Inoperability Input-Output Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Sectors. II: Case Studies

Haimes, Yacov Y.; Horowitz, Barry M.; Lambert, James H.; Santos, Joost R.; Crowther, Kenneth G.; Lian, Chenyang

doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(2005)11:2(80)

Cited by 152 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was later developed further by Santos and Haimes (2004) to quantify the impact of terrorism on critical infrastructures. Some of the studies using the IIM approach and its variations to address the behaviour of interdependent infrastructures are: Haimes et al (2005a;2005b), Setola et al (2009), Crowther andHaimes (2010), and Oliva et al (2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electricity Supply Interruptions

Poudineh

Jamasb

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tables and Figures AbstractThe power sector has a central role in modern economies and other interdependent infrastructures rely heavily upon secure electricity supplies. Due to interdependencies, major electricity supply interruptions result in cascading effects in other sectors of the economy. This paper investigates the economic effects of large power supply disruptions taking such interdependencies into account. We apply a dynamic inoperability input-output model (DIIM) to 101 sectors (including households) of the Scottish economy in 2009 in order to explore direct, indirect, and induced effects of electricity supply interruptions. We then estimate the societal cost of energy not supplied (SCENS) due to interruption, in the presence of interdependency among the sectors. The results show that the most economically affected industries, following an outage, can be different from the most inoperable ones. The results also indicate that SCENS varies with duration of a power cut, ranging from around £4300/MWh for a one-minute outage to around £8100/MWh for a three hour (and higher) interruption. The economic impact of estimates can be used to design policies for contingencies such as roll-out priorities as well as preventive investments in the sector.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electricity Supply Interruptions

Poudineh

Jamasb

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, several other articles that examined only some portion of the consequences rather than an overarching framework were included if they were identified when assessing the specific risks in the hazard sheets (Step C of the method). Such attributes included aspects of mental health (Ursano et al 1995;Norwood et al 2000), indirect damage (including damage to critical infrastructure, regional economic impacts, et al) (Haimes et al 2005;Rose 2009), international relations (Treverton et al 2008), and others. In addition to aspects of consequence, we included attributes associated with non-consequence aspects of hazards.…”

Section: Identifying Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Lundberg¹,

Willis

2016

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Reliably managing homeland security risks requires an understanding of which risks are more concerning than others. This paper applies a validated risk ranking methodology, the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks, to the homeland security domain. This method provides a structured approach to elicit risk rankings from participants based on deliberative consideration of science-based risk assessments. Steps in this effort include first identifying the set of attributes that must be covered when describing terrorism and disaster hazards in a comprehensive manner, then developing concise summaries of existing knowledge of a broad set of homeland security hazards. Using these materials, the study elicits relative concerns about the hazards that are being considered. The relative concerns about hazards provide a starting point for prioritizing solutions for reducing risks to homeland security. The consistency and agreement of the rankings, as well as the individual satisfaction with the process and results, suggest that the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks can be appropriately applied in the homeland security domain. The rankings themselves reflected greater concern over natural disasters than terrorist events. This research suggests that deliberative risk ranking methods could provide a valid and reliable description of individuals' concerns about homeland security risks to inform strategic planning.

show abstract

“…Under such conditions, utility maximising methods, such as those used for appraisal, become highly sensitive to the projected future environment, reducing the robustness of the answers produced. This uncertainty is often seen purely as a negative, indeed, many of the existing studies of infrastructure interdependency focus on the vulnerabilities this creates (see for example, Buldyrev et al 2010;Rinaldi 2004;Haimes et al 2005;Apostolakis and Lemon 2005). However, alongside risks, there are also opportunities, particularly where flexibility is maintained and used to create additional value when opportunities arise (Ford et al 2002).…”

Section: Incorporating the Long-term: System Opportunities And Constrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing system interdependency into infrastructure appraisal: from projects to portfolios to pathways

Young

Hall

2015

Infrastruct. Complex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current methods for appraisal of infrastructure projects have been developed to consider multiple criteria, wider economic impacts and uncertainty, yet their focus on standalone projects and sector specific methods ignores the widely acknowledged 'system of system' interactions between infrastructure networks. Here we draw inspiration from real options 'in' projects to build on current appraisal methods, extending the analysis from single projects to cross-sector regional portfolios and finally to temporally differentiated development pathways; quantifying each stage through a case study on the Thames Hub Vision. The result is a system perspective of the investments, including: (i) the emergent effects of infrastructure asset interactions and how these are affected by the timing and order of development; (ii) an understanding of the 'opportunity' value of an investment through its ability to restrict or enable further developments; and (iii) the total required resources and potential environmental outcomes. Through our case study we demonstrate these effects, identifying system effects sufficient to reverse the outcome of the analysis from a net negative, to a net positive result. Furthermore, we show that the enabling effects of an asset on future developments can create impacts an order of magnitude larger than those observed through current individual asset appraisals. Our developments allow the creation of a decision support tool capable of more fully evaluating the effects of infrastructure investments, with a focus on the long-term opportunity provided by development strategies. The work provides a platform for prioritisation of investments across sectors and for highlighting cross-sector effects, thereby encouraging stakeholder engagement and collaboration. Further work is necessary to explore the effects of intrinsic socio-economic uncertainty in the modelling assumptions and feedbacks between investments and future projections, such as population change and economic growth.

show abstract

Inoperability Input-Output Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Sectors. II: Case Studies

Cited by 152 publications

References 8 publications

Electricity Supply Interruptions

Electricity Supply Interruptions

Deliberative Risk Ranking to Inform Homeland Security Strategic Planning

Introducing system interdependency into infrastructure appraisal: from projects to portfolios to pathways

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About