IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/inrsre/v31y2008i1p88-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Approaches for Assessing Network Vulnerability

Author

Listed:
  • Tony H. Grubesic

    (Department of Geography, Indiana University, Bloomington, tgrubesi@indiana.edu)

  • Timothy C. Matisziw

    (Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, Ohio State University, Columbus, matisziw.1@osu.edu)

  • Alan T. Murray

    (Center for Urban and Regional Analysis and Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, murray.308@osu.edu)

  • Diane Snediker

    (Center for Urban and Regional Analysis and Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, snediker.3@osu.edu)

Abstract

A common theme in analysis and evaluation of network-based critical infrastructure is the assessment of system vulnerability. Graph theoretic, simulation, and optimization-based techniques have played a significant role in examining potential network vulnerabilities given the insights they can provide for mitigating facility loss and prioritizing fortification efforts. Central to these approaches is the concept of facility (arc—node) importance or criticality to system survivability. Assessments of network vulnerability can dramatically differ based on how facility importance is characterized. In this review, various approaches for assessing facility importance and network vulnerability are examined. The key differences in these approaches are the ways in which a facility's role in maintaining network operability is evaluated given arc—node disruption. Comparative results suggest significant differences exist among measures of facility importance and network performance. Furthermore, the subsequent incongruities in these measures and their implications need to be clearly understood to support interdiction risk and vulnerability assessment for critical infrastructures.

Suggested Citation

  • Tony H. Grubesic & Timothy C. Matisziw & Alan T. Murray & Diane Snediker, 2008. "Comparative Approaches for Assessing Network Vulnerability," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 31(1), pages 88-112, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:inrsre:v:31:y:2008:i:1:p:88-112
    DOI: 10.1177/0160017607308679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160017607308679
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0160017607308679?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tschangho John Kim & Heejoo Ham & David E. Boyce, 2002. "Economic impacts of transportation network changes: Implementation of a combined transportation network and input-output model," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 81(2), pages 223-246, April.
    2. Crucitti, Paolo & Latora, Vito & Marchiori, Massimo & Rapisarda, Andrea, 2004. "Error and attack tolerance of complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 340(1), pages 388-394.
    3. Tony H. Grubesic & Alan T. Murray & Jessica N. Mefford, 2007. "Continuity in Critical Network Infrastructures: Accounting for Nodal Disruptions," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Alan T. Murray & Tony H. Grubesic (ed.), Critical Infrastructure, chapter 10, pages 197-220, Springer.
    4. Tschangho John Kim & Heejoo Ham & David E. Boyce, 2002. "Economic impacts of transportation network changes: Implementation of a combined transportation network and input-output model," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 223-246, April.
    5. H. Donald Ratliff & G. Thomas Sicilia & S. H. Lubore, 1975. "Finding the n Most Vital Links in Flow Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 531-539, January.
    6. Heejoo Ham & Tschangho John Kim & David E. Boyce, 2002. "Economic impacts of transportation network changes: Implementation of a combined transportation network and input-output model," Papers in Regional Science, Springer;Regional Science Association International, vol. 81(2), pages 223-246.
    7. Réka Albert & Hawoong Jeong & Albert-László Barabási, 2000. "Error and attack tolerance of complex networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 406(6794), pages 378-382, July.
    8. Ham, Heejoo & Kim, Tschangho John & Boyce, David, 2005. "Assessment of economic impacts from unexpected events with an interregional commodity flow and multimodal transportation network model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 849-860, December.
    9. Barabási, Albert-László & Ravasz, Erzsébet & Vicsek, Tamás, 2001. "Deterministic scale-free networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 559-564.
    10. Alan W. McMasters & Thomas M. Mustin, 1970. "Optimal interdiction of a supply network," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 261-268, September.
    11. Crucitti, Paolo & Latora, Vito & Marchiori, Massimo, 2004. "A topological analysis of the Italian electric power grid," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 338(1), pages 92-97.
    12. H. W. Corley, Jr. & Han Chang, 1974. "Finding the n Most Vital Nodes in a Flow Network," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 362-364, November.
    13. Richard Church & M. Paola Scaparra, 2007. "Analysis of Facility Systems’ Reliability When Subject to Attack or a Natural Disaster," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Alan T. Murray & Tony H. Grubesic (ed.), Critical Infrastructure, chapter 11, pages 221-241, Springer.
    14. Duncan J. Watts & Steven H. Strogatz, 1998. "Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6684), pages 440-442, June.
    15. K. Parthasarathy, 1964. "Enumeration of paths in digraphs," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 29(2), pages 153-165, June.
    16. Myung, Young-Soo & Kim, Hyun-joon, 2004. "A cutting plane algorithm for computing k-edge survivability of a network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(3), pages 579-589, August.
    17. Chung, Sung-hark & Myung, Young-soo & Tcha, Dong-wan, 1992. "Optimal design of a distributed network with a two-level hierarchical structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 105-115, October.
    18. Richard Wollmer, 1964. "Removing Arcs from a Network," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(6), pages 934-940, December.
    19. Bruce Golden, 1978. "A problem in network interdiction," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 711-713, December.
    20. Richard D. Wollmer, 1970. "Algorithms for Targeting Strikes in a Lines-of-Communication Network," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 497-515, June.
    21. Alan Murray & Timothy Matisziw & Tony Grubesic, 2007. "Critical network infrastructure analysis: interdiction and system flow," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 103-117, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alan Murray & Timothy Matisziw & Tony Grubesic, 2007. "Critical network infrastructure analysis: interdiction and system flow," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 103-117, June.
    2. Özdamar, Linet & Tüzün Aksu, Dilek & Ergüneş, Biket, 2014. "Coordinating debris cleanup operations in post disaster road networks," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 249-262.
    3. Alice Paul & Susan E. Martonosi, 2024. "The all-pairs vitality-maximization (VIMAX) problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 338(2), pages 1019-1048, July.
    4. Tuzun Aksu, Dilek & Ozdamar, Linet, 2014. "A mathematical model for post-disaster road restoration: Enabling accessibility and evacuation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 56-67.
    5. Jenelius, Erik & Mattsson, Lars-Göran, 2012. "Road network vulnerability analysis of area-covering disruptions: A grid-based approach with case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 746-760.
    6. Alan T. Murray & Timothy C. Matisziw & Tony H. Grubesic, 2008. "A Methodological Overview of Network Vulnerability Analysis," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 573-592, December.
    7. Starita, Stefano & Scaparra, Maria Paola, 2016. "Optimizing dynamic investment decisions for railway systems protection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 543-557.
    8. Smith, J. Cole & Song, Yongjia, 2020. "A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 797-811.
    9. Sullivan, J.L. & Novak, D.C. & Aultman-Hall, L. & Scott, D.M., 2010. "Identifying critical road segments and measuring system-wide robustness in transportation networks with isolating links: A link-based capacity-reduction approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 323-336, June.
    10. Danczyk, Adam & Di, Xuan & Liu, Henry X. & Levinson, David M., 2017. "Unexpected versus expected network disruption: Effects on travel behavior," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 68-78.
    11. Jabarzare, Ziba & Zolfagharinia, Hossein & Najafi, Mehdi, 2020. "Dynamic interdiction networks with applications in illicit supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Yantao Huang & Kara M. Kockelman, 2020. "What will autonomous trucking do to U.S. trade flows? Application of the random-utility-based multi-regional input–output model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2529-2556, October.
    13. Euijune Kim & Geoffrey J.D. Hewings & Hidayat Amir, 2015. "Project Evaluation of Transportation Projects: an Application of Financial Computable General Equilibrium Model," ERSA conference papers ersa15p453, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Qian Ye & Hyun Kim, 2019. "Assessing network vulnerability of heavy rail systems with the impact of partial node failures," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1591-1614, October.
    15. Chaya Losada & M. Scaparra & Richard Church & Mark Daskin, 2012. "The stochastic interdiction median problem with disruption intensity levels," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 345-365, December.
    16. Giuseppe Francesco Gori & Renato Paniccià, 2015. "A structural multisectoral model with new economic geography linkages for Tuscany," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94, pages 175-196, November.
    17. Jie Zhang & Meng Lu & Lulu Zhang & Yadong Xue, 2021. "Assessing indirect economic losses of landslides along highways," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 106(3), pages 2775-2796, April.
    18. Bloch, Francis & Chatterjee, Kalyan & Dutta, Bhaskar, 2023. "Attack and interception in networks," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(4), November.
    19. Ichihara, Silvio Massaru & Guilhoto, Joaquim José Martins & Imori, Denise, 2008. "Geoprocessing and estimation of interregional input-output systems an application to the state of Sao Paulo in Brazil," MPRA Paper 54036, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. López, Fernando A. & Páez, Antonio & Carrasco, Juan A. & Ruminot, Natalia A., 2017. "Vulnerability of nodes under controlled network topology and flow autocorrelation conditions," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 77-87.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:inrsre:v:31:y:2008:i:1:p:88-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.