Cited by 12Information and Cyber SecurityInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisWater Systems and Optimization

Securing wastewater facilities from accidental and intentional harm: a cost-benefit analysis

Papa, Stephen, Casper, William, Moore, Tyler·2013·International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijcip.2013.05.002

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Papa, S., Casper, W., & Moore, T.
Affiliations
Southern Methodist University (US)
Corresponding author
Moore, Tyler
Venue
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
96-106
ISSN
1874-5482 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110298166
Cited by
12
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Water Systems and Optimization
Keywords
wastewater infrastructure, sewer overflows, industrial control systems, critical infrastructure security, security countermeasures, cost-benefit analysis, cyberattacks, regulatory fines, remediation costs, property damage

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