## 3 The Design and Development of the RIACT Process
In summary, RIACT utilizes optimized asset management and comprehensive risk management principles to enhance UR, requiring a systematic approach, stakeholder involvement, and continual adaptation to changing risks (Table 3). Urban resilience (UR) has gained prominence as cities increasingly face threats from climate change and disasters [87]. To address these challenges, a structured approach to risk management is essential. ISO 31000 offers guidelines for such an approach, enabling decision makers to systematically identify, analyse, evaluate, and manage risks. The Urban Resilience Evaluation System (URES), a comprehensive framework, complements ISO 31000 by providing detailed guidance for assessing and enhancing UR [52]. URES consists of dimensions (such as environmental, social, and economic factors), indicators (specific metrics for measuring each dimension), and parameters (values or thresholds determining resilience levels for each indicator). The objective is to develop strategies that minimize the impact of hazards, thereby improving the overall resilience and stability of urban areas. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of urban resilience factors and equips decision makers with tools for informed decision making, ultimately leading to more resilient and sustainable cities. This system aids in making informed decisions about resource allocation for enhancing a city's resilience. URES and ISO 31000, together, facilitate a holistic risk management approach for UR. This includes selecting context-based indicators and applying a weighting system for decision making. Decisions regarding capital and operational expenditures are informed by these indicators, and their long-term and short-term impacts are evaluated. The evaluation categorizes decisions into four strategies, namely avoidance, endurance, recovery, or adaptation, ensuring a structured, systematic, and consistent ap \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Processes** & **Reactive Decision Making** & **Collective Decision Making** & **Optimized Decision Making** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Scope, context, and criteria} & \multirow{2}{*}{Immediate concerns or problems} & Long-term impacts or & Long-term performance, risks, \\  & & implications & and costs \\ \hline Identification & Addressing immediate problems & Proactively managing assets & Data-driven decisions \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Analysis} & \multirow{2}{*}{Firefighting mentality} & Leveraging different perspectives & Using data and analytics \\  & & and expertise & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Evaluation} & Not optimized for long-term & Slower and less agile than & Highly effective but requires \\  & performance, risks, or costs & other approaches & significant investments in data \\  & & and analytics infrastructure \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Treatment} & Addressing current issues &
\begin{tabular}{c} Cost reductions, risk mitigation, \\ and performance enhancement \\ \end{tabular} & Optimizing asset performance, \\  & & risks, and costs over the long term \\ \hline Monitoring and reviewing risks & Not considered & Assessed throughout & Data-driven decisions \\ \hline Communicating and consulting & Not considered & Collaboration and communication & Data-driven decisions \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Reviews and updates} & Not considered & Not considered & Data-driven decisions \\  & & & and infrastructure \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Reactive decision making, collective decision making, and optimized decision making in asset management (IAM—The Big Picture [86]) in conjunction with risk management.