基础设施中的逻辑相互依存关系:它们是什么,如何识别它们,它们对基础设施风险分析意味着什么?

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1111/risa.16555
David J Yu, Hoon C Shin, Tomás Olivier, Margaret Garcia, Sara Meerow, Jeryang Park
{"title":"基础设施中的逻辑相互依存关系:它们是什么,如何识别它们,它们对基础设施风险分析意味着什么?","authors":"David J Yu, Hoon C Shin, Tomás Olivier, Margaret Garcia, Sara Meerow, Jeryang Park","doi":"10.1111/risa.16555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A useful theoretical lens that has emerged for understanding urban resilience is the four basic types of interdependencies in critical infrastructures: the physical, geographic, cyber, and logical types. This paper is motivated by a conceptual and methodological limitation-although logical interdependencies (where two infrastructures affect the state of each other via human decisions) are regarded as one of the basic types of interdependencies, the question of how to apply the notion and how to quantify logical relations remains under-explored. To overcome this limitation, this study focuses on institutions (rules), for example, rules and planned tasks guiding human interactions with one another and infrastructure. Such rule-mediated interactions, when linguistically expressed, have a syntactic form that can be translated into a network form. We provide a foundation to delineate these two forms to detect logical interdependence. Specifically, we propose an approach to quantify logical interdependence based on the idea that (1) there are certain network motifs indicating logical relations, (2) such network motifs can be discerned from the network form of rules, and that (3) the higher the frequency of these motifs between two infrastructures, the greater the extent of logical interdependency. We develop a set of such motifs and illustrate their usage using an example. We conclude by suggesting a revision to the original definition of logical interdependence. This rule-focused approach is relevant to understanding human error in risk analysis of socio-technical systems, as human error can be seen as deviations from constraints that lead to accidents.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Logical interdependencies in infrastructure: What are they, how to identify them, and what do they mean for infrastructure risk analysis?\",\"authors\":\"David J Yu, Hoon C Shin, Tomás Olivier, Margaret Garcia, Sara Meerow, Jeryang Park\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/risa.16555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A useful theoretical lens that has emerged for understanding urban resilience is the four basic types of interdependencies in critical infrastructures: the physical, geographic, cyber, and logical types. This paper is motivated by a conceptual and methodological limitation-although logical interdependencies (where two infrastructures affect the state of each other via human decisions) are regarded as one of the basic types of interdependencies, the question of how to apply the notion and how to quantify logical relations remains under-explored. To overcome this limitation, this study focuses on institutions (rules), for example, rules and planned tasks guiding human interactions with one another and infrastructure. Such rule-mediated interactions, when linguistically expressed, have a syntactic form that can be translated into a network form. We provide a foundation to delineate these two forms to detect logical interdependence. Specifically, we propose an approach to quantify logical interdependence based on the idea that (1) there are certain network motifs indicating logical relations, (2) such network motifs can be discerned from the network form of rules, and that (3) the higher the frequency of these motifs between two infrastructures, the greater the extent of logical interdependency. We develop a set of such motifs and illustrate their usage using an example. We conclude by suggesting a revision to the original definition of logical interdependence. This rule-focused approach is relevant to understanding human error in risk analysis of socio-technical systems, as human error can be seen as deviations from constraints that lead to accidents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.16555\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.16555","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为理解城市复原力而出现的一个有用的理论视角是关键基础设施中的四种基本相互依存类型:物理、地理、网络和逻辑类型。虽然逻辑相互依存关系(两个基础设施通过人类决策影响彼此的状态)被视为基本的相互依存关系类型之一,但如何应用这一概念以及如何量化逻辑关系的问题仍未得到充分探讨。为了克服这一局限性,本研究将重点放在制度(规则)上,例如,指导人与人之间以及与基础设施之间互动的规则和计划任务。这种以规则为中介的互动,在语言表达上具有可转化为网络形式的句法形式。我们提供了划分这两种形式的基础,以检测逻辑上的相互依存性。具体来说,我们提出了一种量化逻辑相互依赖的方法,这种方法基于以下观点:(1) 存在某些表示逻辑关系的网络图案;(2) 这种网络图案可以从规则的网络形式中辨别出来;(3) 这些图案在两个基础设施之间出现的频率越高,逻辑相互依赖的程度就越大。我们开发了一套此类图案,并通过一个例子说明了它们的用法。最后,我们建议修改逻辑相互依赖的原始定义。这种以规则为重点的方法与理解社会技术系统风险分析中的人为错误息息相关,因为人为错误可被视为导致事故的约束条件偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Logical interdependencies in infrastructure: What are they, how to identify them, and what do they mean for infrastructure risk analysis?

A useful theoretical lens that has emerged for understanding urban resilience is the four basic types of interdependencies in critical infrastructures: the physical, geographic, cyber, and logical types. This paper is motivated by a conceptual and methodological limitation-although logical interdependencies (where two infrastructures affect the state of each other via human decisions) are regarded as one of the basic types of interdependencies, the question of how to apply the notion and how to quantify logical relations remains under-explored. To overcome this limitation, this study focuses on institutions (rules), for example, rules and planned tasks guiding human interactions with one another and infrastructure. Such rule-mediated interactions, when linguistically expressed, have a syntactic form that can be translated into a network form. We provide a foundation to delineate these two forms to detect logical interdependence. Specifically, we propose an approach to quantify logical interdependence based on the idea that (1) there are certain network motifs indicating logical relations, (2) such network motifs can be discerned from the network form of rules, and that (3) the higher the frequency of these motifs between two infrastructures, the greater the extent of logical interdependency. We develop a set of such motifs and illustrate their usage using an example. We conclude by suggesting a revision to the original definition of logical interdependence. This rule-focused approach is relevant to understanding human error in risk analysis of socio-technical systems, as human error can be seen as deviations from constraints that lead to accidents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信