A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Resilience at the Community Scale

Kwasinski, Alexis; Trainor, Joseph; Wolshon, Brian; Lavelle, Francis M.

doi:10.6028/nist.gcr.16-001

Cited by 22 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The objective of the second CRAM report (Kwasinski et al 2016) was to build upon the strengths of 2015).existing approaches, identify gaps or needs, and recommend a conceptual framework for filling those gaps. The second report introduced the concepts of community dimensions and community services, and it examined the dependencies of infrastructure systems on the services produced by other systems.…”

Section: A Previous Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conceptual framework developed in the second CRAM report (Kwasinski et al 2016) is illustrated in Figure 1. Central to the framework is the concept of an essential set of community dimensions, developed from the insights of Maslow (1943) and the NIST Guide (2015).…”

Section: B Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As discussed by Kwasinski et al (2016), dependencies can be characterized by degree (e.g., fully dependent, partially dependent, or conditionally dependent). Dependencies can also be regulated by maintaining a local reserve or buffer within the dependent system or by temporarily reducing the demand for the services produced by the dependent system.…”

Section: Figure 2 Representation Of a Community (Social Or Physical)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of important challenges were identified in the second report (Kwasinski et al 2016), including:…”

Section: Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These challenges were identified and illustrated by Kwasinski et al (2016) within the context of the community health dimension. One objective of this report is to reassess these challenges in the context of four additional community dimensions: sustenance, housing and shelter, belonging and relationships, and education and personal development.…”

Section: Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Further development of a conceptual framework for assessing resilience at the community scale

Kwasinski¹,

Trainor²,

Francis³

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Previous Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 2 Representation Of a Community (Social Or Physical)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of important challenges were identified in the second report (Kwasinski et al 2016), including:…”

Section: Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Further development of a conceptual framework for assessing resilience at the community scale

Kwasinski¹,

Trainor²,

Francis³

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative Model and Metrics for Distribution System Resiliency

Kwasinski

2023

Resiliency of Power Distribution Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Role of Protocol‐Driven Resilience in Coupled Infrastructure and Natural System Resilience

Francis

Amodeo

2018

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lifeline infrastructure systems have always been crucial to the social, economic, and military security of societies. Because lifeline systems are critical to societal coherence and economic operations, assessing and mitigating risks to lifeline system operations is crucial. However, attention has shifted from risk assessment to resilience assessment due to the exceptionally large adaptation and mitigation needs implied by the geographic and temporal scope of natural and man‐made hazards. The goal of this commentary is to introduce the concept of protocol‐driven resilience. Protocol‐driven resilience refers to the way in which the network of human relationships, operating protocols, evolving objectives, and information sharing processes produces resilient system behavior. Protocols are the formal and informal rules, and formal and informal processes that govern the nature, quality, and quantity of connectivity and interaction between the coupled system's physical and human components. Protocols are crucial to resilience of coupled infrastructure and natural systems because although the physical components of the infrastructure are relatively static, the protocols are dynamic and decomposable. We assert that the resilience of a system should be assessed by studying the range or diversity of conditions under which a protocol set preserves relationships. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:578–580. © 2018 SETAC

show abstract

A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Resilience at the Community Scale

Cited by 22 publications

References 2 publications

Further development of a conceptual framework for assessing resilience at the community scale

Further development of a conceptual framework for assessing resilience at the community scale

Quantitative Model and Metrics for Distribution System Resiliency

On the Role of Protocol‐Driven Resilience in Coupled Infrastructure and Natural System Resilience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About