books. http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/. Accessed 9 April 2012
  23. Obama, B (2011) Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness. http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness. Accessed 9 July 2012
  24. Orlikowski W (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. Manag Inf Syst Q 17(3):309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC (2011) Lessons in risk-versus resilience-based design and management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7(3):396–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC, Convertino M, Linkoz I (2012) Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01885.x Google Scholar
  27. Rose A (2007) Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions. Environ Hazards 7(4):383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheffi Yosef (2005) The resilient enterprise: overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (2011) Natural Catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2010: a year of devastating and costly events, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  30. The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP) (2012) Resilient building workshop. http://tisp.org/index.cfm?cdid=12795&pid=10231. Accessed 8 Feb 2013
  31. Trautwine JC (1907) The civil engineer’s pocket-book. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Government Accountability Office (2010) Critical Infrastructure protection: update to national infrastructure protection plan includes increased emphasis on risk management and resilience. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara J. Jennings
    • 1
  • Eric D. Vugrin
    • 2
  • Deborah K. Belasich
    • 2
  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesPolicy and Decision Analytics DepartmentAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Sandia National LaboratoriesInfrastructure and Economic Systems Analysis DepartmentAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations