This report summarizes the results of the work in Task 1.2 of the SmartResilience project. Within the Work Package “Establishing the project baseline and the common framework”.
Modern critical infrastructures are becoming increasingly smarter (e.g. the smart cities). Making the infrastructures smarter usually means making them smarter in the normal operation and use: more adaptive, more intelligent etc. But will these smart critical infrastructures (SCIs) behave smartly and be smartly resilient also when exposed to extreme threats, such as extreme weather disasters or terrorist attacks? If making existing infrastructure smarter is achieved by making it more complex, would it also make it more vulnerable? Would this affect resilience of an SCI as its ability to anticipate, prepare for, adapt and withstand, respond to, and recover? What are the resilience indicators (RIs) which one has to look at? Within the Work Package “Establishing the project baseline and the common framework”, Task 1.2 “Analysis of existing assessment approaches, indicators and data sources” addresses the first 3 of the five main project objectives, namely: 1. identifying existing indicators suitable for assessing resilience of SCIs 2. identifying new “smart” resilience indicators (RIs) – including those from Big Data 3. developing a new advanced resilience assessment methodology based on smart RIs (“resilience indicators cube”, including the resilience matrix) The particular objectives of Task 1.2 have been to: 1. identify currently used approaches 2. identify indicators to follow‐up critical infrastructures in cities with respect to safety and security 3. assess their usability and 4. assess their limitations for assessing, predicting and monitoring resilience, both for single infrastructures and for interdependencies which may lead to cascading effects (e.g. among infrastructures in a network of single infrastructures). The context of the work performed in the task is described in the introductory part of the report. Out of the number of different resilience assessment approaches listed in Task 1.1, nearly 30 approaches using the indicators have been singled out and about 20 are analyzed more in detail in the subsequent part of the report. The approaches have been grouped in the hierarchical way, covering 1. International approaches (i.e. the approaches of international organizations) 2. EU approaches (i.e. approaches in selected EU projects) 3. National approaches (US, Germany, Sweden…) 4. Approaches from selected literature Subsequently the report describes the preliminary collection of over 450 resilience indicators (these will be analyzed in detail in WP4 – the annexes of this report contain mainly an overview of sources) and a collection of some 40+ case studies relevant for the SmartResilience project. The results of the above work have influenced the main concept of the SmartResilience project and lead to respective amendment of the results of Task 1.1. The amendments concern primarily: 1. New definition of the phases and dimensions of the resilience 2. Respective change of the resilience matrix (now 5´5) 3. Update of the inputs for the Resilience Cube concept The updated approach has been presented to the end‐users in T1.3 and the feedback obtained in this action has been considered here. The report includes examples of the use of conventional and big‐data‐based indicators for resilience assessment. The examples show that the concept under development in SmartResilience project is (a) innovative, (b) compatible with many accepted approaches, and (c) pragmatic and practically applicable. The issues, usability and limitations of the concept as well of the indicators, are discussed in the concluding part of the report. Den här rapporten finns endast på engelska.
Författare: Johan Sanne, Sofia_Lovisa Andersson, A. Jovanović, P. Klimek, A. Choudhary, N. Schmid, I. Linkov, K. Øien, M. Vollmer,, Z. Székely, R. Molarius, T. Knape, U. Barzelay, M. Stanišić, G. Walther, D. LieberzLadda ner publikation