The full article is available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320408185_Quantitative_Framework_to_Assess_Resilience_and_Risk_at_the_Country_Level or here: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000940 Abstract: This research presents an analytical approach to assess the resilience of communities and states based on the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). The United Nations (UN) through their advancements in the Disaster Risk Reduction have released multiple international blueprints to help build the resilience of nations and communities, among which we mention the Hyogo Framework for Action and the Sendai Framework. The latter is still under development as the risk bases and the resilience indicators are yet to be defined. For this reason, the work presented here is built upon the more complete HFA framework. A number of weighted indicators taken from HFA are used to compute resilience. Those indicators, however, do not affect the resilience index equally. This discrepancy necessitates the need to weigh the indicators on the basis of their individual contribution towards resilience. In order to achieve this, we have used the Dependence Tree Analysis (DTA). This method allows identifying the dependencies between the HFA indicators and the resilience index and evaluate in unbiased way the weight factors of the different indicators. The research is also proposing an analytic formulation to assess a new index, Bounce Back index (BBI), which combines both community’s Exposure, Hazard, and Resilience together. To illustrate the methodology in full details, a case study composed of 37 countries is presented in this research, where the Resilience and the Bounce Back indexes of each country are evaluated.

1. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
A QUANTITATIVE FRAMEWORK TO
ASSESS COMMUNITIES’
RESILIENCE AT THE STATE LEVEL
O. Kammouh, A. Noori Zamani,
G.P. Cimellaro
Department of Structural, Building and Geotechnical
Engineering
Politecnico di Torino
August 30, 2016

2. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
 Resilience is a broad and multidisciplinary subject and
measuring it is one of the most demanding tasks due to the
complexity involved in the process. Research on measuring
community resilience is still in the early stages of development
and no accepted method exists so far
 Obtaining a reliable method to compare resilience among
different countries and communities
Motivation

3. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Outline
 Introduction
 Resilience
▪ How to compute Resilience
 Intrinsic resilience
▪ Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)
▪ The Dependence Tree Analysis (DTA)
 Case study and Results
▪ Intrinsic resilience indexes (IR)
▪ Resilience indexes (R)
Conclusion

4. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Risk=(Vulnerability)x(Hazard)x(Exposure)
Resilience=(intrinsic Resilience)x(Hazard)x(Exposure)
Introduction
What is resilience
 The term ‘Resilience’ is defined by Bruneau et al. as “the ability of social units
(e.g. organizations, communities) to mitigate hazards, contain the effects of
disasters when they occur, and carry out recovery activities in ways to
minimize social disruption and mitigate the effectors of further earthquakes”

5. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
1 (1 )
R IR E H
    
Exposure
(E)
Hazard
(H)
Intrinsic
resilience
(IR)
Resilience
(R)
Past data on
disasters
World Risk Report
(WRR)
Hyogo Framework
(HFA)
INPUT METHOD OUTPUT
Exposure (E) = ? Hazard (H) = ?
Intrinsic resilience (IR) = ?
Resilience
How to compute resilience (1/3)

6. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
 Done by The relief organizations in the
Alliance Development Works
 Classifies the countries according to
their exposure level
Exposure: World Risk Report Hazard: Past data on disasters
Information of hazards can be
obtained from different sources.
Data on hazards include but limited
to:
▪ Type of hazard
▪ Intensity
▪ Reoccurrence time
Resilience
How to compute resilience (2/3)

7. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Intrinsic Resilience: Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)
What:
 HFA was done By the United Nations
 According to Hyogo framework, there are 22 Indicators for
resilience
 The 22 Indicators are classified under 5 Categories, or priorities for
action How:
 The United nations send a report that to be filled by each of the
participating countries’ governments
 Each country fills the report by answering a set of questions for each
indicators
 Reports are returned back to the UN who in turn put a score out of 5
points for each indicator
 The scores all 22 indicators are summed up to a single score (out of
110), and this score is referred to as the ‘intrinsic resilience’
Resilience
How to compute resilience (3/3)
THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH HFA !

8. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Solution:
The Dependence Tree Analysis (DTA)
 The idea behind DTA is retrieved from the fault tree methodology for
assessing risks.
 DTA identifies the relationships between an event and its sub-events,
giving weights accordingly.
 It can be applied to HFA’s indicators so they are weighted based on
their contribution towards the intrinsic resilience
 The new intrinsic resilience outputs are more representative
Intrinsic resilience
Hyogo Framework For Action (HFA)
Problem of HFA:
 The resilience indicators of HFA are equally weighted. However, it
was found that those indicators do not contribute equally to the
resilience output; therefore, we should weigh those indicators so they
better represent resilience.

9. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Intrinsic resilience
Dependence Tree Analysis (DTA) 1/2
Building the Dependence Tree
,1 ,2 ,
( )
0 1
i i i j
i i
A A A
A E
j
  
   
• The intrinsic existence can be either zero or one, 𝐸𝑖 = 0 𝑜𝑟 1
• All subsequent components contribute equally to the underlying component
• Basic components are characterized only by their intrinsic existence, 𝐴𝑖 = 𝐸𝑖
A: Accomplishment factor
E: Intrinsic existence
Analytical formula
All indicators are arranged based on their logical relationships with other indicators.

10. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Intrinsic resilience
Dependence Tree Analysis (DTA) 2/2
Sensitivity analysis
1 2
1
1 1
(1 ,1 , ,1 )
(1 )
i i
i j
j
i
I I
W j
avg I I I
I
 
 
  


Weighting factors
 A sensitivity analysis is performed to determine the
percentile contribution of each event towards the top
event.
 Each intermediate and basic event is set to zero once
at a time while keeping all other events equal to one.
 For each time an event is set to zero, the
accomplishment of the top event is computed using
the previously introduced formula
Indicator = 0 Accompilshment
I(1-1) 0.45
I(1-2) 0.725
I(1-3) 0.95
I(1-4) 0.875
I(2-1) 0.9
I(2-2) 0.925
I(2-3) 0.95
I(2-4) 0.975
I(3-1) 0.283
I(3-2) 0.983
I(3-3) 0.95
I(3-4) 0.98
I(4-1) 0.9
I(4-2) 0.9
I(4-3) 0.9
I(4-4) 0.9
I(4-5) 0.9
I(4-6) 0.9
I(5-1) 0.9
I(5-2) 0.9
I(5-3) 0.9
I(5-4) 0.9
 Each indicator is weighted using the following
formula
where Wi is the weighting factor of event i, Ii is the impact value or the
accomplishment value of the top event when the intrinsic existence of
event i is set to zero, j is the number of events.

11. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Case study
 For the case study, we have chosen 37 countries of those of
participated in Hyogo Framework assessment project
 Countries were chosen randomly from all five continents
 The Intrinsic resilience index (IR) for each country is computed
by modifying the score given by HFA using the DTA method
 The Resilience index (R) of each country is computed by combing
the intrinsic resilience with the exposure and hazard. In this case
study, the hazard term was set to 1 as no data was available to us
1 (1 )
R IR E H
    

12. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Difference in the intrinsic resilience before and after modification
Results
Intrinsic resilience indexes
(a)
Fiji
Costa
Rica
Singapore
UAE
Japan
Austria
United
Kingdom
Greece
Australia
Italy
Cameroon
New
zealand
Germany
Nigeria
Canada
France
Ethiopia
Ecuador
USA
Chile
Ghana
Argentina
South
Africa
Cook
Island
Pakistan
Egypt
Brazil
Iran
Qatar
Thailand
Samua
Madagascar
Mexico
Morocco
Palestine
Monaco
Armenia
Intrinsic
Resilience
(Ri)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
W/O WEIGHTING FACTORS
W WEIGHTING FACTORS
(b)
Fiji
Costa
Rica
Singapore
UAE
Japan
Austria
United
Kingdom
Greece
Australia
Italy
Cameroon
New
zealand
Germany
Nigeria
Canada
France
Ethiopia
Ecuador
USA
Chile
Ghana
Argentina
South
Africa
Cook
Island
Pakistan
Egypt
Brazil
Iran
Qatar
Thailand
Samua
Madagascar
Mexico
Morocco
Palestine
Monaco
Armenia
%
difference
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10

13. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
1 (1 )
BBI R E H
    
Results
Resilience indexes
Countries
Fiji
Singapore
UAE
Egypt
France
Germany
United
Kingdom
Canada
Austria
Nigeria
Brazil
Ethiopia
Palestine
Australia
USA
Ghana
Italy
New
zealand
Argentina
Iran
Ecuador
Cameroon
South
Africa
Greece
Monaco
Japan
Costa
Rica
Mexico
Thailand
Madagascar
Morocco
Pakistan
Chile
Armenia
Qatar
Resilience
index
(R)
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00

14. POLITECNICO DI TORINO - DISEG G. P. CIMELLARO
Conclusion
 This paper presented a new analytical approach for calculating the resilience of
nations and communities.
 The analytical formulation of resilience resembles the older risk evaluation method in
many ways. In the older risk evaluation method, risk is a function of vulnerability,
exposure, and hazard, while in the evaluation of resilience, vulnerability is substituted
with the intrinsic resilience of the country.
 A new methodology to compute the intrinsic resilience was introduced. The method is
based on the data of Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). As we mentioned earlier,
one of the main issues of the HFA is that the indicators used in the intrinsic resilience
assessment are weighted equally. It has been figured out that those indicators do not
really make equal contribution towards the intrinsic resilience output. To solve this
problem, we introduced the Dependence Tree Analysis (DTA). This method identifies
the correlation between the indicators and the resilience in a quantitative manner,
assigning new weights the indicators accordingly.
 The applicability of the presented methodology was tested on 37 countries by
calculating their respective intrinsic resilience and resilience indexes.
 Future research will be oriented towards substituting the “Hyogo Framework for
Action” with its successor “Sendai Framework” in the evaluation of resilience. This will
lead to a better representation of the resilience of the countries given that the new
UN framework is an enhanced version of the previous one.