Criticality analysis of Critical Infrastructures (CI) – developing generic criteria for identifying and evaluating the relevance of CI for society (original) (raw)
Related papers
Common criteria for the assessment of critical infrastructures
"Society is reliant on infrastructure services, such as information and communication technology, energy, water, and food supply, but also on governmental, cultural, and search and rescue organizations. The goal of project Kritis- KAT at the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance in Germany is the development of generic criteria for the identification and evaluation of infrastructures regarded as “critical” for society. Acknowledging that full protection against all threats and cascading effects is not possible, the approach focuses on the impacts rather than the prevention of threats. The development of generic criteria requires the prioritization of infrastructures and identification of their key characteristics for civil protection purposes, risk management activities, and strategic proactive planning. For this purpose, the development of a national critical infrastructure priority inventory is based on a thorough examination of the range of criteria typically used in similar approaches. The specific focus of this paper is to identify and simplify essential characteristics of infrastructure criticality. The main outcome of this study is the development of common criteria generally applicable to a variety of infrastructures."
Social resilience criteria for critical infrastructures during crises
2016
Communication infrastructure/networks 4.4 Expectations of disaster related information 4.4.1 Quick or real time information 4.4.2 The kinds of information 4.4.3 Traditional and social media 4.4.4 The public as information providers 4.4.5 Focus on expectations of information provided by critical infrastructure operators 48 4.5 Expectations of aid from critical infrastructure operators during and after a disaster 50 4.6 Expectations of political leaders 4.7 Critical Infrastructure Operators' view of public expectations 5 Minimum level of acceptable service 5.1 Food and essential goods 5.2 Water 5.3 Transportation 5.4 Case study: Public reaction to the new identification requirements imposed by Sweden on the Oresund Crossing 6 Social resilience criteria for critical infrastructure operators when responding to crisis situations 6.1 Criteria: Know the public stakeholders and their expectations 6.2 Criteria: Meet expectations 6.3 Criteria: Share disaster-related information 7 Conclusions 8 Appendices Symbol or word Definition Critical infrastructure The European Union defines critical infrastructure as those services e.g. energy, water, transportation that are essential for the health, safety, security, economic or social well-being of people, and its disruption or destruction would likely have a significant impact upon the ability of a Member State to maintain those functions 3 CI Critical infrastructure CCISS Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Southern Sweden D Deliverable EMSC Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre Expectation gap When expectations of an actor are higher than the capacity of that actor N Number NGO Non-governmental organisation Social media The collection of software that enables individuals and communities to gather, communicate, share and in some cases collaborate or play 4 Traditional media Media introduced before the advent of the internet that are for the purposes of mass communication e.g. billboards, magazines, newspapers, radio and television broadcasting 5 Resilience See IMPROVER project's D1.2 First draft of a lexicon of definitions related to Critical Infrastructure Resilience 6 3 Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection. Official Journal of the European Union,
VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BY NATURAL DISASTERS
Natural disasters increasingly threaten the safety of the mankind. Not only that, in past decades there has been an obvious increase in the number of natural disasters, but it is also present an increase in their destructiveness. This results in a higher loss of life, material and non-material damage. In addition, compromising critical infrastructure prevents or limits the implementation of vital state functions (governance, health, education, energy, economic, social, and general security functions), which is further reflected in the safety of states and citizens. Despite the technological development of mankind, societies are increasingly threatened. It is clear that the disasters and their impact on people and critical infrastructure cannot be prevented, but mechanisms for prediction and early warning of disasters can be improved that the resilience and capacity for faster and more efficient revitalization of endangered values and goods can be increased. Besides the degree of destruction, the response strategy in an emergency situation will depend on the type of disaster, but also on the kind of critical infrastructure and specific goods and values that are threatened. In this regard, the paper gives an overview of the scope and the content of (still undetermined) concept of critical infrastructure, the term and the phenomenology of natural disasters, the consequences of geophysical, hydrological and meteorological disasters on critical infrastructure and critical infrastructure protection capabilities against natural disasters.
Risk management goals and identification of critical infrastructures
Strategic goals help streamlining risk management efforts, and criticality assessments of infrastructures benefit from such goals. This paper offers an introduction into recent German civil protection activities on this topic at national level. It offers a transferable concept on how to identify, document and justify priorities regarding critical infrastructure services. Based on human values it enables to prioritise critical and urgent areas for risk management, in this case in the field of infrastructures. Critical values and key services are identified and then prioritised using time as a criterion. Finally, infrastructure elements are identified and prioritised with a given research unit.
ISCRAM 2019 Proceedings, 2019
Critical Infrastructure (CI) failures are aggravated by cascading effects due to interdependencies between different infrastructure systems and with emergency management. Findings of the German, BMBF-funded research project “CIRMin” highlight needs for concrete assessments of such interdependencies. Driven by challenges of limited data and knowledge accessibility, the developed approach integrates qualitative information from expert interviews and discussions with quantitative, place-based analyses in three selected German cities and an adjacent county. This paper particularly discusses how the mixed methods approach has been operationalized. Based on anonymized findings, it provides a comprehensive guidance to interdependency analysis, from survey and categorization of system elements and interrelations, their possible mutual impacts, to zooming into selected dependencies through GIS mapping. This facilitates reliably assessing the need for maintenance of critical functionalities in crisis situations, available resources, auxiliary powers, and optimization of response time.
Journal of Risk Research, 2004
Critical infrastructures are complex societal systems. For that reason, risk criteria for critical infrastructures are also 'part' of the risk criteria for complex societal systems. The questions to be resolved are: (1) are the societal risk criteria of complex systems defined and quantifiable; and (2) is it known how the risk criteria of critical infrastructures relate to the risk criteria of the complex system as a whole. In other words, what certainty is there that the risk criteria of critical infrastructures meet the risk criteria of complex systems as a whole. A complex system in this respect may be a society as a whole, e.g. a nation.
Critical Infrastructures, Protection and Resilience
Managing the Complexity of Critical Infrastructures, 2016
This chapter introduces the concept of Critical Infrastructure (CI). Although old civilisations had CI, the protection and resilience of CI has come to the fore again in the last two decades. The risk to society due to inadvertent and deliberate CI disruptions has largely increased due to interrelation, complexity, and dependencies of these infrastructures. The increased use of information and telecommunication technologies (ICT) to support, monitor, and control CI functionalities has contributed to this. The interest in CI and complex systems is strongly related to initiatives by several governments that from the end of the 90s of the previous century recognised the relevance of the undisturbed functioning of CI for the wellbeing of their population, economy, and so on. Their policies highlighted early the increasing complexity of CI and the challenges of providing such CI services without disruption, especially when accidental or malicious events occur. In recent years, most national policies have evolved following a direction from protection towards resilience. The need for this shift in perspective and these concepts are also analysed in this chapter.
Critical Infrastructure Protection requires the prioritization of critical assets and the evaluation of the criticality of infrastructures. However, criticality analysis is not yet standardized. In this paper we examine the relation between security risk and criticality. We analyze the similarities and differences in terms of scope, aims, impacts, threats and vulnerabilities and we suggest how existing risk analysis can be applied when examining Critical Infrastructures. Based on the identified relation between risk and criticality, we propose a generic risk-based Criticality Analysis methodology. We place key emphasis on the definition of examined impact types, which are social-centric and/or sector-centric, in contrast to traditional risk analysis methodologies that mainly examine organization-centric impacts. We propose a detailed list of impact criteria in order to assess the criticality level of an infrastructure.