ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
A new end-user-oriented and dynamic approach to post-disaster resilience quantification for individual facilities.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A new end-user-oriented and dynamic approach to post-disaster resilience quantification for individual facilities.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community recovery from a disaster is a complex process, in which the importance of different types of infrastructure functionality can change over time. Most of the myriad of metrics available for measuring disaster resilience do not capture the dynamic importance of functionality explicitly, however. This means that very different recovery trajectories of a given infrastructure can correspond to the same resilience value, regardless of variations in its utility over time. While some efforts have been made to integrate features of time dependency into individual facility resilience quantification, the resulting metrics either capture only a limited set of temporal instances throughout the post-disaster phase or do not offer a way to prioritize time steps in line with variations in the importance of facility functionality. This study proposes a novel, straightforward metric for component-level post-disaster resilience quantification that overcomes the aforementioned limitations. The metric involves a dynamic weighting component that enables stakeholders to place varying emphasis on different temporal points throughout the recovery process. The end-user-centered approach to resilience quantification facilitated by the metric allows for flexible, context-specific interpretations of infrastructure functionality importance that may vary across different communities. The metric is demonstrated through a hypothetical case study of infrastructure facilities with varying degrees of importance across the post-disaster recovery period, which showcases its versatility relative to a previously well-established measurement of component-level resilience. The proposed metric has significant potential for use in stakeholder-driven approaches to decision making on critical infrastructure (as well as other types of built environment) recovery and resilience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.