A Factor Analysis Approach Toward Reconciling Community Vulnerability and Resilience Indices for Natural Hazards

The concepts of vulnerability and resilience help explain why natural hazards of similar type and magnitude can have disparate impacts on varying communities. Numerous frameworks have been developed to measure these concepts, but a clear and consistent method of comparing them is lacking. Here, we develop a data-driven approach for reconciling a popular class of frameworks known as vulnerability and resilience indices. In particular, we conduct an exploratory factor analysis on a comprehensive set of variables from established indices measuring community vulnerability and resilience at the U.S. county level. The resulting factor model suggests that 50 of the 130 analyzed variables effectively load onto five dimensions: wealth, poverty, agencies per capita, elderly populations, and non–English-speaking populations. Additionally, the factor structure establishes an objective and intuitive schema for relating the constituent elements of vulnerability and resilience indices, in turn affording researchers a flexible yet robust baseline for validating and expanding upon current approaches.     

Systems Resilience for Multihazard Environments: Definition,Metrics, and Valuation for Decision Making

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction reported that the 2011 natural disasters, including the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan, resulted in $366 billion in direct damages and 29,782 fatalities worldwide. Storms and floods accounted for up to 70% of the 302 natural disasters worldwide in 2011, with earthquakes producing the greatest number of fatalities. Average annual losses in the United States amount to about $55 billion. Enhancing community and system resilience could lead to massive savings through risk reduction and expeditious recovery. The rational management of such reduction and recovery is facilitated by an appropriate definition of resilience and associated metrics. In this article, a resilience definition is provided that meets a set of requirements with clear relationships to the metrics of the relevant abstract notions of reliability and risk. Those metrics also meet logically consistent requirements drawn from measure theory, and provide a sound basis for the development of effective decision‐making tools for multihazard environments. Improving the resiliency of a system to meet target levels requires the examination of system enhancement alternatives in economic terms, within a decision‐making framework. Relevant decision analysis methods would typically require the examination of resilience based on its valuation by society at large. The article provides methods for valuation and benefit‐cost analysis based on concepts from risk analysis and management.     

Design and Assessment Methodology for System Resilience Metrics

By providing objective measures, resilience metrics (RMs) help planners, designers, and decisionmakers to have a grasp of the resilience status of a system. Conceptual frameworks establish a sound basis for RM development. However, a significant challenge that has yet to be addressed is the assessment of the validity of RMs, whether they reflect all abilities of a resilient system, and whether or not they overrate/underrate these abilities. This article covers this gap by introducing a methodology that can show the validity of an RM against its conceptual framework. This methodology combines experimental design methods and statistical analysis techniques that provide an insight into the RM's quality. We also propose a new metric that can be used for general systems. The analysis of the proposed metric using the presented methodology shows that this metric is a better indicator of the system's abilities compared to the existing metrics.     

Opportunities and Challenges for Public Libraries to Enhance Community Resilience

This study bridges a gap between public library and emergency management policy versus practice by examining the role of public libraries in the community resource network for disaster recovery. Specifically, this study identifies the opportunities and challenges for public libraries to fulfill their role as a FEMA‐designated essential community organization and enhance community resilience. The results indicate there are several opportunities for libraries to enhance community resilience by offering technology resources and assistance; providing office, meeting, and community living room space; serving as the last redundant communication channel and a repository for community information and disaster narratives; and adapting or expanding services already offered to meet the changing needs of the community. However, libraries also face challenges in enhancing community resilience, including the temptation to overcommit library capacity and staff capability beyond the library mission and a lack of long‐term disaster plans and collaboration with emergency managers and government officials. Implications for library and emergency management practice and crisis research are discussed.     

Assessing Engineering Resilience for Systems with Multiple Performance Measures

Recently, efforts to model and assess a system's resilience to disruptions due to environmental and adversarial threats have increased substantially. Researchers have investigated resilience in many disciplines, including sociology, psychology, computer networks, and engineering systems, to name a few. When assessing engineering system resilience, the resilience assessment typically considers a single performance measure, a disruption, a loss of performance, the time required to recover, or a combination of these elements. We define and use a resilient engineered system definition that separates system resilience into platform and mission resilience. Most complex systems have multiple performance measures; this research proposes using multiple objective decision analysis to assess system resilience for systems with multiple performance measures using two distinct methods. The first method quantifies platform resilience and includes resilience and other “ilities” directly in the value hierarchy, while the second method quantifies mission resilience and uses the “ilities” in the calculation of the expected mission performance for every performance measure in the value hierarchy. We illustrate the mission resilience method using a transportation systems‐of‐systems network with varying levels of resilience due to the level of connectivity and autonomy of the vehicles and platform resilience by using a notional military example. Our analysis found that it is necessary to quantify performance in context with specific mission(s) and scenario(s) under specific threat(s) and then use modeling and simulation to help determine the resilience of a system for a given set of conditions. The example demonstrates how incorporating system mission resilience can improve performance for some performance measures while negatively affecting others.     

Workforce/Population,Economy, Infrastructure,Geography, Hierarchy,and Time (WEIGHT): Reflections on the Plural Dimensions of Disaster Resilience

The concept of resilience and its relevance to disaster risk management has increasingly gained attention in recent years. It is common for risk and resilience studies to model system recovery by analyzing a single or aggregated measure of performance, such as economic output or system functionality. However, the history of past disasters and recent risk literature suggest that a single-dimension view of relevant systems is not only insufficient, but can compromise the ability to manage risk for these systems. In this article, we explore how multiple dimensions influence the ability for complex systems to function and effectively recover after a disaster. In particular, we compile evidence from the many competing resilience perspectives to identify the most critical resilience dimensions across several academic disciplines, applications, and disaster events. The findings demonstrate the need for a conceptual framework that decomposes resilience into six primary dimensions: workforce/population, economy, infrastructure, geography, hierarchy, and time (WEIGHT). These dimensions are not typically addressed holistically in the literature; often they are either modeled independently or in piecemeal combinations. The current research is the first to provide a comprehensive discussion of each resilience dimension and discuss how these dimensions can be integrated into a cohesive framework, suggesting that no single dimension is sufficient for a holistic analysis of a disaster risk management. Through this article, we also aim to spark discussions among researchers and policymakers to develop a multicriteria decision framework for evaluating the efficacy of resilience strategies. Furthermore, the WEIGHT dimensions may also be used to motivate the generation of new approaches for data analytics of resilience-related knowledge bases.     

Disaster Risk Management Policies and the Measurement of Resilience for Philippine Regions

How can a government prioritize disaster risk management policies across regions and types of interventions? Using an economic model to assess welfare risk and resilience to disasters, this article systematically tackles the questions: (1) How much asset and welfare risks does each region in the Philippines face from riverine flood disasters? (2) How resilient is each region to riverine flood disasters? (3) What are, per region, the possible interventions to strengthen resilience to riverine flood disasters and what will be their measured benefit? We study the regions of the Philippines to demonstrate the channels through which macroeconomic asset and output losses from disasters translate to consumption and welfare losses at the micro-economic level. Apart from the regional prioritizations, we identify a menu of policy options ranked according to their level of effectiveness in increasing resilience and reducing welfare risk from riverine floods. The ranking of priorities varies for different regions when their level of expected value at risk is different. This suggests that there are region-specific conditions and drivers that need to be integrated into considerations and policy decisions, so that these are effectively addressed.     

Decision‐Making Analytics Using Plural Resilience Parameters for Adaptive Management of Complex Systems

It is critical for complex systems to effectively recover, adapt, and reorganize after system disruptions. Common approaches for evaluating system resilience typically study single measures of performance at one time, such as with a single resilience curve. However, multiple measures of performance are needed for complex systems that involve many components, functions, and noncommensurate valuations of performance. Hence, this article presents a framework for: (1) modeling resilience for complex systems with competing measures of performance, and (2) modeling decision making for investing in these systems using multiple stakeholder perspectives and multicriteria decision analysis. This resilience framework, which is described and demonstrated in this article via a real‐world case study, will be of interest to managers of complex systems, such as supply chains and large‐scale infrastructure networks.     

Toward General Principles for Resilience Engineering

Maintaining the performance of infrastructure-dependent systems in the face of surprises and unknowable risks is a grand challenge. Addressing this issue requires a better understanding of enabling conditions or principles that promote system resilience in a universal way. In this study, a set of such principles is interpreted as a group of interrelated conditions or organizational qualities that, taken together, engender system resilience. The field of resilience engineering identifies basic system or organizational qualities (e.g., abilities for learning) that are associated with enhanced general resilience and has packaged them into a set of principles that should be fostered. However, supporting conditions that give rise to such first-order system qualities remain elusive in the field. An integrative understanding of how such conditions co-occur and fit together to bring about resilience, therefore, has been less clear. This article contributes to addressing this gap by identifying a potentially more comprehensive set of principles for building general resilience in infrastructure-dependent systems. In approaching this aim, we organize scattered notions from across the literature. To reflect the partly self-organizing nature of infrastructure-dependent systems, we compare and synthesize two lines of research on resilience: resilience engineering and social-ecological system resilience. Although some of the principles discussed within the two fields overlap, there are some nuanced differences. By comparing and synthesizing the knowledge developed in them, we recommend an updated set of resilience-enhancing principles for infrastructure-dependent systems. In addition to proposing an expanded list of principles, we illustrate how these principles can co-occur and their interdependencies.     

Community Resilience and Decision Theory Challenges for Catastrophic Events

Extreme and catastrophic events pose challenges for normative models of risk management decision making. They invite development of new methods and principles to complement existing normative decision and risk analysis. Because such events are rare, it is difficult to learn about them from experience. They can prompt both too little concern before the fact, and too much after. Emotionally charged and vivid outcomes promote probability neglect and distort risk perceptions. Aversion to acting on uncertain probabilities saps precautionary action; moral hazard distorts incentives to take care; imperfect learning and social adaptation (e.g., herd‐following, group‐think) complicate forecasting and coordination of individual behaviors and undermine prediction, preparation, and insurance of catastrophic events. Such difficulties raise substantial challenges for normative decision theories prescribing how catastrophe risks should be managed. This article summarizes challenges for catastrophic hazards with uncertain or unpredictable frequencies and severities, hard‐to‐envision and incompletely described decision alternatives and consequences, and individual responses that influence each other. Conceptual models and examples clarify where and why new methods are needed to complement traditional normative decision theories for individuals and groups. For example, prospective and retrospective preferences for risk management alternatives may conflict; procedures for combining individual beliefs or preferences can produce collective decisions that no one favors; and individual choices or behaviors in preparing for possible disasters may have no equilibrium. Recent ideas for building “disaster‐resilient” communities can complement traditional normative decision theories, helping to meet the practical need for better ways to manage risks of extreme and catastrophic events.     

Tiered Approach to Resilience Assessment

Regulatory agencies have long adopted a three‐tier framework for risk assessment. We build on this structure to propose a tiered approach for resilience assessment that can be integrated into the existing regulatory processes. Comprehensive approaches to assessing resilience at appropriate and operational scales, reconciling analytical complexity as needed with stakeholder needs and resources available, and ultimately creating actionable recommendations to enhance resilience are still lacking. Our proposed framework consists of tiers by which analysts can select resilience assessment and decision support tools to inform associated management actions relative to the scope and urgency of the risk and the capacity of resource managers to improve system resilience. The resilience management framework proposed is not intended to supplant either risk management or the many existing efforts of resilience quantification method development, but instead provide a guide to selecting tools that are appropriate for the given analytic need. The goal of this tiered approach is to intentionally parallel the tiered approach used in regulatory contexts so that resilience assessment might be more easily and quickly integrated into existing structures and with existing policies.     

Understanding Community Resilience from a PRA Perspective Using Binary Decision Diagrams

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is a useful tool to assess complex interconnected systems. This article leverages the capabilities of PRA tools developed for industrial and nuclear risk analysis in community resilience evaluations by modeling the food security of a community in terms of its built environment as an integrated system. To this end, we model the performance of Gilroy, CA, a moderate‐size town, with regard to disruptions in its food supply caused by a severe earthquake. The food retailers of Gilroy, along with the electrical power network, water network elements, and bridges are considered as components of a system. Fault and event trees are constructed to model the requirements for continuous food supply to community residents and are analyzed efficiently using binary decision diagrams (BDDs). The study also identifies shortcomings in approximate classical system analysis methods in assessing community resilience. Importance factors are utilized to rank the importance of various factors to the overall risk of food insecurity. Finally, the study considers the impact of various sources of uncertainties in the hazard modeling and performance of infrastructure on food security measures. The methodology can be applicable for any existing critical infrastructure system and has potential extensions to other hazards.     

Ecological Risk Assessment,Prediction, and Assessing Risk Predictions

Ecological risk assessment embodied in an adaptive management framework is becoming the global standard approach for formally assessing and managing the ecological risks of technology and development. Ensuring the continual improvement of ecological risk assessment approaches is partly achieved through the dissemination of not only the types of risk assessment approaches used, but also their efficacy. While there is an increasing body of literature describing the results of general comparisons between alternate risk assessment methods and models, there is a paucity of literature that post hoc assesses the performance of specific predictions based on an assessment of risk and the effectiveness of the particular model used to predict the risk. This is especially the case where risk assessments have been used to grant consent or approval for the construction of major infrastructure projects. While postconstruction environmental monitoring is increasingly commonplace, it is not common for a postconstruction assessment of the accuracy and performance of the ecological risk assessment and underpinning model to be undertaken. Without this “assessment of the assessment,” it is difficult for other practitioners to gain insight into the performance of the approach and models used and therefore, as argued here, this limits the rate of improvement of risk assessment approaches.     

Selecting human health metrics for environmental decision-support tools.

Environmental decision‐support tools often predict a multitude of different human health effects due to environmental stressors. The accounting and aggregating of these morbidity and mortality outcomes is key to support decision making and can be accomplished by different methods that we call human health metrics. This article attempts to answer two questions: Does it matter which metric is chosen? and What are the relevant characteristics of these metrics in environmental applications? Three metrics (quality adjusted life years (QALYs), disability adjusted life years (DALYs), and willingness to pay (WTP)) have been applied to the same diverse set of health effects due to environmental impacts. In this example, the choice of metric mattered for the ranking of these environmental impacts and it was found for this example that WTP was dominated by mortality outcomes. Further, QALYs and DALYs are sensitive to mild illnesses that affect large numbers of people and the severity of these mild illnesses are difficult to assess. Eight guiding questions are provided in order to help select human health metrics for environmental decision‐support tools. Since health metrics tend to follow the paradigm of utility maximization, these metrics may be supplemented with a semi‐quantitative discussion of distributional and ethical aspects. Finally, the magnitude of age‐dependent disutility due to mortality for both monetary and nonmonetary metrics may bear the largest practical relevance for future research.     

Evolutionary Resilience and Strategies for Climate Adaptation

The aim of this study is to develop a framework by drawing on three broad perspectives on resilience, engineering, ecological and evolutionary, and to use this framework to critically examine the approach adopted by the draft London climate change adaptation strategy. The central argument of the study is that the Strategy's emergency planning-centred approach to climate adaptation veers between a standard ecological understanding of resilience and the more rigid engineering model. Its emphasis is on identifying ‘exposure’ and ‘vulnerability’ to risk from climate events and on bouncing back from the consequences of such exposures to a normal state, rather than on the dynamic process of transformation to a more desirable trajectory. The study concludes that fostering resilience involves planning for not only recovery from shocks but also cultivating preparedness, and seeking potential transformative opportunities which emerge from change.     

Spatial Risk Analysis of Power Systems Resilience During Extreme Events

The increased frequency of extreme events in recent years highlights the emerging need for the development of methods that could contribute to the mitigation of the impact of such events on critical infrastructures, as well as boost their resilience against them. This article proposes an online spatial risk analysis capable of providing an indication of the evolving risk of power systems regions subject to extreme events. A Severity Risk Index (SRI) with the support of real‐time monitoring assesses the impact of the extreme events on the power system resilience, with application to the effect of windstorms on transmission networks. The index considers the spatial and temporal evolution of the extreme event, system operating conditions, and the degraded system performance during the event. SRI is based on probabilistic risk by condensing the probability and impact of possible failure scenarios while the event is spatially moving across a power system. Due to the large number of possible failures during an extreme event, a scenario generation and reduction algorithm is applied in order to reduce the computation time. SRI provides the operator with a probabilistic assessment that could lead to effective resilience‐based decisions for risk mitigation. The IEEE 24‐bus Reliability Test System has been used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed online risk analysis, which was embedded in a sequential Monte Carlo simulation for capturing the spatiotemporal effects of extreme events and evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed method.     

Passenger Rail Security,Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network,Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools

We built three simulation models that can assist rail transit planners and operators to evaluate high and low probability rail‐centered hazard events that could lead to serious consequences for rail‐centered networks and their surrounding regions. Our key objective is to provide these models to users who, through planning with these models, can prevent events or more effectively react to them. The first of the three models is an industrial systems simulation tool that closely replicates rail passenger traffic flows between New York Penn Station and Trenton, New Jersey. Second, we built and used a line source plume model to trace chemical plumes released by a slow‐moving freight train that could impact rail passengers, as well as people in surrounding areas. Third, we crafted an economic simulation model that estimates the regional economic consequences of a variety of rail‐related hazard events through the year 2020. Each model can work independently of the others. However, used together they help provide a coherent story about what could happen and set the stage for planning that should make rail‐centered transport systems more resistant and resilient to hazard events. We highlight the limitations and opportunities presented by using these models individually or in sequence.     

A Resilience-Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions

Reliability and higher levels of safety are thought to be achieved by using systematic approaches to managing risks. The assessment of risks has produced a range of different approaches to assessing these uncertainties, presenting models for how risks affect individuals or organizations. Contemporary risk assessment tools based on this approach have proven difficult for practitioners to use as tools for tactical and operational decision making. This article presents an alternative to these assessments by utilizing a resilience perspective, arguing that complex systems are inclined to variety and uncertainty regarding the results they produce and are therefore prone to systemic failures. A continuous improvement approach is a source of reliability when managing complex systems and is necessary to manage varieties and uncertainties. For an organization to understand how risk events occur, it is necessary to define what is believed to be the equilibrium of the system in time and space. By applying a resilience engineering (RE) perspective to risk assessment, it is possible to manage this complexity by assessing the ability to respond, monitor, learn, and anticipate risks, and in so doing to move away from the flawed frequency and consequences approach. Using a research station network in the Arctic as an example illustrates how an RE approach qualifies assessments by bridging risk assessments with value-creation processes. The article concludes by arguing that a resilience-based risk assessment can improve on current practice, including for organizations located outside the Arctic region.     

Resilience Analysis of a Remote Offshore Oil and Gas Facility for a Potential Hydrocarbon Release

Resilience is the capability of a system to adjust its functionality during a disturbance or perturbation. The present work attempts to quantify resilience as a function of reliability, vulnerability, and maintainability. The approach assesses proactive and reactive defense mechanisms along with operational factors to respond to unwanted disturbances and perturbation. This article employs a Bayesian network format to build a resilience model. The application of the model is tested on hydrocarbon‐release scenarios during an offloading operation in a remote and harsh environment. The model identifies requirements for robust recovery and adaptability during an unplanned scenario related to a hydrocarbon release. This study attempts to relate the resilience capacity of a system to the system's absorptive, adaptive, and restorative capacities. These factors influence predisaster and postdisaster strategies that can be mapped to enhance the resilience of the system.     

Economics of Disaster Risk,Social Vulnerability,and Mental Health Resilience

We investigate the relationship between exposure to Hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita and mental health resilience by vulnerability status, with particular focus on the mental health outcomes of single mothers versus the general public. We advance a measurable notion of mental health resilience to disaster events. We also calculate the economic costs of poor mental health days added by natural disaster exposure. Negative binomial analyses show that hurricane exposure increases the expected count of poor mental health days for all persons by 18.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.44–31.14%), and by 71.88% (95% CI, 39.48–211.82%) for single females with children. Monthly time‐series show that single mothers have lower event resilience, experiencing higher added mental stress. Results also show that the count of poor mental health days is sensitive to hurricane intensity, increasing by a factor of 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02–1.10) for every billion (U.S.$) dollars of damage added for all exposed persons, and by a factor of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.03–1.14) for single mothers. We estimate that single mothers, as a group, suffered over $130 million in productivity loss from added postdisaster stress and disability. Results illustrate the measurability of mental health resilience as a two‐dimensional concept of resistance capacity and recovery time. Overall, we show that natural disasters regressively tax disadvantaged population strata.