Advertisement

Vulnerability Assessment in RIS Scenario Through a Synergic Use of the CPTED Methodology and the System Dynamics Approach

Chapter
Part of the Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality book series (TSRQ, volume 27)

Abstract

The 9/11 attacks dramatically stressed the fragility of our CI against terrorist and criminal actions. For their peculiarities and symbolic value, CI are largely exposed to attacks, as evident by the large number of targeted incidents that occurred. Within this context, the Railway Infrastructure System (RIS) holds a high-ranking position. Vulnerability analysis and quantitative simulation approach play a crucial role in identifying weak-points and outlying new and more appealing protection strategies. In this chapter, a vulnerability assessment mean fulfilled through a synergic use of System Dynamics method, CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) multidisciplinary approach and crime opportunity theories is depicted. The aim consists in analyzing how different factors may influence the railway asset attractiveness, fragility and vulnerability. Starting from the CPTED technique and situational crime prevention theories, we were able to outline which are the main physical, social and environmental aspects that provide opportunity for criminality in railway scenarios. Using the System Dynamics approach, we propose a pattern to model the railway asset scenario, integrating physical aspects and social factors. Results of simulations reproducing different operative conditions are presented and analyzed.

Keywords

Railway infrastructure system security CPTED Situational crime prevention System dynamics 

References

  1. 1.
    Marrone S, Nardone R, Tedesco A, D’Amore P, Vittorini V, Setola R, De Cillis F, Mazzocca N (2013) Vulnerability analysis and modeling for critical infrastructure protection. Critical infrastructure protection VI. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Cillis F, De Maggio MC, Pragliola C, Setola R (2013) Analysis of criminal and related episodes in railway infrastructure scenarios. J Homel Security Emerg Manage 10(2):1547–7355Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wortley R, Mazerolle L (2008) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atlas R (2008) Designing for critical infrastructure protection and crime prevention. Auerbach Publications, QuincyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crowe DT, Zahm DL (1994) Crime prevention through environmental design. Land Development magazine by National Association of Home Builders, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hedayati Marzabali M, Abdullah A, Nordin RA, Maghsoodi Tilaki MJ (2012) Validating crime prevention through environmental design construct through checklist using structural equation modelling. Int J Law Crime Justice 40:82–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crowe TD (2000) Crime prevention through environmental design, 2nd edn. University of Louisville, National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI), LouisvilleGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ceccato V, Uittenbogaard A, Bamzar R (2011) Security in Stockholm’s underground stations: the importance of environmental attributes and context. Secur J 26(1):33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cozens P, Neale R, Hillier D, Whitaker J (2007) Tackling crime and fear of crime while waiting at britain’s railway stations. J Publ Transp 7(3):23–41Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cozens P, Neale R, Whitaker J, Hillier D (2003) Managing crime and the fear of crime at railway stations. a case study in South Wales (UK). Int J Transp Manage 1(3):121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diec J, Coxon S, De Bono A (2011) Deterring anti-social behaviour and crime in the public train environment by design. www.designoutcrime.org/ocs2/index.php/iDOC/2009/paper/view/14. Accessed 2013
  12. 12.
    Kennedy DM (2008) Personal security in public transport travel in New Zealand: problems, issues and solutions. Land Transport New Zealand, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    La Vigne NG (1973) Safe transport: security by design on the Washington metro. U.S. National Institute of Justice, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Public Transportation Association Transit Infrastructure—Security Work Group (2010) Crime prevention through environmental design (cpted) for transit facilities. American Public Transportation Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benigno G, Alcantara R, Matsuura M, Molina Monzon C, Samothrakis I (2005) The use of system dynamics analysis and modeling techniques to explore policy levers in the fight against middle eastern terrorist groups. Naval Postgraduate School, MontereyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leweling T, Sieber O (2007) Using systems dynamics to explore effects of counterterrorism policy. In: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Madnick S, Siegel M (2008) A system dynamics (SD) approach to modeling and understanding terrorist networks. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2011) Reference manual to mitigate potential terrorist attacks. Accessed October 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Campus Bio-Medico di RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations