The Effect of Time-Varying Value on Infrastructure Resilience Assessments

Abstract

Infrastructure resilience for a scenario can be assessed quantitatively from resilience curves that plot the evolution of system performance. Summary metrics map these curves to a single value to facilitate comparisons of different systems, scenarios, and policies. Commonly, these metrics are integralbased, e.g., cumulative infrastructure performance. However, since these curves and metrics only examine infrastructure performance, they fail to consider the dynamics of when stakeholders value the performance. For example, a power failure at a hospital during an ordinary day would be of less concern to emergency managers than during a hurricane recovery. This manuscript defines value weighting functions to represent the evolution of stakeholders' value of performance. Temporal correlation between the performance and value weighting functions is described through a stochastic offset. Together, these concepts are used to define a holistic resilience metric: percent value satisfied. Through analytical and numerical approaches, percent value satisfied is treated as a resilience assessment's stochastic output, and its distribution is compared to the naïve metric, cumulative infrastructure performance. The naïve summary metric is shown to be misleading in multiple potential scenarios; this work establishes that resilience assessments must consider the impact of time-varying stakeholder value and its correlation with infrastructure performance. These elements also provide new considerations for resilience assessments: opportunities to improve holistic system resilience without directly affecting infrastructure performance; hazard categories to inform value-weighted resilience analysis; and general insights to guide extensions from performance-based to value-weighted assessment.

Resilience assessment methods for hospitals subjected to earthquakes: State of the art

“…For the resilience assessment, it is essential but challenging to reflect the values and goals of stakeholders across all systems and achieve a balance. Use of multiple performance measures reflecting different stakeholders and assignment of linear or nonlinear weighting driven by spatial or temporal variations are promising solutions 111 …”

“…Use of multiple performance measures reflecting different stakeholders and assignment of linear or nonlinear weighting driven by spatial or temporal variations are promising solutions. 111 Recovery is an indispensable part of the resilience definition. The approaches to how recovery is reflected in resilience assessment methods and results are different.…”

A disaster-damage-based framework for assessing urban resilience to intense rainfall-induced flooding

“…System function curves are commonly used to evaluate resilience quantitatively (Polin and Kane, 2021;Gasser et al, 2021;Murdock et al, 2018). This method regards resilience as a process and quantifies resilience by analysing the impact of disasters on systems and systems' consequent responses (Bruneau et al, 2003;Reed et al, 2009;Cimellaro et al, 2010;Bozza et al, 2017).…”