Cited by 128Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisDisaster Management and ResilienceSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management

Reviewing qualitative research approaches in the context of critical infrastructure resilience

Open access
Cantelmi, R., Di Gravio, G., Patriarca, R.·2021·Environment Systems and Decisions

Abstract

Modern societies are increasingly dependent on the proper functioning of critical infrastructures (CIs). CIs produce and distribute essential goods or services, as for power transmission systems, water treatment and distribution infrastructures, transportation systems, communication networks, nuclear power plants, and information technologies. Being resilient becomes a key property for CIs, which are constantly exposed to threats that can undermine safety, security, and business continuity. Nowadays, a variety of approaches exist in the context of CIs’ resilience research. This paper provides a state-of-the-art review on the approaches that have a complete qualitative dimension, or that can be used as entry points for semi-quantitative analyses. The study aims to uncover the usage of qualitative research methods through a systematic review based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The paper identifies four principal dimensions of resilience referred to CIs (i.e., techno-centric, organisational, community, and urban) and discusses the related qualitative methods. Besides many studies being focused on energy and transportation systems, the literature review allows to observe that interviews and questionnaires are most frequently used to gather qualitative data, besides a high percentage of mixed-method research. The article aims to provide a synthesis of literature on qualitative methods used for resilience research in the domain of CIs, detailing lessons learned from such approaches to shed lights on best practices and identify possible future research directions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10669-020-09795-8

Cites

113 of 114 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Capacity pressures can become visible in overcrowded services, informal settlement growth, and rising social contestation over jobs, housing, and water.

    “These pressures can become visible in overcrowded services, informal settlement growth, and rising social contestation over access to jobs, housing, and water (Cantelmi et al., 2021).”

    From Climate Security, Water Governance, and Resilience How Climate-Induced Water Stress and Migration Challenge State Capacity (2026) · cites this paper as Cantelmi et al., 2021

    The Descriptive findings > Community resilience section (page unavailable) discusses disrupted water and utility services and limited livelihood opportunities after a typhoon. Searches for overcrowded services, informal settlements, and competition over jobs, housing, or water found no passage linking those conditions to capacity pressures. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Elsevier (2018) Scopus, an eye on global research
  2. Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement PLOS Med 2009 6 1 6 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMC3090117 21603045 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL, Collins KMT (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods
  4. Patton MQ Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd editio 2002 Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications
  5. Woltjer R Hermelin J Nilsson S Using requirements engineering in the development of resilience guidelines for critical infrastructure 13th System of Systems Engineering Conference, SoSE 2018 2018 Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI), Linköping and Stockholm, Sweden Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. 615 622

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cantelmi, R., Di Gravio, G., & Patriarca, R.
Affiliations
  • Ministry of Defence (IT)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
Corresponding author
Patriarca, R.
Venue
Environment Systems and Decisions
Published
2021-01-24
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
341-376
ISSN
  • 0251-1088 (ISSN-L)
  • 2194-5403
  • 2194-5411
OpenAlex
W3121385764
Cited by
128
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environment Systems & Decisions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Keywords
critical infrastructure resilience, qualitative research, mixed methods, questionnaire, energy systems, transport systems, organizational resilience, community resilience, urban resilience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review