2018
DOI: 10.1080/23729333.2017.1409374
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mapping and assessing territorial resilience through spatial ergonomics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The last two articles aim at making a representation via a map of risk histories related to rail infrastructures for improving anticipation of future risks (Saint-Marc, Villanova-Oliver, Davoine, Capoccioni, and Chenier, 2017), and to developing a new form of risk mapping based on the resilience concept (Propeck-Zimmermann, Saint-Gérand, Haniotou, and Skrimizea, 2018). In the case of the historical approach (Saint Marc et al, 2017) to risks linked with SNCF (French railway system) infrastructures, a risk geovisualization interface has been developed.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The last two articles aim at making a representation via a map of risk histories related to rail infrastructures for improving anticipation of future risks (Saint-Marc, Villanova-Oliver, Davoine, Capoccioni, and Chenier, 2017), and to developing a new form of risk mapping based on the resilience concept (Propeck-Zimmermann, Saint-Gérand, Haniotou, and Skrimizea, 2018). In the case of the historical approach (Saint Marc et al, 2017) to risks linked with SNCF (French railway system) infrastructures, a risk geovisualization interface has been developed.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Repeated events for a given infrastructure can also be represented with this interface and cascade effects can be understood. Lastly, (Propeck-Zimmermann et al, 2018) develop risk visualization based on two resilience factors: absorption and the return to a new balance. The proposed approach has the merit of covering the systemic complexity of areas subject to risk.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%