Risk 360

The Importance of Risk Resilience Report

Introduction

Significant damage and disturbance to communities, including buildings, distributed infrastructure systems, economy, and the provision of social services can arise from natural and human risks. In the past decade, worldwide attention has grown towards a concept of community resilience that involves planning, resistance, absorption, and speedy recovery from disruptive occurrences[1]. The local and national impacts of Hurrica Andrev in 1992, the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the 2001 World Trade Center & the Pentagon, the 2005 Katrina hurricane, 2011 Joplin, MO Tornado, 2012 Superstorm Sandy have determined national and local programs, along with  community resilience investigation[2]

Community ideas on resilience are developed after every natural disaster as an emergency response. Managing risk & resilience involves preparation and safety, mitigation, risk communication and community recovery from physical, economic, and social problems increasingly addressed in resilience programs. communities’ resilience

Over time, the long-term implications on communities following events, rather than just specific institutions or organizations, were addressed by community resilience. The community viewpoint provides the essential context for creating the desired performance and recovery and their involvement in community recovery of particular facilities and organizations.

What is resilience?

The ideas of flexibility all in all and strength to risk occasions specifically have discovered wide application in a large group of controls, including brain research and psychiatry, general well being related sciences, and natural sciences, designing, and the more extensive financial, social, and conduct sciences[3,4]

These notions were used for phenomena at different dimensions and complexity, ranging from components of engineering government systems or social groupings to systems and network systems such as communities, socio-ecological systems, regional economies, and infrastructural networks.

Fig 1 How resilience frameworks works

Resilience frameworks

In the seismic hazard context, a broad framework was presented to assess the communities’ seismic resilience, which recognized the main components of the resilience as ‘reduced likelihood of failure,’ ‘reduced failure consequences’ and ‘reduced time of recovery[5]. The resilience framework in disaster management comprised measurements of strength, speed, resourcefulness, and redundancy (R4). It also advocated the inclusion of infrastructure systems like electronics and water, and vital facilities such as hospitals, of technical, organizational, social, and economic components. Mathematically specified resilience ®.

Physical infrastructure systems

System interdependencies

Several scholars have created extensive models and empirical methodologies to evaluate physical interdependencies across infrastructure systems such as buildings, transport networks, elevators, and key installations. Pergalani, Boni, and Petrini (2002) presented the seismic sensitivity evaluation model for infrastructure exposed to earthquake hazards that account for the physical, functional, and organizational inter-connected variables. Paton and Johnston (2006) have presented an empirical approach to the numerical quantification of dependency of infrastructure systems which takes the level of the dependence as its basis. In the 2004 Florida storm, Biggers, Willingham, Krimgold, and Mili (2009) established several complicated interdependencies across electrical systems, wastewater supplies, petroleum and natural gas systems as well as communications and transportation systems[7].

4.2 Buildings and critical infrastructure

A considerable number of studies have been undertaken over the previous two decades to evaluate the idea of resilience and identify indicators for physical infrastructure. The study focuses mostly on building amenities with an even stronger concentration on health facilities. While health facilities (i.e. hospitals) are researched in comparison to the portfolio of commercial buildings or residential buildings, these building infrastructure resilient studies are presented jointly in this part. In view of crafted by Bruneau et al. (2003), Cimellaro, Christovasilis, Reinhorn, De Stefano, and Kirova (2010) formed a system to evaluate versatility with a recuperation model that joined immediate and backhanded misfortunes to key actual foundation inside a local area and its populace[8] This approach is designed to evaluate the resilience of essential installations such as hospitals, military structures and infrastructure systems that can greatly influence the process of recovery, community decisions and policies. The framework has been used as case studies of a typical California hospital and a health care network in the Memphis region of Tennessee.

The notion of earlier research has been further developed by Cimellaro, Christovasilis, et al. (2010) and introduced the idea of an RB DD Framework which, based on community resilience concerns, influences the design of individual structures. In addition, Bruneau and Reinhorn (2007) have studied both operational and physical resiliency of acute care facilities, not only engineering characteristics but wider social attributes included in the study being the crucial factor.

Conclusion

Resilience in the community has been dealt with in several areas, including environmental science, engineering, sociology, and psychology. Community resilience became more dynamic in the United States and internationally as a consequence of several major natural and human risks. To date, an overall resilience model for the communities covering the performance from immediate repercussions through the recovery stage of natural disasters for all physical and socio-economic components is not available.

This blog summarizes a literature review of previous community resilience studies with a focus on natural hazards, which includes primarily models of individual infrastructure systems, their interdependencies, and community economic and social systems. A series of national and international initiatives aimed at community resilience are also summarized in this study. This blog suggests extensions of existing modeling methodologies and considers resilience risk management methods that are aimed at developing an improved, integrated understanding of resilience that can be used by policy-makers in preparation for future events.

References

[1] Бакума, А., Булавка, Н., & Чеботар, С. (2016). THE GENOTYPES OF MODERN MYRONIVSKY VARIETIES OF WINTER WHEAT FOR Ppd-A1, Ppd-B1, Ppd-D1 GENES AND THEIR SENSITIVITY TO PHOTOPERIOD. Odesa National University Herald. Biology, 21(1(38), 75. doi: 10.18524/2077-1746.2016.1(38).68012

[2] McAllister, T. (2016). Research Needs for Developing a Risk-Informed Methodology for Community Resilience. Journal Of Structural Engineering, 142(8). doi: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001379

[3] Haimes, Y. (2009). On the Definition of Resilience in Systems. Risk Analysis, 29(4), 498-501. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01216.x

[4] Lall, S., & Deichmann, U. (2011). Density and Disasters: Economics of Urban Hazard Risk. The World Bank Research Observer, 27(1), 74-105. doi: 10.1093/wbro/lkr006

[5] Bruneau, M., & Reinhorn, A. (2007). Exploring the Concept of Seismic Resilience for Acute Care Facilities. Earthquake Spectra, 23(1), 41-62. doi: 10.1193/1.2431396

[6] Ghaffarian, R., & Muro, S. (2013). Models and Methods to Evaluate Transport of Drug Delivery Systems Across Cellular Barriers. Journal Of Visualized Experiments, (80). doi: 10.3791/50638

[7] Prasad, T., & Park, N. (2004). Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms for Design of Water Distribution Networks. Journal Of Water Resources Planning And Management, 130(1), 73-82. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2004)130:1(73)

[8] Klein, R., Nicholls, R., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?. Environmental Hazards, 5(1), 35-45. doi: 10.1016/j.hazards.2004.02.001

[9] LANDAU, J. (2007). Enhancing Resilience: Families and Communities as Agents for Change. Family Process, 46(3), 351-365. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00216.

[10] Ghaffarian, R., & Muro, S. (2013). Models and Methods to Evaluate Transport of Drug Delivery Systems Across Cellular Barriers. Journal Of Visualized Experiments, (80). doi: 10.3791/50638

Blog Published by: Tanuj Upadhyay, Student Risk Committee Member 

admin

You may also like

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Risk 360