Business processes resilience practices described in TAMPs
| Subcategory | Activities | States referencing activity | No. of TAMPs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials and design | Design standards | AK, AR, CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, MN, MS, NH, NJ, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, TN, UT, WA, WI, WY | 27 (60%) |
| Material standards | CA, CT, DC, GA, ID, MA, MN, NE, NJ, RI, TN, UT, WY | 13 (29%) | |
| Use of projected extreme weather data in materials or design selection | AK, FL, HI, TX, WA | 5 (11%) | |
| Nature-based solutions | AZ, CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, NM | 7 (16%) | |
| Construction standards | AK, ID, SD, TN | 4 (9%) | |
| Treatment selection | Consideration of historical risk | AK, AR, CA, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, MI, MT, NH, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, TN, TX, WA, WI | 21 (47%) |
| Increased maintenance | AZ, CO, LA, MA, MN, MT, NH, NJ, ND, TN, UT | 11 (24%) | |
| Deterioration modelling | AK, GA, IN, NV, NJ, UT | 6 (13%) | |
| Decision trees | AK, FL | 2 (4%) | |
| Consideration of future risk | HI | 1 (2%) | |
| Plans | Considers resilience in other long-term plans | AK, CA, CO, DE, DC, LA, MI, MO, NV, NM, OH, OR, PA, PR, RI, TX, VT, WA, WY | 19 (42%) |
| Has resilience action plan or similar | AZ, CA, DE, CO, FL, HI, NC, OR | 8 (18%) | |
| Performance management | Increased asset monitoring | AK, AR, CO, HI, MA, MN, MS, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OK, SD, WA | 14 (31%) |
| Real-time monitoring | GA, ID, IL, NC, OK, PR, TN | 7 (16%) | |
| Resilience metrics | AK, CA, MN, SD | 4 (9%) |
| Subcategory | Activities | States referencing activity | No. of TAMPs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials and design | Design standards | AK, AR, CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, MN, MS, NH, NJ, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, TN, UT, WA, WI, WY | 27 (60%) |
| Material standards | CA, CT, DC, GA, ID, MA, MN, NE, NJ, RI, TN, UT, WY | 13 (29%) | |
| Use of projected extreme weather data in materials or design selection | AK, FL, HI, TX, WA | 5 (11%) | |
| Nature-based solutions | AZ, CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, NM | 7 (16%) | |
| Construction standards | AK, ID, SD, TN | 4 (9%) | |
| Treatment selection | Consideration of historical risk | AK, AR, CA, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, MI, MT, NH, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, TN, TX, WA, WI | 21 (47%) |
| Increased maintenance | AZ, CO, LA, MA, MN, MT, NH, NJ, ND, TN, UT | 11 (24%) | |
| Deterioration modelling | AK, GA, IN, NV, NJ, UT | 6 (13%) | |
| Decision trees | AK, FL | 2 (4%) | |
| Consideration of future risk | HI | 1 (2%) | |
| Plans | Considers resilience in other long-term plans | AK, CA, CO, DE, DC, LA, MI, MO, NV, NM, OH, OR, PA, PR, RI, TX, VT, WA, WY | 19 (42%) |
| Has resilience action plan or similar | AZ, CA, DE, CO, FL, HI, NC, OR | 8 (18%) | |
| Performance management | Increased asset monitoring | AK, AR, CO, HI, MA, MN, MS, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OK, SD, WA | 14 (31%) |
| Real-time monitoring | GA, ID, IL, NC, OK, PR, TN | 7 (16%) | |
| Resilience metrics | AK, CA, MN, SD | 4 (9%) |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.