the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 26 Jan 2024
A Guide of Indicators Creation for Critical Infrastructures Resilience. Based on a Multi-criteria Framework Focusing on Optimisation Actions for Road Transport System
Abstract. Criteria and indicators are frequently used for assessing the resilience of Critical Infrastructures (CIs). However, the application of the concept of CIs resilience in practical disaster management is challenged by the lack of operational tools. An operational tool should enable the establishment of an organized system of indicators and optimising operational practice. Therefore, to address the operationalisation of resilience assessment, the main objective of this study is to develop a step-by-step guide for the creation of specific indicators aimed at different practical situations. This guide can assist CIs managers in their decision-making as it is structured based on a multi-criteria framework that considers the various interests of stakeholders. This guide includes the methods for Criteria and indicators setting, reference definition, and data collection. Furthermore, this study presents an example of the application of the guide. This example is based on a given scenario focusing on the Nantes Ring Road (NRR) network: when it is flooded and closed, the road network manager suggests alternative roads to citizens. The created indicators, based on this scenario and involved 62 676 data, relate to potential damages and costs-benefit and involve technical, social, and environmental dimensions.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2129 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2129 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-204', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2024
This manuscript analyzes the optimization of road transport systems and proposes guidelines for the creation of resilience indicators for critical infrastructure based on a multi-criteria framework approach. The topic selection has positive significance for disaster prevention and reduction in cities and communities. The specific suggestions are as follows: (1) It is recommended that the author revise the title. In the current title, the two contents do not seem to be closely related, causing trouble for readers to obtain the information of this manuscript in the first time. (2) The structure of the manuscript is extremely unreasonable. Some sections have the same title, the content is lengthy, the focus is not highlighted, and the structure is not conducive to reading. It is recommended that the author make a complete restructuring of the manuscript. (3) The discussion part is weak, does not grasp the focus of this manuscript's work, and does not incorporate enough previous work. The current Discussion section could not provide valuable information to readers. In summary, it is recommended to reject the manuscript
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-204-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Mar 2024
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your interest in our research and the detailed comments provided, which have greatly contributed to improving the manuscript. In response to your feedback, we have made revisions to the manuscript, focusing primarily on the following three points
- Study objective.
Based on the content of this manuscript, the purpose of the study should be corrected as follows: to develop a guide, that enables Critical Infrastructures stakeholders to build their specific indicators systems. This guide should provide practical steps on standard setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The title has been also corrected to “Critical Infrastructures Resilience: A Guide for Building Indicators Systems”.
- Study methodology and structure.
A new section, for addressing the problem of study methodology and structure, has been added after the introduction. Furthermore, to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity, we have revised the titles and subheadings of various sections.
- Discussion.
We have optimised the discussion section regarding the use of the developed guide and its limitations, to better relate the discussion to the objectives of the study. Additionally, the demonstration of resilience assessment has been relocated to the discussion section and appendixes, as it is not the primary focus of this study. Emphasis has been placed on designing practical steps for criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection, which are integral aspects of the study.
For details of the revisions, please refer to the last version of the manuscript that has been sent to the editorial support team. We trust that these revisions have addressed your concerns and enhanced the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Best regards,
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Zhuyu Yang, 10 Jun 2024
Dear Reviewer,
During this final response phase, we would like to highlight three main revisions made based on the comments of other reviewers.
- Paper’s structure
According to one of the suggestions of reviewer 2, the structure of this paper is unclear due to the step of “step designing”. We suggest combining sections for “key factors identification” and “step designing”. Thus, the designed steps, for the “Criteria & Indicators” setting and data analysis, could be presented directly with the identification of key factors (Criteria, indicators, and data). In the new version, the result of section 3 is therefore the development of a guide for building indicator systems. Section 4 shows then a big example for demonstrating the use of the developed guide. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
- Use of some similar terms
The study is confusing in its use of ‘operationalisation’, ‘application’ and ‘implementation’. This paper wants to discuss two topics: the application of indicators-based assessment for critical infrastructure resilience; and the implementable actions identified through the Behind the Barriers model. However, the initial paper did not well distinguish these terms. This problem has been resolved in the new version. Since the focus of the paper is on indicator systems built by a developed guide, one discussion refers to the contribution of developed guide and indicator systems to the application of CIs resilience assessment. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
- Example demonstration
Some example demonstrations are not necessary. Therefore, in the reviewed version, there is only a big example that includes all the steps shown in the developed guide.
Please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (final response 1). The comments of other reviewers are in green and all highlighted revisions are in red. There are a very large number of revisions, so feel free to contact us if you have questions.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-204', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Apr 2024
One major comment is that this paper could greatly benefit from a holistic illustrative example to apply the framework the author proposed. This example could serve as a powerful tool to demonstrate the practical application of the framework, potentially inspiring the authors to further develop their work. One possible solution is that the authors do not have to propose a small example for each section (such as lines 132-145) but use a big example to include all the steps shown in the framework, and then echo back which part is associated to which step. This could help avoid the body text looking tedious and repetitive, and instead make it clear and concise.
Another big issue is that the novelty of this paper is not clear. The word "operationalizing" may not be the most appropriate term. The authors may want to consider using "application" or "implementation". However, without a clear and compelling illustrative example, it becomes challenging to substantiate the novelty of this paper as the authors proposed. This underscores the importance of revising and improving the argumentation to ensure clarity.
Some sentences need to be rephrased. For example, line 24: "...involved 62676 data..."; lines 28: "Modern infrastructures are the technological..."; line 34: "resilience assessments have become key..."
Some figures are not clear. For example, in Figure 1, it would be better if the lines had an arrow pointing from right to left.
Some figures need more associated explanations. For example, in Figure 2, why does it need a guide design? Why can we not develop criteria from key factors directly? Again, the audience will be more convinced if the paper has an example. Figure 3: Why does it need the layer of aspects?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-204-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments that bring us interesting perspectives on the content of the manuscript. We have thought carefully about your comments and summarised them in five points. Furthermore, our proposed solutions will also be demonstrated.
- Paper’s structure
The structure of this paper is unclear due to the step of “step designing”. We suggest combining sections for “key factors identification” and “step designing”. Thus, the designed steps, for the “Criteria & Indicators” setting and data analysis, could be presented directly with the identification of key factors (Criteria, indicators, and data). In the new version, the result of section 3 is therefore the development of a guide for building indicator systems. Section 4 shows then a big example for demonstrating the use of the developed guide.
- Use of some similar terms
We agree with you about the confused use of “operationalisation”, “application” and “implementation”. This paper wants to discuss two topics: the application of indicators-based assessment for critical infrastructure resilience; and the implementable actions identified through the Behind the Barriers model. However, the initial paper did not well distinguish these terms. This problem has been resolved in the new version. Since the focus of the paper is on indicator systems built by a developed guide, one discussion refers to the contribution of developed guide and indicator systems to the application of CIs resilience assessment.
- Example demonstration
Some example demonstrations are not necessary. Therefore, in the reviewed version, there is only a big example that includes all the steps shown in the developed guide.
- Figures’ illustration and description
The problem of unclear information in figures has been resolved. In addition, the corresponding texts have been added.
- Unclear sentences.
We have improved the sentences noted that need to be rephrased.
Please find the detailed replies and revisions to points 1 to 4 in the attached document (revision 2). These revisions contain the rephrased sentences of point 5. All your comments are in green and all highlight revisions are in red.
Thanks again for your interest in our research and the valuable comments provided.
Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Zhuyu Yang, 10 Jun 2024
Dear Reviewer 2,
During this final response phase, we would like to highlight three main revisions made based on the comments of other reviewers.
- The focus of this manuscript.
According to reviewer 1, the focus and the title of this study should be redefined. Thus, the topic of the study has been corrected as follows: Critical Infrastructures Resilience: A Guide for Building Indicator Systems. The focus of this study is to develop a guide, which enables Critical Infrastructures stakeholders to build their specific indicator systems. This guide should provide practical steps on criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
- Study methodology and structure.
A new section, for addressing the problem of study methodology and structure, has been added after the introduction. Furthermore, to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity, we have revised the titles and subheadings of various sections. This revision of the paper’s structure has been presented in the first reply.
- Discussion.
We have optimised the discussion section regarding the use of the developed guide and its limitations, to better relate the discussion to the objectives of the study. Additionally, the demonstration of resilience assessment has been moved to the discussion section and appendixes, as it is not the primary focus of this study. The Emphasis of this study has been placed on designing practical steps for criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
Please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (final response 2). The comments of other reviewers are in green and all highlighted revisions are in red. There are a very large number of revisions, so feel free to contact us if you have questions.
Thanks again for your interest in our research and the valuable comments provided. Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-204', Yuxuan Yao, 15 Apr 2024
This paper's multi-criteria framework provides a comprehensive perspective on the assessment of resilience and will be valuable in proposing particularly detailed operational steps for practical application and implementation, this is transferable for other systems.
A suggestion is to clarify how the author's work benefits from and differs from existing related studies in the Introduction Section.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-204-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
Dear Dr. Yuxuan Yao
Thank you very much for your interest in our study. In addition, we are very grateful for your suggestion to add the authors' work benefits in the introduction section.
The presented study aims to meet one current requirement for the indicators-based resilience assessment in practical management: a guide for indicator systems building. Despite the existence of a large number of resilience assessment indicators, very little research develops guidance to help managers create specific indicators themselves. However, indeed, we did not point out how this presented study differs from other available research. Therefore, we have added this part as you suggested, and please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (revision 3). All your comments are in green and all highlight revisions are in red.
Thanks again for your valuable comments provided.
Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-204', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Feb 2024
This manuscript analyzes the optimization of road transport systems and proposes guidelines for the creation of resilience indicators for critical infrastructure based on a multi-criteria framework approach. The topic selection has positive significance for disaster prevention and reduction in cities and communities. The specific suggestions are as follows: (1) It is recommended that the author revise the title. In the current title, the two contents do not seem to be closely related, causing trouble for readers to obtain the information of this manuscript in the first time. (2) The structure of the manuscript is extremely unreasonable. Some sections have the same title, the content is lengthy, the focus is not highlighted, and the structure is not conducive to reading. It is recommended that the author make a complete restructuring of the manuscript. (3) The discussion part is weak, does not grasp the focus of this manuscript's work, and does not incorporate enough previous work. The current Discussion section could not provide valuable information to readers. In summary, it is recommended to reject the manuscript
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-204-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Mar 2024
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your interest in our research and the detailed comments provided, which have greatly contributed to improving the manuscript. In response to your feedback, we have made revisions to the manuscript, focusing primarily on the following three points
- Study objective.
Based on the content of this manuscript, the purpose of the study should be corrected as follows: to develop a guide, that enables Critical Infrastructures stakeholders to build their specific indicators systems. This guide should provide practical steps on standard setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The title has been also corrected to “Critical Infrastructures Resilience: A Guide for Building Indicators Systems”.
- Study methodology and structure.
A new section, for addressing the problem of study methodology and structure, has been added after the introduction. Furthermore, to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity, we have revised the titles and subheadings of various sections.
- Discussion.
We have optimised the discussion section regarding the use of the developed guide and its limitations, to better relate the discussion to the objectives of the study. Additionally, the demonstration of resilience assessment has been relocated to the discussion section and appendixes, as it is not the primary focus of this study. Emphasis has been placed on designing practical steps for criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection, which are integral aspects of the study.
For details of the revisions, please refer to the last version of the manuscript that has been sent to the editorial support team. We trust that these revisions have addressed your concerns and enhanced the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Best regards,
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Zhuyu Yang, 10 Jun 2024
Dear Reviewer,
During this final response phase, we would like to highlight three main revisions made based on the comments of other reviewers.
- Paper’s structure
According to one of the suggestions of reviewer 2, the structure of this paper is unclear due to the step of “step designing”. We suggest combining sections for “key factors identification” and “step designing”. Thus, the designed steps, for the “Criteria & Indicators” setting and data analysis, could be presented directly with the identification of key factors (Criteria, indicators, and data). In the new version, the result of section 3 is therefore the development of a guide for building indicator systems. Section 4 shows then a big example for demonstrating the use of the developed guide. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
- Use of some similar terms
The study is confusing in its use of ‘operationalisation’, ‘application’ and ‘implementation’. This paper wants to discuss two topics: the application of indicators-based assessment for critical infrastructure resilience; and the implementable actions identified through the Behind the Barriers model. However, the initial paper did not well distinguish these terms. This problem has been resolved in the new version. Since the focus of the paper is on indicator systems built by a developed guide, one discussion refers to the contribution of developed guide and indicator systems to the application of CIs resilience assessment. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
- Example demonstration
Some example demonstrations are not necessary. Therefore, in the reviewed version, there is only a big example that includes all the steps shown in the developed guide.
Please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (final response 1). The comments of other reviewers are in green and all highlighted revisions are in red. There are a very large number of revisions, so feel free to contact us if you have questions.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-204', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Apr 2024
One major comment is that this paper could greatly benefit from a holistic illustrative example to apply the framework the author proposed. This example could serve as a powerful tool to demonstrate the practical application of the framework, potentially inspiring the authors to further develop their work. One possible solution is that the authors do not have to propose a small example for each section (such as lines 132-145) but use a big example to include all the steps shown in the framework, and then echo back which part is associated to which step. This could help avoid the body text looking tedious and repetitive, and instead make it clear and concise.
Another big issue is that the novelty of this paper is not clear. The word "operationalizing" may not be the most appropriate term. The authors may want to consider using "application" or "implementation". However, without a clear and compelling illustrative example, it becomes challenging to substantiate the novelty of this paper as the authors proposed. This underscores the importance of revising and improving the argumentation to ensure clarity.
Some sentences need to be rephrased. For example, line 24: "...involved 62676 data..."; lines 28: "Modern infrastructures are the technological..."; line 34: "resilience assessments have become key..."
Some figures are not clear. For example, in Figure 1, it would be better if the lines had an arrow pointing from right to left.
Some figures need more associated explanations. For example, in Figure 2, why does it need a guide design? Why can we not develop criteria from key factors directly? Again, the audience will be more convinced if the paper has an example. Figure 3: Why does it need the layer of aspects?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-204-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments that bring us interesting perspectives on the content of the manuscript. We have thought carefully about your comments and summarised them in five points. Furthermore, our proposed solutions will also be demonstrated.
- Paper’s structure
The structure of this paper is unclear due to the step of “step designing”. We suggest combining sections for “key factors identification” and “step designing”. Thus, the designed steps, for the “Criteria & Indicators” setting and data analysis, could be presented directly with the identification of key factors (Criteria, indicators, and data). In the new version, the result of section 3 is therefore the development of a guide for building indicator systems. Section 4 shows then a big example for demonstrating the use of the developed guide.
- Use of some similar terms
We agree with you about the confused use of “operationalisation”, “application” and “implementation”. This paper wants to discuss two topics: the application of indicators-based assessment for critical infrastructure resilience; and the implementable actions identified through the Behind the Barriers model. However, the initial paper did not well distinguish these terms. This problem has been resolved in the new version. Since the focus of the paper is on indicator systems built by a developed guide, one discussion refers to the contribution of developed guide and indicator systems to the application of CIs resilience assessment.
- Example demonstration
Some example demonstrations are not necessary. Therefore, in the reviewed version, there is only a big example that includes all the steps shown in the developed guide.
- Figures’ illustration and description
The problem of unclear information in figures has been resolved. In addition, the corresponding texts have been added.
- Unclear sentences.
We have improved the sentences noted that need to be rephrased.
Please find the detailed replies and revisions to points 1 to 4 in the attached document (revision 2). These revisions contain the rephrased sentences of point 5. All your comments are in green and all highlight revisions are in red.
Thanks again for your interest in our research and the valuable comments provided.
Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Zhuyu Yang, 10 Jun 2024
Dear Reviewer 2,
During this final response phase, we would like to highlight three main revisions made based on the comments of other reviewers.
- The focus of this manuscript.
According to reviewer 1, the focus and the title of this study should be redefined. Thus, the topic of the study has been corrected as follows: Critical Infrastructures Resilience: A Guide for Building Indicator Systems. The focus of this study is to develop a guide, which enables Critical Infrastructures stakeholders to build their specific indicator systems. This guide should provide practical steps on criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
- Study methodology and structure.
A new section, for addressing the problem of study methodology and structure, has been added after the introduction. Furthermore, to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity, we have revised the titles and subheadings of various sections. This revision of the paper’s structure has been presented in the first reply.
- Discussion.
We have optimised the discussion section regarding the use of the developed guide and its limitations, to better relate the discussion to the objectives of the study. Additionally, the demonstration of resilience assessment has been moved to the discussion section and appendixes, as it is not the primary focus of this study. The Emphasis of this study has been placed on designing practical steps for criteria setting, indicator setting, and data collection. The relevant detailed revision can be found in the attached document.
Please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (final response 2). The comments of other reviewers are in green and all highlighted revisions are in red. There are a very large number of revisions, so feel free to contact us if you have questions.
Thanks again for your interest in our research and the valuable comments provided. Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-204', Yuxuan Yao, 15 Apr 2024
This paper's multi-criteria framework provides a comprehensive perspective on the assessment of resilience and will be valuable in proposing particularly detailed operational steps for practical application and implementation, this is transferable for other systems.
A suggestion is to clarify how the author's work benefits from and differs from existing related studies in the Introduction Section.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-204-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
Dear Dr. Yuxuan Yao
Thank you very much for your interest in our study. In addition, we are very grateful for your suggestion to add the authors' work benefits in the introduction section.
The presented study aims to meet one current requirement for the indicators-based resilience assessment in practical management: a guide for indicator systems building. Despite the existence of a large number of resilience assessment indicators, very little research develops guidance to help managers create specific indicators themselves. However, indeed, we did not point out how this presented study differs from other available research. Therefore, we have added this part as you suggested, and please find the detailed revisions in the attached document (revision 3). All your comments are in green and all highlight revisions are in red.
Thanks again for your valuable comments provided.
Looking forward to receiving your reply.
Best regards,
Authors.
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Zhuyu Yang, 05 Jun 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 262 | 152 | 40 | 454 | 19 | 21 |
- HTML: 262
- PDF: 152
- XML: 40
- Total: 454
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 184 | 40 |
| France | 2 | 48 | 10 |
| China | 3 | 43 | 9 |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 22 | 4 |
| Germany | 5 | 14 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 184
Bruno Barroca
Ahmed Mebarki
Katia Laffréchine
Hélène Dolidon
Lionel Lilas
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2129 KB) - Metadata XML