4.6 Review

Resilience Assessment Frameworks of Critical Infrastructures: State-of-the-Art Review

Journal

BUILDINGS
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings11100464

Keywords

resilience assessment framework; critical infrastructure; dimension; indicator

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71901224]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [2020JJ5779]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reviews resilience assessment frameworks for critical infrastructures proposed in quality papers over the past decade, identifies common dimensions and key indicators of these frameworks, and suggests potential opportunities for future research.
During the past two decades, critical infrastructures (CIs) faced a growing number of challenges worldwide due to natural disasters and other disruptive events. To respond to and handle these disasters and disruptive events, the concept of resilience was introduced to CIs. Particularly, many institutions and scholars developed various types of frameworks to assess and enhance CI resilience. The purpose of this paper is to review the resilience assessment frameworks of the CIs proposed by quality papers published in the past decade, determine and analyze the common dimensions and the key indicators of resilience assessment frameworks of CIs, and propose possible opportunities for future research. To achieve these goals, a comprehensive literature review was conducted, which identified 24 resilience assessment frameworks from 24 quality papers. This paper contributes to the current body of resilience research by identifying the common dimensions and the key indicators of the resilience assessment frameworks proposed for CIs. In addition, this paper is beneficial to the practice, because it provides a comprehensive view of the resilience assessment frameworks of CIs from the perspective of implementation, and the indicators are pragmatic and actionable in practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available