Resilience is an important concept to determine how well a Dutch Emergency Response Safety Region behaves under stress. The main objective of this study is to determine the intrinsic value of “resilience” for Dutch Emergency Response Safety Regions. In this study it is concluded that the concept of “resilience” can be best described by the generic approach “operational resilience”. A large scale survey among safety stakeholders in The Netherlands was conducted where the following items describing operational resilience were explored: situation awareness (awa); management of keystone vulnerabilities (kv); adaptive capacity (ac) and quality (q). Results show resilience of an emergency response organization can be described by a unique dynamic operational resilience f(Rero)UV factor. A simplified approach of unique dynamic operational resilience is suggested by using a quick scan method to speed up the process of assessment.
Van TrijpJMPUlieruMvan GelderPHAJM. Quantitative approach of organizational resilience for a Dutch emergency response safety region. In: BérenguerGrailGuedesSoares (eds) Advances in safety, reliability and risk management. Proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference, ESREL 2011, Troyes, France, 18–22 September2011, pp.173–180. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2012.
SeppälaJBassonLNorrisGA. Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol2002; 5(4): 45–68.
4.
AielloGEneaMGalanteG. A multi-objective approach to facility layout problem by genetic search algorithm and Electre method. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Mfg2006; 22: 447–455.
5.
RoyB. The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory and Decision1991; 31(11): 49–73.
6.
FigueiraJMousseauVRoyB. ELECTRE methods. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 2005; 78(III): pp.133–153.
7.
RogersMBruenM. A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III. Eur J Opl Res1998; 107: 552–563.
8.
CanbolatYBChelstKGargN. Combining decision tree and MAUT for selecting a country for a global manufacturing facility. Omega2007; 35: 312–325.
9.
EdwardsWFasoloB. Decision technology. Annu Rev Psychol2001; 52: 581–606.
10.
Te BrakeHvan de PostMde RuijterA. Resilience from concept to practice – the balance between awareness and fear; citizens and resilience, impact. Amsterdam: Dutch knowledge and advice centre for post-disaster psychosocial care, 2008.
11.
WildavskyA. Playing it safe is dangerous. Regulatory Toxicol Pharmacol1988; 8(3): 283–287.
12.
RutterM. Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. Br J Psychiatry1985; 147: 598–611.
13.
BrounsFBerlangaAJVan RosmalenP. ID8.16 – Policies to stimulate self-organisation and the feeling of autonomy in a network. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands, TENCompetence. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1820/1944 (2009, accessed 10 August 2009).
14.
StolkerRJM. A generic approach to assess operational resilience. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TUE), Capaciteitsgroep Quality and Reliability Engineering (QRE). Available from http://library.tue.nl/catalog/LinkToVubis.csp?DataBib=6:639658 (2008, accessed 10 August 2009).
SevilleE. The goal of resilient organizations. Keynote presentation. In: Business continuity institute summit, Brisbane. http://www.resorgs.org.nz. (2009, accessed 25 September 2012)
17.
VargoJSevilleE. Crisis strategic planning: finding the silver lining. In: World conference on disaster management, Toronto ON. http://www.resorgs.org.nz. (2008, accessed 25 September 2012).
18.
AmaratungaCACarterMO’SullivanTL. Lessons learned from Canada: the imperative to build a culture of preparedness for health care providers as first responders. In: i-Rec 2008, Christchurch, 2008.
19.
BosherLDaintyACarrilloP. A proactive multi-stakeholder approach to attaining resilience in the UK. In: i-Rec 2008, Christchurch, 2008.
20.
UN/ISDR. 2004. International strategy for disaster reduction, living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction, 2004 version. Geneva: UN Publications.
WeilRApostolakisG. A methodology for the prioritization of operating experience in nuclear power plants. Rel Engng Sys Saf2001; 74: 23–42.
23.
Van TrijpJ. An attempt to quantify resilience of emergency response organizations – results from a large scale survey among safety stakeholders in the Netherlands. MSc thesis, Delft TopTech/Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, 2010. Utrecht, Netherlands: Libertas in Vivo vof.
24.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on the development, evaluation, and application of environmental models. Washington DC: Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling US Environmental Protection Agency. Available from http://www.epa.gov/CREM/library/cred_guidance_0309.pdf (2009, accessed 2 April 2010).
AleBJM. Risk: an introduction – the concepts of risk, danger and chance. 1st ed.New York, NY: Routledge, 2009, pp.28.
28.
HollnagelE. Barriers and accident prevention. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004. Available from http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754643012 (accessed 29 March 2010).
UlieruM. A complex systems approach to the design and evaluation of holistic security ecosystems. In: International conference on complex systems, Boston, MA. Available from http://www.theimpactinstitute.org/Publications/Boston-submitted.pdf (2007, accessed September, 2012).
31.
UlieruM. Towards holistic security ecosystems, Opening Keynote Address and Invited Tutorial Lecture. In: 3rd IEEE international conference on digital ecosystems and technologies (IEEE-DEST 2009), Istanbul. Available from http://www.theimpactinstitute.org/Publications/Keynote-Reformatted.pdf (2009, accessed 25 September 2012).
