Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

Critical review

Resilience of urban transportation systems. Concept, characteristics, and

methods.
⁎
L.A.P.J. Gonçalvesa,1, , P.J.G. Ribeiroa,1
a
Centre of Territory, Environment and Construction – CTAC, School of Engineering, University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057
Braga, Portugal

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Urban transportation systems are susceptible to disturbances, interruptions, and risks from natural and human
Resilience causes. The concept of resilience has been introduced into urban transportation systems to reduce the con-
Transportation system sequences of its disruptions. Recently, this concept has attracted considerable interest from researchers from
Urban networks different areas of transportation and mobility. However, several investigations about this issue were carried out
Urban transportation modes
under different perspectives, resulting in a more comprehensive concept, which includes adapting and trans-
forming systems for different levels of equilibrium. This article provides a thorough and conceptual review of
resilience applied to urban transportation systems focusing on its definitions, characteristics, and quantification
methods. Based on this, the evaluation of the level of resilience of mobility subsystems is discussed to provide the
basic framework for generating a tool to assess the resilience of the urban transportation system.

1. Introduction Mohammadian, 2010; Farahani et al., 2013; Moriarty, 2016).

Urban transportation systems are always exposed to different types
The growth of large cities and metropolitan areas around the world of disturbances. Disruptions that may affect the functioning of the
presents challenges to urban transportation systems. In fact, in large urban transportation system are the same as those affecting other urban
cities, there has been a huge increase in transportation demand given systems in general, e.g. natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods,
the growing mobility needs of the resident population (Dunphy and fires, or human-made events such as terrorist attacks, cultural events,
Fisher, 1996). Urbanization is a key issue in the economic development strikes and system failures caused by human error or mismanagement
of cities, regions and even countries. Cities cover only about 2% of the (Suarez et al., 2005; Koetse and Rietveld, 2009; Bollinger et al., 2014;
planet's surface, however, they account for about 75% of the world's Cao, 2015; Pregnolato et al., 2017). Thus, the concept of resilience is a
resource consumption (Madlener and Sunak, 2011). Associated with timeline topic of interest in transportation systems due due to the in-
this growth, urban mobility patterns are dominated by private cars, crease of the exposure to extreme events in our cities such as massive
leading to an increase in road traffic, and causing mobility problems traffic congestions and natural disasters (Nemry and Demirel, 2012;
such as congestion, environmental pollution, noise, and traffic acci- Wamsler et al., 2013; Markolf et al., 2019; Pregnolato et al., 2019). This
dents (Farahani et al., 2013). exposure is related to the continuous sprawling and uncontrolled land
Traffic congestion directly affects the quality of urban mobility use occupation of cities, as well as the increase o population and its
services, such as the movement of people and goods, which reduces the territorial complexity, observing that cities vulnerability and criticality
levels of accessibility and urban mobility. Additionally, it contributes to to future extreme events and disasters increases (Borde et al., 2007;
increasing delays and energy expenditure (Ko et al., 2017), pollution Stamos et al., 2015).
and stress (Bigazzi et al., 2015; Bastos et al., 2019), which in turn de- The concept of resilience was firstly introduced in a study on eco-
creases productivity and leads to higher living costs for society (Rao logical systems by Holling (1973), defining the ability of these systems
and Rao, 2012). Thus, governments and transport authorities need to to absorb and maintain changes in environmental variables. However,
adequately plan transportation networks and control traffic movements resilience in transportation systems is not a consensual concept as dif-
to ensure and mitigate problems related to mobility (Samimi and ferent researchers have a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and

⁎
Corresponding author at: Centre of Territory, Environment and Construction – CTAC, School of Engineering, University of Minho, Department of Civil
Engineering, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.A.P.J. Gonçalves), [email protected] (P.J.G. Ribeiro).
1
Contribution of the authors as mentioned below with their responsibility in the research.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102727
Received 9 September 2019; Received in revised form 20 April 2020; Accepted 21 April 2020
0966-6923/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro, Journal of Transport Geography,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102727
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 1
Definition of Resilience of Transportation Systems.
Definition Research area Author(s)

“Resilience is a characteristic that indicates system performance under unusual conditions, recovery speed, and the Transportation Systems ((Murray-Tuite, 2006,
amount of outside assistance required for restoration to its original functional state.” p.1398)
“…Resilience is defined as the ability of the system to absorb the consequences of disruptions to reduce the impacts of Freight Transportation Systems (Ta et al., 2009, p.21)
disruptions and maintain freight mobility.”
Resilience is defined as the expected fraction of demand that can be met post-disaster. Freight Transportation systems (Miller-Hooks et al., 2012)
“…the resilience of supply…” is “…defined as the adaptive capability of the supply chain to prepare for unexpected Freight Transportation systems (Spiegler et al., 2012, p.6182)
events, respond to disruptions, and recover from them by maintaining continuity of operations at desired levels of
connectedness and control over structure and function.”
“The definition of resiliency … is the ability for a transportation network to absorb disruptive events gracefully and Transportation Infrastructures (Freckleton et al., 2012,
return itself to a level of service equal to or greater than the pre-disruption level of service within a reasonable time p.110)
frame.”
“Resilience deals with the response of the system in the face of shock and its ability to continue to provide the expected Road Transportation systems (Omer et al., 2013, p.389)
service delivery levels.”
“Resilient transportation systems enable quick evacuation, rescue, distribution of relief supplies, and other activities for Transportation Systems (Osogami et al., 2013, p.1)
reducing the impact of natural disasters and for accelerating the recovery from them.”
“It appears that resilience, conceived of as the capacity/ability of the system to absorb shocks without catastrophic Transportation Systems (Reggiani, 2013, p.67)
changes in its basic functional organisation, is a potentially effective tool in understanding the evolutionary paths
of complex spatial networks, such as transport and communication networks.”
“Resilience of a system refers to the ability to withstand disruptions within acceptable reduction in-service Railway transportation systems (Jin et al., 2014, P.17)
performance.”
“Resilience is the speed at which a system returns to equilibrium after a disturbance away from equilibrium.” Railway Transportation (D'Lima and Medda, 2015,
Systems p.38)
“The concept of resilience is intended to capture a system's capacity to maintain its function after a major disruption or Transportation Systems (Mattsson and Jenelius, 2015,
disaster.” 31)
The authors “…have defined resilience as the ability of transportation systems to experience a potentially damaging Railway Transportation (Chan and Schofer, 2016, p.7)
event and return to a healthy state of operations in a reasonable period of time after that event.” Systems
The authors “… refer transportation resilience as the ability of a transportation system to absorb disturbances, Transportation Systems (Wan et al., 2017, p.11)
maintain its basic structure and function, and recover to a required level of service within an acceptable time and
costs after being affected by disruptions.”

understandings on this issue. adopted a procedure that comprised four phases (Pawson et al., 2005;
Planning and management transport authorities aim to promote Ribeiro and Pena Jardim Gonçalves, 2019). Phase 1 consisted of gath-
more resilient urban transportation systems in order to avoid potential ering literature through an extensive search using three databases, Web
losses and obstructions to the movement of people and goods, as well as of Science (SCOPUS), Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge (Clarivate
permanent damage to infrastructure. Thus, this article aims to decon- Analytics), which are considered the most comprehensive and reliable
struct the concept, analyse the dimensions and identify the main scientific research databases (Hosseini et al., 2016). During phase 2
characteristics of the resilience of an urban transportation system. To were applied the following criteria to include and exclude results:
this end, a holistic review is presented aiming to define a general and
comprehensive framework to support and encompass a future model for • General keywords, such as “Resilience of transportation systems”,
evaluating urban transportation system resilience in order to provide a “Resilient urban systems”, “Resilience of urban transportation sys-
set of basic and supportive knowledge frameworks for technical staff, tems”, “Resilient transportation systems” and “Resilient transpor-
policymakers and the scientific community in general. tation” were used;
Furthermore, this review also intends to identify the main methods • Were only selected articles published over the last 20 years (from
used to measure and/or improve resilience in transportation systems, 1999 to 2019) once the majority of the works related with this
thus providing the basis for scientific and technical analysis of resi- concept were published during this period of time, ensuring a
lience to be used mainly by researchers to develop future assessment sample with a good time coverage for this review exercise;
tools. • Were only selected articles published in journals indexed in Clarivate
This article has the following structure: Section 1 briefly presents Analytics and/or Scopus databases because the revision process is
the issue of urban transportation resilience and describes the main considered more rigorous and the acceptance from the scientific
objectives of this research. Section 2 provides a summary of the re- community is ensured (Bergström et al., 2015);
search methodology in this review. Section 3 explores the concept of • Were only selected articles with more than 10 citations, except for
the resilience of transportation systems. In Section 4, the main char- 2018 and 2019 since these were recently published.
acteristics of urban transportation systems resilience are described.
Section 5 is presented a discussion about the characteristics of vulner- After an initial scan of publications, in phase 3 a snowballing
ability and reliability against resilience. Section 6 summarises the ap- technique was adopted whereby additional literature was identified
plication of the resilience concept in different types of urban trans- through the citations made in each publication (Van Wee and Banister,
portation systems. In Section 7, the main methods used to measure and/ 2016). After completing these three phases, 79 scientific articles were
or improve urban transportation system resilience are described in obtained. In the final phase, phase 4, to increase the feasibility of this
detail. Section 8 presents the strengths, weaknesses and trends for fu- review process it was narrowed the article selection. Therefore, the
ture research on the resilience of urban transportation systems. Finally, articles found in phase 2 were revisited and analysed their contents in
in Section 9, the main conclusions of this research are presented. depth. This phase was done once in some articles, the resilience was
only considered as a subtopic or merely a label where the focus was on
other topics, such as system security, risk management and disaster
2. Research methodology
response. After completing all phases, this methodology resulted in 74
articles.
This work identifies and systematically analyses the relevant lit-
Finally, these articles were analysed and studied in-depth, especially
erature regarding the resilience of transportation systems. Thus, it was

2
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

concerning issues related to the definitions, characteristics and eva- transportation systems aims to re-establish the initial level of perfor-
luation tools of resilience in urban transportation systems. mance and operation as quickly as possible after the occurrence of a
disaster. Thus, resilience in transportation systems is not only supported
3. The resilience of urban transportation systems in the action of preventing a system failure against a perturbation, but it
also refers to, if necessary, the capacity and ability of the system to
By analysing the state of the art, an increase in the number of stu- adapt and reduce the impact and to avoid a catastrophic partial or
dies in the transportation sector that addresses this issue of resilience entire failure of the system.
can be observed in recent years. The main objective of these in- Along these lines, Cox et al. (2011) selected and defined specific
vestigations was found to be centred on defining the concept, type of categories to static and dynamic transportation systems resilience.
resources and the characteristics that a transportation system must have Thus, static resilience strategies include conservation, input substitu-
to be resilient. In Table 1, several definitions of transportation system tion, inventories, excess capacity, relocation resource unimportance,
resilience found in the literature are presented. There are also a high import substitution, export substitution, technological change, pro-
number of definitions for this specific area (transportation systems), duction recapture, and logistics refinement. On the other hand, dy-
although some of them are very similar. namic resilience strategies to increase speed recovery include: re-
Some authors focus on the resilience of the transportation system in moving operating impediments, management effectiveness, speeding
general (Murray-Tuite, 2006; Osogami et al., 2013; Mattsson and restoration, input substitution, import-substitution, and inventories
Jenelius, 2015; Wan et al., 2017), while others focus on the resilience of (Cox et al., 2011).
a specific transportation system, such as railway (Jin et al., 2014; These strategies were defined to improve the system and to be im-
D'Lima and Medda, 2015; Chan and Schofer, 2016), road (Omer et al., plemented by other system authorities or customers (e.g., firms and
2013) or even, in more specific cases, freight transportation (Ta et al., individuals) (Cox et al., 2011). In summary, static resilience is related to
2009; Miller-Hooks et al., 2012; Spiegler et al., 2012). Yet, some au- the strength of the system and dynamic resilience to the time of re-
thors apply the resilience concept at the level of the infrastructures covery during a disturbance.
(Freckleton et al., 2012) and not to the entire system. Thus, in the specific area of transportation, it can be concluded that
All definitions presented in Table 1 associate the concept of the the aim of studying resilience is to figure out methodologies to measure
resilience of the transportation system with adverse conditions, ab- transportation resilience, to evaluate the level of transportation system
normal conditions or disturbances that may influence the normal resilience under different interruptions, and to identify critical points
functioning or the equilibrium of the transportation systems. The main (segment or intersection), from which countermeasures can be devised
differences found in the definitions of the resilience of transportation to reduce the impacts, within a static and/or dynamic framework.
systems lie in actions that a system can perform to face disturbances/ Finally, after analysing the conceptual definition of the resilience of
perturbations. Thus, the evaluation of resilience of transportation sys- a transportation system, four main actions (basic dimensions) of the
tems can integrate the following actions: resist (Jin et al., 2014), absorb resilience of transportation systems were identified: resist, recover,
(Ta et al., 2009; Freckleton et al., 2012; Reggiani, 2013), maintain absorb and transform.
(Mattsson and Jenelius, 2015), recover (Spiegler et al., 2012; D'Lima Based on all the definitions presented in Table 1, the following
and Medda, 2015; Chan and Schofer, 2016), reduce (Osogami et al., definition is proposed for the resilience of urban transportation systems:
2013) the impacts of a disruptive event or disturbance (shock the ability of a system to resist, reduce and absorb the impacts of a
(Reggiani, 2013), disaster (Osogami et al., 2013; Mattsson and Jenelius, disturbance (shock, interruption, or disaster), maintaining an accep-
2015) or interruption (Ta et al., 2009; Spiegler et al., 2012)) that in- table level of service (static resilience), and restoring the regular and
fluence the performance (service level (Murray-Tuite, 2006; Freckleton balanced operation within a reasonable period of time and cost (dy-
et al., 2012; Omer et al., 2013; Jin et al., 2014)) provided by the system. namic resilience).
It should also be noted that some definitions take into account the
recovery time considered acceptable (Murray-Tuite, 2006; Freckleton 4. Main characteristics of the resilience of urban transportation
et al., 2012; Chan and Schofer, 2016) to restore the normal operating systems
conditions of the transportation systems.
However, from the literature, it can also be seen that some studies There are many characteristics related to resilience such as adap-
divided resilience into two categories: static and dynamic (Rose, 2007; tation, robustness, preparedness, interdependence, efficiency, rapidity
Pant et al., 2014; Uday and Marais, 2015; Chen and Rose, 2018). and redundancy. However, sometimes the same term is used in different
According to Chen and Rose (2018), based on Rose (2007), static ways to meet different requirements, according to different perspec-
and dynamic resilience in economic systems can be defined as: tives. Table 2 presents a summary of the characteristics found in the
literature to describe the resilience of urban transportation systems, as
• Static resilience – “… is the ability to maintain the operation of a well as the set of variables used to quantify its characteristics.
system, while the economic counterpart is utilizing remaining resources According to the literature, some of the resilience studies are based
as efficiently as possible in order to maintain the function performance of on characteristics of the “triangle of resilience” created by Bruneau
the system. This reflects the core of the economic problem based on how et al. (2003) (Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012; Adjetey-Bahun et al.,
to best use scarce resources”; 2014; Zobel and Khansa, 2014; Ukkusuri, 2015; Alice and Behrouz,
• Dynamic resilience – “… refers to the ability and speed of recovery, 2016; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Leobons et al., 2019). The “triangle of
where the economic counterpart pertains to investing wisely in repair and resilience” was mainly used to measure the community's resilience to
reconstruction. This is a dynamic consideration from the standpoint of seismic activities. This triangle represents the loss of infrastructure
economics because it involves a time trade-off diverting resources for functionalities and disruptions, as well as the pattern of restructuring
investment represents setting aside current consumption to enhance and recovery over time, relying on the 4 Rs framework: Robustness,
productivity at future times.” Redundancy, Resources and Rapidity (Bruneau et al., 2003). Thus,
there is a relation between the community systems and the transpor-
According to Amoaning-Yankson and Amekudzi-Kennedy (2017) tation systems, since one system directly affects the other and vice-
and Deloukas and Apostolopoulou (2017), in transportation systems, versa. Redundancy, robustness and adaptation are the most used
static resilience is related to its robustness, in order to maintain the characteristics in the literature to define the concept of resilience. Re-
system operating after a shock or hazard occurs without immediate dundancy and robustness are more related to transportation infra-
system infrastructure restoration. In turn, dynamic resilience in structures, and adaptation with transportation systems. Overall, these

3
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 2
Main characteristics in the resilience of urban transportation systems.
Characteristic Description Variables Author(s)

Redundancy Redundancy is the capacity of some components of a system to Characteristics of the (Ta et al., 2009; Berche et al., 2009; Leu et al., 2010; Chen and
take over the functions of failed components without impairing system: Miller-Hooks, 2011; Cox et al., 2011; Freckleton et al., 2012;
the performance of the system itself. - Traffic flows; Jenelius and Mattsson, 2012; Miller-Hooks et al., 2012;
- Network size; Tamvakis and Xenidis, 2012; Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012;
- Land users; Lhomme et al., 2013; Omer et al., 2013; Osogami et al., 2013;
- Number of transportation Barker et al., 2013; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Faturechi and
modes. Miller-Hooks, 2014; Jin et al., 2014; Azadeh et al., 2014;
- Geographic location of the Vugrin et al., 2014; Zobel and Khansa, 2014; D'Lima and
elements of the network; Medda, 2015; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2015; Ukkusuri, 2015; Alice
Performance variables: and Behrouz, 2016; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2016a; Zhang and
- Capacity of the elements Wang, 2016; Chan and Schofer, 2016; Donovan and Work,
that make up the Network; 2017; El Rashidy and Grant-Muller, 2017; Thompson and
- Travel time; Rajabifard, 2017; Liao et al., 2018; Aydin et al., 2018b; Xu
- Travel distance; et al., 2018; Leobons et al., 2019)
- Travel costs
Adaptation Adaptation is the capacity of the system to be flexible in Characteristics of system: (Murray-Tuite, 2006; Ta et al., 2009; Leu et al., 2010; Chen
responding to new pressures. - Traffic flows; and Miller-Hooks, 2011; Vugrin et al., 2014; Nakanishi et al.,
- Land users; 2014; Schweikert et al., 2015; Zhang and Miller-Hooks, 2015;
- Population Size; Zhang et al., 2015; Nogal et al., 2016; Adjetey-Bahun et al.,
- Number of transportation 2016a; Thompson and Rajabifard, 2017; Maria et al., 2017;
modes. Aydin et al., 2018a; Yazıcıoğlu et al., 2018; Engler et al.,
2018; Liao et al., 2018; Lu, 2018)
Performance variables:
- Travel Paths;
- Capacity of the elements
that make up the network;
- Geographic location of the
elements of the network;
- Travel time;
- Average delay;
Efficiency Efficiency is the positive relationship of service provided by a Characteristics of system: (Reed et al., 2009; Ta et al., 2009; Ip and Wang, 2011; Omer
static system with the service provided by a dynamic system. In - Traffic flows; et al., 2013; Jin et al., 2014; Vugrin et al., 2014; Zhang et al.,
transportation systems, the efficiency is the ability to support - Population density; 2015; Chopra et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Ganin et al.,
disruptions while maintaining a level of service and 2017; Aydin et al., 2018a; Ilbeigi, 2019)
connectivity. Performance variables:
- Number of elements that
make up the network;
- Capacity of the elements
that make up the network;
- Travel Paths;
Robustness Robustness is the strength or capacity of elements, systems, Characteristics of the (Murray-Tuite, 2006; Reed et al., 2009; Berche et al., 2009;
and other units of analysis to support a certain level of stress or system: Colicchia et al., 2010; Leu et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2011;
demand without suffering degradation or loss of function. - Traffic flows; Adams et al., 2012; Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012;
- Number of network Devanandham and Ramirez-Marquez, 2012; Tamvakis and
segments; Xenidis, 2012; Blockley et al., 2012; Omer et al., 2013;
- Number of transportation Osogami et al., 2013; Barker et al., 2013; Adjetey-Bahun et al.,
modes; 2014; Bocchini et al., 2014; Bruyelle et al., 2014; Faturechi
- Population size; and Miller-Hooks, 2014; Nakanishi et al., 2014; Zobel and
Khansa, 2014; D'Lima and Medda, 2015; Schweikert et al.,
Performance variables: 2015; Ukkusuri, 2015; Zhang and Miller-Hooks, 2015; Zhang
- Free flow traffic speed; et al., 2015; Baroud et al., 2015; Bhavathrathan and Patil,
- Volatility of traffic flow; 2015; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Duan et al., 2016; Adjetey-
- Travel time; Bahun et al., 2016b; Kim and Yeo, 2016; Kim et al., 2016;
- Frequency of risk; Nogal et al., 2016; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2016a; Soltani-Sobh
- Level of initial damage; et al., 2016b; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Deloukas and
- Speed of traffic closed to Apostolopoulou, 2017; Donovan and Work, 2017; Maria et al.,
network capacity level; 2017; Rashidy and Grant-Muller, 2017; Wang et al., 2017;
Calvert and Snelder, 2018; Lu, 2018; Aydin et al., 2018a;
Aydin et al., 2018b; Tang and Heinimann, 2018; Yazıcıoğlu
et al., 2018; Ilbeigi, 2019; Leobons et al., 2019; Markolf et al.,
2019)
Interdependence Interdependence represents the connection of the components Characteristics of the (Ta et al., 2009; Leu et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2014; Rashidy and
of a system or its dimensions, including the network of system: Grant-Muller, 2017)
relationships between the components of a system. - Number of intermodal
stations;
- Terminal lines;
- Bus Lines;
- Train lines;
- Number of transportation
modes;

Performance variables:
- Travel time;
Preparedness
(continued on next page)

4
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 2 (continued)

Characteristic Description Variables Author(s)

Preparation refers to “preparing certain measures prior to Characteristics of the (Ivory and Trotter, 2020; Colicchia et al., 2010; Miller-Hooks
discontinuation,” and enhancing the resilience of a system by system: et al., 2012; Osogami et al., 2013; Omer et al., 2013; Azadeh
reducing the effect of the potential negative impacts of - Traffic Flows; et al., 2014; Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2014; Zhang et al.,
disruptive events. 2015; Chan and Schofer, 2016; Deloukas and Apostolopoulou,
Performance variables: 2017; Engler et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2018)
- Mitigation measures;
- Average delay;
- Associated costs;
- Capacity of the elements
that make up the network;
Flexibility Flexibility is the capacity of a system to respond to shocks and Characteristics of System: (Ta et al., 2009; Cox et al., 2011; Ip and Wang, 2011; Ishfaq,
adjust to changes through contingency planning after - Traffic flows; 2012; Barker et al., 2013; Azadeh et al., 2014; Soltani-Sobh
disruptions. It is also referred to as the ability to reconfigure - Capacity of the network; et al., 2015; D'Lima and Medda, 2015; Alice and Behrouz,
resources to deal with uncertainties. 2016; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2016a; Chan and Schofer, 2016;
Performance variables: Aydin et al., 2018a; Tang and Heinimann, 2018; Markolf
- Alternative proximity et al., 2019; Ilbeigi, 2019)
infrastructures;
- Average delay;
- Average speed reduction;
- Travel distance;
Rapidity Rapidity is the capacity to meet priorities and achieve goals in Characteristics of System: (Adams et al., 2012; Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012;
a timely manner to contain losses and avoid future disruptions. - Traffic flows; Devanandham and Ramirez-Marquez, 2012; Adjetey-Bahun
et al., 2014; Zobel and Khansa, 2014; Faturechi and Miller-
Performance variables: Hooks, 2014; Ukkusuri, 2015; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Alice
- Response time; and Behrouz, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Deloukas and
- Speed of traffic recovery; Apostolopoulou, 2017; Leobons et al., 2019; Markolf et al.,
- Capacity of the elements 2019)
that make up the network.

concepts are applied transversally to all areas of transportation. efficiency is already accomplished in the evaluation of robustness.
Characteristics such as efficiency, interdependence and prepared- Another important issue is the relation among the very similar
ness are still not sufficiently explored when evaluating the resilience of concepts of redundancy and flexibility in the resilience of transporta-
transportation systems. Efficiency is applied across different dimensions tion systems since both concepts refer to an “extra” capacity beyond the
of transportation systems and more specifically in freight transportation usual components for a transportation system respond to a disruption.
(Ta et al., 2009), railway transportation (Ip and Wang, 2011; Jin et al., However, redundancy is the oldest and most used in studies of the re-
2014) and road transportation (Omer et al., 2013; Ganin et al., 2017; silience of transportation systems. Thus, we argue that resilience studies
Aydin et al., 2018a; Ilbeigi, 2019). On the other hand, interdependence should only use the term redundancy instead of flexibility.
is mainly applied in studies about connectivity between different modes Therefore, we can conclude that there are five main characteristics
of transportation (Jin et al., 2014), in railways (Leu et al., 2010), in of the resilience of transportation systems: i) redundancy, ii) adapta-
roads (Rashidy and Grant-Muller, 2017) and in freight transportation tion, iii) robustness, iv) preparedness, and v) rapidity.
systems (Ta et al., 2009). Finally, preparedness is transversally asso- As previously referred, the definition of the resilience of transpor-
ciated with almost all transportation infrastructures (Zhang et al., tation systems consist in four main actions: i) resist, ii) recover, iii)
2015): freight transportation systems (Ivory and Trotter, 2020; absorb, and iv) transform, which is supported by the proposed five
Colicchia et al., 2010; Miller-Hooks et al., 2012; Azadeh et al., 2014), characteristics of the resilience of transportation systems. Fig. 1 pre-
road transportation systems (Omer et al., 2013; Osogami et al., 2013; sents the relation between the main characteristics and main actions of
Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2014), railway transportation systems the resilience of a transportation system, based on the following ra-
(Chan and Schofer, 2016; Deloukas and Apostolopoulou, 2017) and tionale:
more broadly in the entire urban transportation system ( Engler et al.,
2018). - If a system is robust and prepared, then it can resist most of the
According to the analysis of works and definitions on the resilience disturbances;
of transportation systems, it was concluded that efficiency and flex- - If a system is robust, prepared and with recovering capacity within
ibility characteristics are intrinsically related to other resilience char- an acceptable time, then it can recover more easily and rapidly to
acteristics. On the other hand, the interdependency is strongly related the disturbances;
to connectivity and dependency characteristics of the performance of a - if a system is redundant in relation to its subsystems, then it can
transportation system. A transportation system can always be seen as an absorb most of the disturbances and impacts;
interconnected system of other transportation subsystems, especially in - If a system cannot recover to the initial stage of operation, then it
a multimodal urban context. Thus, interdependency should not be can adapt and transform to a different stage of equilibrium and
considered a main characteristic of resilience. operation.
Following the same rationale, efficiency and robustness have similar
definitions, since according to literature an efficient system has the In the literature it is possible to find a wide range of studies that
ability to keep a good level of service and connectivity during disrup- integrate several variables (Table 2) used to assess the characteristics of
tion and a robust system has the ability to support a certain level of the resilience of transportation systems, however, these are more re-
stress or demand without suffering degradation or loss of function. lated to the characterization and functioning of transportation systems
However, efficiency should be used to measure the performance of a than to the characteristics of resilience as can be seen in other review
transportation system and for that reason must not be considered as a works (e.g. (Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2015; Zhou et al., 2019)). For
main characteristic of resilience. Furthermore, we can consider that this reason, a set of seven resilience indicators is proposed to make a

5
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 1. The relation between the main characteristics and main actions of the resilience of a transportation system. (Source: own work).

Table 3 According to Table 4, it is possible to observe that the proposed

- Main proposal resilience indicators – variables of performance assessment of indicators are transversal to several characteristics, i.e., an indicator
the resilience. can be used to define several characteristics. In fact, it is possible to
Variables used in resilience Resilience indicators – variables of foresee that the most used indicators to assess the resilience are mul-
studies performance assessment of the resilience tiple routes (travel characteristics - origin – destination), extra infra-
structure (links/ nodes) capacity and diversity in transportation modes.
- Travel distance - Multiple routes (travel characteristics -
In summary, it is possible to conclude that there is room to explore
- Travel time origin – destination)
- Travel Paths and improve the definition and description of the resilience char-
- Traffic flow/ Traffic volumes acteristics of the transportation system, namely in the definition/ se-
- Geographic location of the lection of other/ new indicators and in the creation of an assessment
elements of the network methodology of the resilience of transportation system, which allows to
- Capacity of the elements that - Extra infrastructure (links/ nodes) capacity
make up the network
identify, in a clear way, what is the contribution of the resilience so-
- Bus lines lutions to solve the problems of a potential disruption event in relation
- Train lines to each of the five main characteristics of resilience.
- Terminal lines
- Number of intermodal stations
- Number of the elements that
5. Are the vulnerability and reliability characteristics of
make up the network Transportation Resilience?
- Network size
- Alternative proximity The number of studies about resilience in transportation systems is
infrastructures
growing. There are several terms used to describe resilience, related
- Number of transportation - Diversity in transportation modes (ground
modes vs. underground, walking/biking vs. concepts and its characteristics in transportation systems. However,
- Walking and cycling flows motorized transportation, etc.) some concepts are related to resilience from different perspectives. An
- Traffic flows example is a relation between resilience, vulnerability and reliability.
- Land users - Population data historic/ variation (number Therefore, a brief analysis and discussion on the relationship between
- Population size of inhabitants, population density, etc.)
- Population density
these three concepts are presented.
- Level of initial damage - Critical traffic data (flow, capacity and The concepts of vulnerability, reliability and resilience are often
- Volatility of traffic flow speed, etc.) associated with assessing the performance of a transportation system
- Free flow traffic speed (Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2015). Research on resilience, vulner-
- Average speed
ability and reliability is a well-established field today, with many
- Speed of traffic with the
network load published works (Iida, 1999; D'Este and Taylor, 2003; Taylor et al.,
- Frequency of risk - System performance to disruptions 2006; Szeto, 2011; Mattsson and Jenelius, 2015; Reggiani et al., 2015;
- Average speed reduction Wan et al., 2017). At a more conceptual level, there is still no consensus
- Speed traffic recovery regarding definitions of terms of vulnerability and resilience. These two
- Response time
- Mitigations measures
concepts are often related to the concept of reliability (Mattsson and
- Associated costs Jenelius, 2015; Reggiani et al., 2015). Therefore, it is important to
understand the relation and overlap between these three concepts.

better assignment with resilience characteristics, that in some extent 5.1. Vulnerability and reliability concepts
can be seen as an aggregation of the existing transportation variables
(Table 2). In Table 3 is presented a match between these two types of The literature on the vulnerability of transportation systems has
variables/ indicators. grown rapidly over the last decades (Mattsson and Jenelius, 2015). This
The resilience indicators result from the aggregation of the set of concept presents various definitions and contexts. According to Berdica
variables used to characterize the system and the performance assess- (2002), a vulnerable system is susceptible to extreme tensions. Khademi
ment most used in studies of the resilience of a transport system. In this et al. (2015) state that vulnerability in the road transport system is
work, we only intend to present a set of indicators that integrate the susceptibility to incidents that can reduce considerably the road net-
information of the variables that are usually used in resilience studies, work serviceability. Yet, for Baroud et al. (2014a, 2014b) vulnerability
but that, in addition, is more oriented to define and characterize the is the ability of a disruptive event to adversely impact system perfor-
main characteristics of resilience. Thus, Table 4 presents the relation- mance. Colicchia et al. (2010) stated that supply chain vulnerability is
ship/contribution that these indicators can make to assess the five main defined as the existence of random disturbances that lead to deviations
characteristics of the resilience of a transport system. in the supply chain from normal, expected or planned activities that

6
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 4
Relation between the proposal resilience indicators and the main characteristics of the resilience of transportation systems.
Proposal resilience indicators Main characteristics

Redundancy Adaptation Robustness Preparedness Rapidity

Multiple routes (travel characteristics - origin – destination) X X X X X

Extra infrastructure (links/ nodes) capacity X X X X X
Diversity in transportation modes X X X X X
Population data historic/ variation X X X
Critical traffic data X X X
System performance to disruptions X X X

cause negative effects or consequences. According to Nicholson (2007), resilience of network caused by the removal of nodes or edges). Omer
vulnerability refers to the facility with which the system can be pushed et al. (2012) proposed various schemes to improve resilience, reducing
out of its state of stability or equilibrium. Finally, according to Knoop the vulnerability of the system and increasing its adaptability. The
et al. (2012), vulnerability describes the weakness of a network. In impact of the schemes on system resilience metrics is assessed by
summary, the vulnerability in transportation systems can be assumed as adopting the methodology of the Network Infrastructure Resilience
the susceptibility of systems to extreme tensions (incidents, dis- Assessment (NIRA) framework. Blockley et al. (2012) applied a gen-
turbances, disruptions, etc.) with a reduction in its service level. eralized vulnerability theory to an urban transportation network to
There are some definitions of reliability applied to transportation assess the resilience of the system. Reggiani (2013) proposed a con-
systems. A network is considered reliable if the expected trip costs are ceptual framework that aims to integrate the concept of the resilience of
acceptable, even when users are extremely pessimistic about the state of network in transport safety, examining the relevance of resilience to
the network (Bell, 2000). According to Berdica (2002), reliability de- fragility (vulnerability). Baroud et al. (2014a, 2014b) presented and
scribes the operability of the networks under varying strenuous con- validated importance measures based on resilience to study important
ditions. According to Faturechi and Miller-Hooks (2014), system re- links of waterway networks, addressing the ability to quantify the
liability is the probability of continued functionality post-event. Reza vulnerability and capacity to recover inland waterways. Alice and
and Elise (2015) defined reliability as the probability that a network Behrouz (2016) investigated resilience assessment and risk analysis as
has to remain operative (often a function of connectivity) given the interconnected concepts, integrating vulnerability into the assessment
occurrence of a disaster or disruption event. However, reliability can be of a system. Calvert and Snelder (2018) presented the Link Performance
defined as the probability that the transportation network achieved as Index for Resilience (LPIR), which evaluates the level of resilience of
an acceptable level of service due to an unusual event (Soltani-Sobh individual road sections regarding the wider road network. LPIR can be
et al., 2015). Finally, a reliable system performs its required functions used to detect poorly resilient road sections and analyse road and traffic
under specified conditions for a specific period of time (Torrisi et al., characteristics that cause this non-resilience. The LIPR methodology
2017). Thus, reliability in transportation systems is when a system has added concepts to resilience such as robustness and vulnerability by
acceptable operability (level of service) and acceptable trip costs during also explicitly considering recovery from congestion events and by fo-
an extreme event (disturbance, disruption, interruption). On the other cusing on everyday operational traffic situations rather than just on
hand, transport networks are subject to variations in the demand and disasters or major events. Finally, Lu (2018) proposed a resilience ap-
supply that may affect reliability (Nicholson et al., 2003; Szeto, 2011). proach for a rail transit network under daily operational incidents, in-
Network reliability research has tended to focus on congested urban tegrating the topological network (based on vulnerability analysis stu-
road networks and on the probability that a network delivers a required dies) and passenger volume characteristics. The vulnerability is an
performance standard (Bell, 2000; Shlayan et al., 2011; Taylor, 2012; older and more established concept in transportation field than resi-
Mirjafari and Poorzahedy, 2018; Uchida, 2018). lience (Reggiani et al., 2015).
The broader concept of vulnerability and the concept of resilience
can, or may not, be opposites based on the characteristics of the system.
5.2. Resilience and Vulnerability concepts Since a system may have a susceptibility to a disruption (poor robust-
ness and poor capacity of absorption of the damages) and a good ca-
Resilience and vulnerability are closely related concepts that have pacity of adaptation and redundancy to recovery part of initial char-
attracted wide interest in the literature on transportation (Seeliger and acteristics. In this case, the system is vulnerable and resilient at the
Turok, 2013). There are several studies that relate resilience and vul- same time.
nerability concepts applied to transportation systems. Berche et al. Nevertheless, the vulnerability can be treated in the same way as to
(2009) carried out an analysis of the effects that the removed nodes risk. Furthermore, there are many variations in the definitions of risk,
have on the functioning of the public transport networks, simulating but most involve a combination of two parts: (1) the probability for an
different attack strategies based on vulnerability criteria. Mansouri event of negative impact occurs, and (2) the extent of the consequences
et al. (2009) developed a Risk Management-based Decision Analysis once this event has taken place (Berdica, 2002). Jenelius et al. (2006)
(RMDA) framework to define the nature of resilience in Maritime In- argue that the concept of vulnerability should be divided into prob-
frastructure Transport Systems (MITS). The framework was based on ability and consequence. However, Khademi et al. (2015) establish that
risk analysis and management methodologies, which helps to determine risk is generally associated with something that entails negative con-
the nature of the uncertainty in the system, and consequently leads to sequences for the system. Following this, Taylor and D'Este (2007) and
devising strategies of resilience with respect to the known vulner- Maltinti et al. (2011) considered the definition of vulnerability should
abilities of the system. Cox et al. (2011) presented operational metrics be related to the consequence rather than the probability of an event,
to determine the resilience of passenger transport systems against ter- since we can evaluate the consequences, impacts and exposure to define
rorism, presenting a set of proposed measures of prospective resilience levels of criticality under previous scenarios of a potential disruption,
to assess the potential resilience of a transportation system based on the which is considered as conditional stage. In this way, conditional con-
vulnerability, flexibility, and availability of resources. Ip and Wang sequences and conditional criticality of the transport system can be
(2011) proposed a model to optimize the structure of transport net- determined (Jenelius and Mattsson, 2012; Balijepalli and Oppong,
works, based on evaluating resilience and friability (reduction in the

7
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

2014; Li et al., 2019). Thus, the concept of conditional vulnerability was 5.4. Resilience, vulnerability and reliability
introduced and can be seen as the aggregated consequences of a dis-
ruption (Mattsson and Jenelius, 2015). There are other works where performance measures can be found
The concept of conditional vulnerability is strongly related with the relating the concepts of resilience, vulnerability and reliability. When
concept of Robustness (see Scott et al. (2006), De-Los-Santos et al. assessing resilience considering the interaction of four paradigms: re-
(2012), Cats and Jenelius (2015) and Rupi et al. (2015)). According to liability, vulnerability, survivability and recoverability, Barker et al.
McDaniels et al. (2008), the occurrence of a disaster leads to a rapid (2013) proposed a two-step method: (i) network component importance
decrease of the system performance. Yet, most of the time, some of the measures to identify the components that are most influential when
system operability is maintained, reflecting the robustness of the system considering the resilience of the entire network, and (ii) providing a
to a given external shock. Over time, after the disaster, the system re- discrimination algorithm to identify component importance. Baroud
gains some level of stability or balance (mitigation and recovery ac- et al. (2014b) introduced stochastic metrics of network resilience that
tions). allow quantitative analysis under uncertainty of the time needed for a
Mattsson and Jenelius (2015) concluded that conditional vulner- disrupted network to regain full operation after a disruptive event. This
ability is the difference of performance between the initial level work defines network resilience throughout the dimensions of relia-
(baseline) and the level of the system after the disaster. With this, when bility, vulnerability, survivability, and recoverability, and quantifies
any mitigation and recovery measures (preparedness) are not applied, network resilience as a function of component and network perfor-
the conditional vulnerability can be seen as a complementary stage of mance.
robustness, i.e., the conditional vulnerability is the damage suffered due Thus, by analysing the literature relating the concepts of resilience,
to lack of robustness and preparedness. In consequence, conditional vulnerability and reliability, it can be concluded that these concepts are
vulnerability is partly a main characteristic of resilience, since this is interrelated and complementary measures when assessing the perfor-
more related with the consequences caused by a disaster than with the mance of transportation systems in disruption context. Therefore, it is
probability for a disruption occurs (i.e. the negative risk associated with important to stress that reliability is related to the acceptable oper-
the exposure of a system before and/or during a disaster). Therefore, we ability of the entire transportation system in different contexts in-
concluded that conditional vulnerability can be seen as characteristic of cluding a disruption scenario, vulnerability is related to susceptibility to
the resilience of the transportation system. Even though conditional face a disruption and in that sense can be seen as trigger for resilience,
vulnerability is conversely associated with robustness, which is a more but as conditional vulnerability can be considered as characteristic of
consistent and well-studied resilience characteristic. Thus, the condi- resilience, and resilience that is mainly related with the system response
tional vulnerability could be estimated and evaluated through robust- to a disruption event, thus to the recoverability of a system.
ness and preparedness, and for that reason should be considered a main
characteristic of resilience but not necessarily used due to its com- 6. Application areas of the resilience of urban transportation
plementary effect to the other two characteristics. systems

According to the literature, resilience analyses of urban transpor-

5.3. Resilience and reliability concepts tation systems are focused on post-disaster analysis, more specifically
after the occurrence of natural disasters (Freckleton et al., 2012;
According to the literature, resilience and reliability are also related Nakanishi et al., 2014; Zobel and Khansa, 2014; Chan and Schofer,
concepts. In order to increase resilience, Soltani-Sobh et al. (2015) 2016; Nogal et al., 2016), such as earthquakes (Shafieezadeh and Ivey
developed a model to quantify the improved reliability, which reduces Burden, 2014; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Duan et al., 2016) and hurri-
recovery time after an uncertain disruption. This model provided ac- canes (Reed et al., 2009).
curate predictions of the system performance through three perfor- Resilience of an urban transportation system mainly applies to: (i)
mance functions that estimate the total travel time flow and consumer transportation infrastructure, where the structural resilience of infra-
surplus. Soltani-Sobh et al. (2016b) presented a model that incorporates structures is analysed; (ii) operation/use of the transportation system,
reliability into classical facility location problems. This model arose where the functional performance of the systems and their risks are
from the recognition that the recovery of centres and ground trans- assessed against a disturbance (interruption, shock, perturbation, dis-
portation networks are vulnerable to disruptions of all sorts and that aster). However, studies that incorporate and link the structural and
facility location decisions can be critical in reducing the impact of these functional aspects of the transportation system are still very limited.
disruptions. Kim et al. (2016) explored how potential failures on nodal In recent years, resilience has been applied in several specific areas
disruptions affect transit system flows and examined the change in the of the urban transportation system, demonstrating the broadness and
reliability of transit systems. For the methodology, network reliability scope of this concept, covering rail and road systems separately or in an
and system flow loss were used and the criticality of stations under a integrated manner as urban systems.
variety of simulated nodal disruptions was assessed. Network resilience Currently, resilience analyses in the specific area of road transpor-
was evaluated by identifying the best and worst geographical impact tation systems have attracted much attention, and the relationship be-
scenarios on networks. Finally, Zhang and Wang (2016) proposed a tween supply and demand (traffic flow) was the main analytical vari-
resilience-based framework for mitigating the risk of surface road able used to evaluate resilience (Murray-Tuite, 2006; Leu et al., 2010;
transportation networks, by introducing a novel metric based on system Ishfaq, 2012; Lhomme et al., 2013; Chan and Schofer, 2016; Calvert and
reliability and network connectivity to measure the resilience-based Snelder, 2018; Tang and Heinimann, 2018). This specific area (roads)
performance of a road transportation network. of transportation is the most cited in the literature, in which twenty-two
From the literature, we can conclude that reliability is very im- studies were found concerning this topic and sixteen of those were
portant to evaluate the resilience of a transportation system, since the published over last five years (2015-2020) (Murray-Tuite, 2006;
more reliable the more resilient. However, reliability is not a main Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012; Omer et al., 2013; Osogami et al., 2013;
characteristic of resilience, but can also be seen as a transversal char- Lhomme et al., 2013; Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2014; Bhavathrathan
acteristic that is used to evaluate the performance of a transportation and Patil, 2015; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015; Nogal
system facing or not a disruption event. Thus, it can be argued that et al., 2016; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Kim and Yeo, 2016; Maria et al.,
reliability should not be considered a main characteristic of resilience. 2017; El Rashidy and Grant-Muller, 2017; Thompson and Rajabifard,
2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Donovan and Work, 2017; Ganin et al., 2017;
Aydin et al., 2018b; Tang and Heinimann, 2018; Calvert and Snelder,

8
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 5
Main Methods and techniques adopted to measure and/or improve the resilience of transportation systems.
Methods/Techniques

Network science
Fuzzy theory
Optimisation

Monte Carlo
Framework
Conceptual

Simulation
Stochastic
Dynamics

processes

processes

Method
System
Characteristic Author(s)

(Ta et al., 2009; Cox et al., 2011; Tamvakis and Xenidis, 2012; Markolf et al., 2019)
(Berche et al., 2009; Leu et al., 2010; Chen and Miller-Hooks, 2011; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Zobel and Khansa, 2014; Ukkusuri,
2015; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2015; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Chan and Schofer, 2016; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2016a; Rashidy and Grant-
Muller, 2017; Tang and Heinimann, 2018; Ilbeigi, 2019; Leobons et al., 2019)
(Ishfaq, 2012; Jenelius and Mattsson, 2012; Miller-Hooks et al., 2012; Barker, Ramirez-Marquez and Rocco, 2013; Osogami et al.,
2013; Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2014; Jin et al., 2014; D’Lima and Medda, 2015; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Xu
et al., 2018)
Redundancy
(Leu et al., 2010; Lhomme et al., 2013; Osogami et al., 2013; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Azadeh et al., 2014; Alice and Behrouz,
2016; Donovan and Work, 2017; Liao et al., 2018; Ilbeigi, 2019)
(Ip and Wang, 2011; Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012; Jenelius and Mattsson, 2012; Omer et al., 2013; Vugrin et al., 2014; Alice and
Behrouz, 2016; Thompson and Rajabifard, 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Liao et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2018)
(Chen and Miller-Hooks, 2011; Miller-Hooks et al., 2012; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Aydin et al., 2018a)
(Freckleton et al., 2012; Azadeh et al., 2014)
(Ip and Wang, 2011; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2016a; Aydin et al., 2018b)
(Ta, Goodchild and Pitera, 2009; Nakanishi et al., 2014)
(Murray-Tuite, 2006; Leu et al., 2010; Nogal et al., 2016; Yazıcıoğlu et al., 2018)
(Chen and Miller-Hooks, 2011; Zhang and Miller-Hooks, 2015; Zhang et al, 2015; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2016a; Maria et al., 2017)
Adaptation (Leu et al., 2010; Schweikert et al., 2015; Aydin et al., 2018a; Liao et al., 2018)
(Vugrin, Turnquist and Brown, 2014; Thompson and Rajabifard, 2017; Engler et al., 2018; Lu, 2018)
(Chen and Miller-Hooks, 2011; Maria et al., 2017; Aydin et al., 2018a)
(Murray-Tuite, 2006; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2016a; Yazıcıoğlu et al., 2018)
(Cox et al., 2011; Adams et al., 2012; Blockley et al., 2012; Tamvakis and Xenidis, 2012; Bruyelle et al., 2014; Nakanishi et al., 2014;
Deloukas and Apostolopoulou, 2017; Markolf et al., 2019)
(Murray-Tuite, 2006; Berche et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2009; Leu et al., 2010; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Zobel and Khansa, 2014;
Ukkusuri, 2015; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2016a; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Kim and Yeo, 2016; Kim et al., 2016; Nogal et al., 2016; Rashidy
and Grant-Muller, 2017; Ganin et al., 2017; Tang and Heinimann, 2018; Yazıcıoğlu et al., 2018; Ilbeigi, 2019; Leobons et al., 2019)
(Barker et al., 2013; Osogami et al., 2013; Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2014; Baroud et al., 2015; D’Lima and Medda, 2015; Zhang
and Miller-Hooks, 2015; Zhan et al., 2015; Duan et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Maria et al., 2017; Calvert and Snelder, 2018)
(Le et al., 2010; Osogami et al., 2013; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Schweikert et al., 2015; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Kim and Yeo,
Robustness
2016; Kim et al., 2016; Donovan and Work, 2017; Ganin et al., 2017; Aydin et al., 2018a; Ilbeigi, 2019)
(Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012; Devanandham and Ramirez-Marquez, 2012; Omer et al., 2013; Bocchini et al., 2014; Vugrin et al.,
2014; Bhavathrathan and Patil, 2015; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Thompson and Rajabifard, 2017; Wang et al., 2017;
Lu, 2018)
(Colicchia et al., 2010; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Maria et al., 2017; Aydin et al., 2018a)
(Freckleton et al., 2012)
(Murray-Tuite, 2006; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Chopra et al., 2016; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2016c; Soltani-
Sobh et al., 2016a; Aydin et al., 2018b; Yazıcıoğlu et al., 2018)
(Ivory and Trotter, no date; Deloukas and Apostolopoulou, 2017)
(Chan and Schofer, 2016)
(Miller-Hooks et al., 2012; Osogami et al., 2013; Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015)
Preparedness (Osogami et al., 2013; Liao et al., 2018)
(Miller-Hooks et al., 2012; Omer et al., 2013; Engler et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2018)
(Colicchia et al., 2010)
(Azadeh et al., 2014)
(Adams et al., 2012; Deloukas and Apostolopoulou, 2017; Markolf et al., 2019)
(Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Zobel and Khansa, 2014; Ukkusuri, 2015; Zhang and Wang, 2016; Leobons et al., 2019)
(Faturechi and Miller-Hooks, 2014; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017)
Rapidity (Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Alice and Behrouz, 2016)
(Bocchini and Frangopol, 2012; Devanandham and Ramirez-Marquez, 2012; Zhang et al., 2017)
(Zhang and Wang, 2016)
(Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Alice and Behrouz, 2016)

2018; Ilbeigi, 2019). Nevertheless, it was observed that the second most Zhang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017; Yazıcıoğlu et al., 2018; Engler
cited specific area was the railway transportation system (Leu et al., et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2018; Leobons et al., 2019; Markolf et al.,
2010; Ip and Wang, 2011; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Bruyelle et al., 2019).
2014; Jin et al., 2014; Bhavathrathan and Patil, 2015; Zhang and
Miller-Hooks, 2015; D'Lima and Medda, 2015; Kim et al., 2016; Chan 7. Methods adopted to measure and/or to improve the resilience
and Schofer, 2016; Chopra et al., 2016; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2016a, of urban transportation systems
2016b; Deloukas and Apostolopoulou, 2017; Lu, 2018; Xu et al., 2018),
in which sixteen studies were found on this topic. On the other hand, Identifying methods to measure and/or to improve the resilience of
freight transportation systems have also attracted some attention but at a transportation system is one of the main challenges and, at the same
a lower level compared to the other two areas (Ivory and Trotter, 2020; time, an enigma due to a large number of methods and techniques that
Colicchia et al., 2010; Chen and Miller-Hooks, 2011; Adams et al., have been used for this purpose, ranging from mathematical models to
2012; Ishfaq, 2012; Miller-Hooks et al., 2012; Azadeh et al., 2014). conceptual frameworks, which are described as follows:
Finally, the resilience of transportation systems has also been stu-
died on a wider scale, such as an urban system, integrating various • Conceptual framework: a matrix of concepts that is the basis of a
surface transport systems such as roads and railways, and these studies coherent structure for the accomplishment of any task (Guimarães,
are used mainly to assess: (i) the infrastructure resilience (Reed et al., 2007), and for the organisation of concepts and tasks and phases of
2009; Blockley et al., 2012; Vugrin et al., 2014; Zobel and Khansa, execution. This technique is mainly used to initially define a pro-
2014; Baroud et al., 2015; Schweikert et al., 2015; Alice and Behrouz, blem and methodology, and other techniques to quantify the results
2016; Duan et al., 2016; Soltani-Sobh et al., 2016a; Aydin et al., 2018a) (Ta et al., 2009).
and (ii) the system resilience (Berche et al., 2009; Cox et al., 2011; • System Dynamics: a methodological approach to understanding the
Tamvakis and Xenidis, 2012; Freckleton et al., 2012; Barker et al., behaviour of complex systems over time (Abdel-Hamid and
2013; Bocchini et al., 2014; Nakanishi et al., 2014; Ukkusuri, 2015; Madnick, 1991). This technique is mainly used in transportation

9
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

systems to assess traffic flow disturbances (Murray-Tuite, 2006) and transportation networks with limited economic resources and service
infrastructures (Omer et al., 2012). levels, using the formulation of a two-step stochastic program through
• Stochastic processes: this corresponds to a family of random vari- Monte Carlo method; and, (ii) Chen and Miller-Hooks (2011) that de-
ables that represent the evolution of a system of values over time fined an indicator of network resilience, which quantifies the ability of
(Allen, 2010). This technique is mainly used to characterize the an intermodal freight transport network to recover from disruptions
behaviour of the transportation system (Reed et al., 2009; Baroud due to natural or human-caused disasters. For this a stochastic mixed-
et al., 2014a; Jin et al., 2014; D'Lima and Medda, 2015). integer program for quantifying network resilience and identifying an
• Simulation: is used to study the performance of a system under optimal post-event course of action (i.e., set of activities) to take. To
different scenarios, through a calibration and validation process solve this, a mathematical program that accounts for dependencies in
(Rodrigues, 2014). It is a very useful tool to describe and predict the random link attributes based on Benders decomposition, column
system behaviour to evaluate the resilience of a transportation generation, and Monte Carlo method concepts were proposed.
system in relation to hypothetical consequences of different testing It is also important to highlight that simulation was mainly used to
scenarios (Lhomme et al., 2013; Nakanishi et al., 2014; Kim and measure and analyse the resilience performance in (i) of transportation
Yeo, 2016; Ganin et al., 2017). systems (Leu et al., 2010; Osogami et al., 2013; Lhomme et al., 2013;
• Optimization processes: processes to find the best solution among all Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2014; Azadeh et al., 2014; Kim and Yeo, 2016;
feasible solutions according to a certain objective function. The Kim et al., 2016; Donovan and Work, 2017; Ganin et al., 2017; Liao
optimization problem can be divided into two categories depending et al., 2018; Ilbeigi, 2019), and (ii) transportation infrastructures
on whether the variables are continuous or discrete (Hromkovič, (Schweikert et al., 2015; Alice and Behrouz, 2016; Aydin et al., 2018a).
2013). This technique is mainly used to measure the impact of Moreover, there are other studies about the resilience of transpor-
disruptions on the performance of transportation networks (Ip and tation systems with some interest despite not being used so frequently.
Wang, 2011; Omer et al., 2013). Murray-Tuite (2006) studied the influence of optimal traffic evaluations
• Monte Carlo Method: a statistical methodology that is based on a and road network equilibrium, based on two resilience characteristics
large number of random samples to approximate the actual results (adaptability and robustness), using system dynamics models. Berche
(Hromkovič, 2013). It is a technique that is used to assess the per- et al. (2009) carried out an analysis of the effects that the removal of
formance of transportation systems through hypothetical scenarios nodes have on the functioning of public transport networks, using
and validation of methodologies (Colicchia et al., 2010; Miller- system dynamics models, and simulating different strategies of directed
Hooks et al., 2012; Maria et al., 2017). attack derived from vulnerability criteria, which resulted in minimal
• Fuzzy theory: a form of multivariate logic in which the logical va- strategies to reduce the impacts in those systems. Ip and Wang (2011)
lues of the variables can be any real number between 0 (FALSE) and introduced the concept of “friability” (reduction of network resilience
1 (TRUE). Fuzzy logic has been extended to deal with the concept of caused by the removal of nodes or links in railways) using an optimi-
the partial truth, where the truth value can comprehend between zation model. Jin et al. (2014) studied the integration between public
completely true and false (Ahlawat et al., 2014). It is mainly used for buses with the metro system, developing a two-step stochastic program
evaluating hypothetically resilient scenarios (Freckleton et al., formulation to improve the resilience of metro networks by leveraging
2012; Azadeh et al., 2014). public bus services. More recently, Alice and Behrouz (2016) provided a
• Network Science: is a network approach that uses the representation comprehensive computational framework to include several sources of
of physical, biological, and social phenomena to define predictive uncertainty that must be taken into account to estimate the level of
models (Barabási, 2013; Perera et al., 2017; Bioglio et al., 2019). seismic risk in order to assess the seismic resilience of highway bridge
Graph theory is a specific method of the network science that was networks exposed to deterioration processes. In this framework, the
recently used in several works (Murray-Tuite, 2006; Adjetey-Bahun authors provided a more realistic estimation of the post-event func-
et al., 2014; Adjetey-Bahun et al., 2016a; Zhang and Wang, 2016). tionality of transportation networks.
As in all evaluation processes, models of measuring and/or im-
Table 5 shows the most used methods to measure and/or to evaluate proving resilience can also present a qualitative or quantitative char-
the improvement of resilience according to the five main resilience acter, which includes conceptual structures, simulation models and
characteristics identified in Table 2. Almost all the methods are used to mathematical models. Thus, in most of the literature, resilience is de-
measure and assess the main resilience characteristics. Thus, there is termined using complex mathematical models of theoretical nature, but
not a specific tool to measure each characteristic of resilience, since that is very difficult to apply in practical approaches. Consequently, it
some tools can be used to measure several characteristics. was sometimes not sufficient to describe resilience by adopting only
In Table 5 are identified the main works found in the literature mathematical equations, especially in real situations. Therefore, the
related to defining each of the five main resilience characteristics, being difficulty to comprehend and put in practice resilience assessment by
possible to define the following metrics: transportation authorities and related entities may inevitably result in a
disinterest in the development of integrated and complex models to
- systems dynamics models, stochastic processes, optimization pro- measure and assess the improvement in resilience (Wan et al., 2017).
cesses, simulation method and conceptual framework are analysed Thus, studies are still scarce based on models and decision support tools
in twenty-two, nineteen, seventeen, fifteen and ten studies, respec- with a level of practical applicability that can be considered easy and
tively. friendly to use and understand.
- Monte Carlo method (not evaluating preparedness) and network In short, analysing the resilience of urban transportation systems,
science approach (not evaluating the preparedness) with seven and incorporating infrastructures, network operation and simulation
ten works, respectively. methods can lead to developing and constructing user-friendly and
- the fuzzy theory was the least used method with only two works practical/technical tools, which represents a future line of research in
founded to evaluate only three characteristics (redundancy, ro- the field of resilience. The use of simulation tools would allow a pre-
bustness, and preparedness). dictive analysis of resilience for all transportation systems, identifying
the most affected components, alerting the entities to intervene in cri-
It is important to note that stochastic analyses are sometimes as- tical zones and other analysis considered important by public autho-
sociated with Monte Carlo method to validate specific methodologies. rities.
Two studies can be highlighted in the literature: (i) Miller-Hooks et al. Finally, Fig. 2 presents the interconnection between the various
(2012) that studied the maximization of resilience in freight concepts, definitions, characteristics and methods adopted to measure

10
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 2. The relation between the various concepts of the resilience of urban transportation systems (source: own work).

and/or improve resilience, which must be a support structure of a weaknesses of the main studies on the resilience of the transport system
process for developing new methodologies for evaluating the resilience, (Table 6).
i.e. the operability and use, of the transportation systems against po- Thus, based on the identification of the main weaknesses and
tential disturbances. strengths of the main works on this subject (Table 6), as well as some
proposals from various authors that are often associated with the spe-
8. Strengths, weaknesses and potential trends for future research cific context of the research in question, a set of potential research
in the resilience of transportation systems trends on resilience of transportation system are presented, as follows:

Among other issues, this work addressed the main issues associated • The methodologies must be developed to be adapted and applied to
with the definition of transport system resilience, how resilience can be all transport systems;
described and assessed through the identification of its main char- • The integration of behaviour/ mobility models to provide additional
acteristics and the main assessment methods used in various works in insights into the resilience process;
this field. Therefore, it is important to present the main strengths and • The addition of new resilience variables and indicators
Table 6
Main strengths, weaknesses and future researches on the Resilience of transportation systems.
Main strengths Main weaknesses

- The resilience approaches can illustrate the complexity of a compound disaster event; - It can be difficult to predict how a system might be damaged due to the uncertainty
- Resilience is becoming a well-studied issue, supported by full approaches that of the nature of disasters, and can only be considered a finite number of possible
comprehend all phase of a disruption event (before, during and after) locations for the event;
The Resilience concept is supported in five main known characteristics (Robustness, - Several characteristics of resilience that are complementary to each other, and
…; sometimes related but not integrated characteristics of resilience.
- Large number and diversity of methods and technics to evaluate the resilience of - A mix of conventional system and performance variables with resilience variables of
transportation systems; a transportation system;
- Analysis of the resilience for the components (links and nodes) and the entire - The traffic assignment methodology should not be the only factor in assessing
network of the transportation systems allow to study and define more suitable transportation resilience;
preparedness and mitigation measures and reduce vulnerability; - The travel times on links outside the disrupted areas cannot be affected by the
- An optimization approach can identify the optimal recovery responses for disrupted change in traffic flows due to the event;
transportation networks, which can provide tools for the decision-makers and the - The size and complexity of systems can become impossible to quantify and compare
authorities to define more suitable strategies; resilient solutions and can increase the computational time;
- The specific results of a sample network cannot be generalized to any transportation
system;
- The social and organizational resilience must be assessed as well to ensure a more
holistic approach necessary to improve resilience.
- The complexity of the methods used to evaluate resilience can be considered a
barrier for potential usage by others;
- lack of historic consequences for disruption events that accomplish past and post-
event features.

11
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

(probabilistic behaviour, cost-evaluation, etc.) to the developed as, robustness with efficiency and redundancy with flexibility, which
models; may consequently not be considered as main characteristics of resi-
• To explore and improve the description of the resilience character- lience of transportation systems. Thus, it can be concluded that the
istics of the transportation system, namely in the selection of new main characteristics of the resilience of transportation systems are: re-
resilience indicators; dundancy, adaptation, robustness, preparedness and rapidity.
• To explore and create an assessment methodology of the resilience The resilience of a transportation system can be assessed in terms of
of transportation system that allows to identify what is the con- its infrastructure/ network and/or its level of operation and usage.
tribution of the resilience solutions in relation to each of the five However, it could be observed that there is a very limited number of
main characteristics of resilience; studies on resilience that simultaneously incorporate both the infra-
• The incorporation of alternative measures and experiments to in- structure and the operation of the transportation system. This research
vestigate additional properties of transportation networks (topolo- mainly included research on urban transportation systems (railway,
gical properties); road and freight). It should also be noted that the most commonly cited
• To define calibration and validation processes to assess the impact transportation area in resilience studies is related to freight systems.
on disruption events on the physical network of transportation Currently, the analysis of the resilience of transportation systems,
systems; mainly roads, is evaluated similarly to the analysis of performance
• The integration of system redesign in optimization approaches with conventionally used in current mobility studies, i.e., focusing on the
recovery responses to improve resilience; measurement of variables related to the mismatches between supply
• The evaluation of the impact of implementing resilience enhance- and demand, such as delays, travel speed, traffic flows vs capacity,
ment strategies; among others. In addition, from the analysed works, it was proposed
• The development of models integrating both pre-disruption pre- several resilience indicators that are related to the five main char-
paredness and post-disruption recovery actions; acteristics of resilience, such as, multiple routes (travel characteristics -
• To assess (either qualitatively or quantitatively) the effectiveness of origin – destination), extra infrastructure (links/ nodes) capacity, di-
Redundancy, Adaptation, Robustness, Preparedness, and Rapidity in versity in transportation modes, population data historic/ variation,
order to help decision-makers determine the most appropriate critical traffic data and system performance to disruptions.
course of action; In literature, there are eight methods and techniques that are used
• A sensitivity analysis to determine the prioritization of improvement to measure and/or improve the resilience of transportation systems,
projects giving specific attention to attributes that carry more such as, conceptual frameworks, systems dynamics, stochastic pro-
weight; cesses, simulation method, optimization processes, Monte Carlo
• The development of the resilience models focused on the optimal method, fuzzy and network science. On the other hand, the most used
allocation of resources; methods in quantitative evaluations are the systems dynamics models,
• To transform the idea of moving beyond robustness (toward resi- stochastic and optimization processes, while qualitative evaluations are
lience) from the abstract to the implementable; usually based on conceptual frameworks. Resilience is assessed based
on complex mathematical models, which enhances the difficulty in
9. Conclusion understanding and putting into practice the developed methodologies.
In addition, analysing the resilience of urban transportation systems,
Due to greater exposure to extreme events of a natural and human incorporating infrastructures, network operation and simulation
nature, there has been an increased concern in society with the capacity methods can lead to developing and constructing user-friendly and
of urban systems to resist and ensure security, safety and quality of life practical/technical tools, which represents a future line of research in
during the occurrence of disturbances, in particular in the transporta- the field of resilience.
tion system. Thus, technicians, politicians and scientists have paid From the analysis of the main weaknesses and strengths, and by the
greater attention to promote the resilience of urban transportation future trends identified in some of the main works on the resilience of
systems. transportation systems it is possible to highlight the following future
In this context, this article aimed to deconstruct the concept, ana- research trends in this domain:
lyse the dimensions and identify the main characteristics of the resi- - integrate behaviour/ mobility models to provide additional in-
lience of an urban transportation system, having presented a general sights into the resilience process;
and comprehensive framework to support a future model for evaluating - explore and improve the knowledge about the resilience char-
urban transportation system resilience that would allow to provide a set acteristics of the transportation system, namely in the selection of in-
of basic knowledge frameworks for technical staff, policymakers and dicators of resilience;
the scientific community in general. - create an assessment methodology of the resilience of the trans-
According to literature, different perspectives and approaches are portation system stratified by the five main characteristics of resilience;
reflected in the existing definitions of the resilience of the transporta- - evaluate the impact of implementing resilience enhancement
tion systems. Thus, from the study of the concepts and definitions, strategies in new evaluation methodologies;
characteristics, and areas of applicability, it can be concluded that the - develop models integrating both pre-disruption preparedness and
resilience of an urban transportation system is the ability of a system to post-disruption recovery actions;
resist, reduce and absorb the impacts of a disturbance, maintaining an - develop a sensitivity analysis to determine the prioritization of
acceptable level of service (static resilience), and restoring the regular improvement projects giving specific attention to attributes that carry
and balanced operation within a reasonable period of time and cost more weight.
(dynamic resilience). Finally, this work will provide a potential guide to construct, or
From the main works on the resilience of an urban transportation extend, the concept of resilience to the specific context of urban mo-
system, there are mainly eight characteristics to assess the resilience of bility.
transportation systems, such as redundancy, adaptation, efficiency,
robustness, interdependence, preparedness, flexibility and rapidity. References
However, some characteristics are more related with the operability of
the transportation system, such as interdependence, efficiency and Abdel-Hamid, T.K., Madnick, S.E., 1991. Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated
flexibility, and in addition, some have a high level of overlap with other Approach. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Adams, T.M., Bekkem, K.R., Toledo-Durán, E.J., 2012. Freight resilience measures. J.
characteristics more used and consolidated in studies on resilience, such

12
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Transp. Eng. 138 (11), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436. Engineers 20 (2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177. 4014004.
0000415. Bollinger, L.A., et al., 2014. Climate adaptation of interconnected infrastructures: a fra-
Adjetey-Bahun, K., et al., 2014. A simulation-based approach to quantifying resilience mework for supporting governance. Reg. Environ. Chang. 14 (3), 919–931. https://
indicators in a mass transportation system. In: ISCRAM 2014 Conference Proceedings doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0428-4.
- 11th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Borde, K.A., et al., 2007. Vulnerability of U.S. Cities to environmental hazards. Journal of
Management, pp. 75–79. Homeland Security and Emergency Management. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-
Adjetey-Bahun, Kpotissan, Birregah, B., Châtelet, E., Planchet, J.-L., 2016a. A model to 7355.1279.
quantify the resilience of mass railway transportation systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. Bruneau, M., et al., 2003. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic
153, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.03.015. resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 19 (4), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.
Adjetey-Bahun, K., et al., 2016b. Railway transportation system's resilience: Integration of 1193/1.1623497.
operating conditions into topological indicators. In: NOMS 2016–2016 IEEE/IFIP Bruyelle, J.-L., et al., 2014. Improving the resilience of metro vehicle and passengers for
Network Operations and Management Symposium, pp. 1163–1168. https://doi.org/ an effective emergency response to terrorist attacks. Saf. Sci. 62, 37–45. https://doi.
10.1109/NOMS.2016.7502981. org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.022.
Ahlawat, N., Gautam, A., Sharma, N., 2014. Use of logic gates to make edge avoider Calvert, S.C., Snelder, M., 2018. A methodology for road traffic resilience analysis and
robot’. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. 4 (6), 630. review of related concepts. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science. Taylor & Francis
Alice, A., Behrouz, S., 2016. Seismic resilience of transportation networks with dete- 14 (1–2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2017.1363315.
riorating components. Journal of Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Cao, M., 2015. Transportation resilience: A summative review on definition and con-
Engineers 142 (8). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001399. notation. In: International Conference on Automation, Mechanical Control and
C4015015. Computational Engineering (AMCCE 2015). Atlantis Press, pp. 1127–1132. https://
Allen, L.J.S., 2010. An Introduction to Stochastic Processes with Applications to Biology. doi.org/10.2991/amcce-15.2015.199.
CRC Press. Cats, O., Jenelius, E., 2015. Planning for the unexpected: the value of reserve capacity for
Amoaning-Yankson, S., Amekudzi-Kennedy, A., 2017. ‘Transportation system resilience’, public transport network robustness. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 81, 47–61. https://
Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board. doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.013.
Transportation Research Board 2604, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.3141/2604-04. Chan, R., Schofer, J.L., 2016. Measuring transportation system resilience: response of rail
Aydin, N.Y., Duzgun, H.S., Heinimann, H.R., et al., 2018a. Framework for improving the transit to weather disruptions. Natural Hazards Review 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.
resilience and recovery of transportation networks under geohazard risks. Int. J. 1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000200. 5015004.
Disaster Risk Reduc. 31, 832–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.022. Chen, L., Miller-Hooks, E., 2011. Resilience: an Indicator of recovery capability in in-
Aydin, N.Y., Duzgun, H.S., Wenzel, F., et al., 2018b. Integration of stress testing with termodal freight transport. Transportation Science. INFORMS 46 (1), 109–123.
graph theory to assess the resilience of urban road networks under seismic hazards. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1110.0376.
Nat. Hazards 91 (1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3112-z. Chen, Z., Rose, A., 2018. Economic resilience to transportation failure: a computable
Azadeh, A., et al., 2014. Modelling and improvement of supply chain with imprecise general equilibrium analysis. Transportation 45 (4), 1009–1027. https://doi.org/10.
transportation delays and resilience factors. International Journal of Logistics 1007/s11116-017-9819-6.
Research and Applications. Taylor & Francis 17 (4), 269–282. https://doi.org/10. Chopra, S.S., et al., 2016. A network-based framework for assessing infrastructure resi-
1080/13675567.2013.846308. lience: a case study of the London metro system. Journal of The Royal Society
Balijepalli, C., Oppong, O., 2014. Measuring vulnerability of road network considering Interface. Royal Society 13 (118). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0113.
the extent of serviceability of critical road links in urban areas. J. Transp. Geogr. 39, 20160113.
145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.025. Colicchia, C., Dallari, F., Melacini, M., 2010. Increasing supply chain resilience in a global
Barabási, A.-L. (2013) Network science, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: sourcing context. Production Planning & Control. Taylor & Francis 21 (7), 680–694.
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. The Royal Society Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280903551969.
371(1987), p. (20120375). Cox, A., Prager, F., Rose, A., 2011. Transportation security and the role of resilience: a
Barker, K., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E., Rocco, C.M., 2013. Resilience-based network com- foundation for operational metrics, Transport Policy. Pergamon 18 (2), 307–317.
ponent importance measures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 117, 89–97. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2010.09.004.
1016/j.ress.2013.03.012. De-Los-Santos, A., et al., 2012. Evaluating passenger robustness in a rail transit network.
Baroud, H., Barker, K., et al., 2014a. Importance measures for inland waterway network Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 20 (1), 34–46. https://doi.
resilience. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. org/10.1016/j.trc.2010.09.002.
Pergamon 62, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRE.2013.11.010. Deloukas, A., Apostolopoulou, E., 2017. Static and dynamic resilience of transport in-
Baroud, H., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E., et al., 2014b. Stochastic measures of network resi- frastructure and demand: the case of the Athens metro. Transportation Research
lience: applications to waterway commodity flows. In: Risk Analysis. 34(7). John Procedia 24, 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.082.
Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), pp. 1317–1335. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12175. D'Este, G.M., Taylor, M.A.P., 2003. Network vulnerability: an approach to reliability
Baroud, H., et al., 2015. Inherent costs and Interdependent Impacts of Infrastructure analysis at the level of National Strategic Transport Networks. In: The Network
Network Resilience’, Risk Analysis. 35(4). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 642–662. Reliability of Transport. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 2–23. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12223. org/10.1108/9781786359544-002.
Bastos, J., et al., 2019. Environmental impacts of commuting modes in Lisbon: a life-cycle Devanandham, H., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E., 2012. Generic metrics and quantitative ap-
assessment addressing particulate matter impacts on health. International Journal of proaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 99,
Sustainable Transportation. Taylor & Francis 13 (9), 652–663. https://doi.org/10. 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.09.002.
1080/15568318.2018.1501519. D'Lima, M., Medda, F., 2015. A new measure of resilience: an application to the London
Bell, M.G.H., 2000. A game theory approach to measuring the performance reliability of underground. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Pergamon 81,
transport networks. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 34 (6), 533–545. https://doi.org/10. 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.017.
1016/S0191-2615(99)00042-9. Donovan, B., Work, D.B., 2017. Empirically quantifying city-scale transportation system
Berche, B., et al., 2009. Resilience of public transport networks against attacks. The resilience to extreme events. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
European Physical Journal B 71 (1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2009- 79, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.002.
00291-3. Duan, M., et al., 2016. Quantitatively measuring transportation network resilience under
Berdica, K., 2002. An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and earthquake uncertainty and risks. American Journal of Civil Engineering 4 (4),
should be done. Transp. Policy 9 (2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X 174–184. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20160404.17.
(02)00011-2. Dunphy, R., Fisher, K., 1996. Transportation, congestion, and density: new insights.
Bergström, J., van Winsen, R., Henriqson, E., 2015. On the rationale of resilience in the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1552,
domain of safety: a literature review. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 141, 131–141. https:// 89–96.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.008. El Rashidy, R. A. H.and Grant-Muller, S. (2017) ‘A composite resilience index for road
Bhavathrathan, B.K., Patil, G.R., 2015. Capacity uncertainty on urban road networks: a transport networks’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport,
critical state and its applicability in resilience quantification. Comput. Environ. 0(0), pp. 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1680/jtran.16.00139.
Urban. Syst. 54, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.07.005. Engler, E., et al., 2018. Trajectory-based multimodal transport management for resilient
Bigazzi, A.Y., Figliozzi, M.A., Clifton, K.J., 2015. Traffic congestion and air pollution transportation. Transport Problems: an International Scientific Journal. Silesian
exposure for motorists: comparing exposure duration and intensity. International University of Technology, Faculty of Transport 13 (1), 81–96. Available at: http://
Journal of Sustainable Transportation. Taylor & Francis 9 (7), 443–456. https://doi. 10.0.83.59/tp.2018.13.1.8.
org/10.1080/15568318.2013.805345. Farahani, R.Z., et al., 2013. A review of urban transportation network design problems.
Bioglio, L., Rho, V., Pensa, R.G., 2019. Ranking by inspiration: a network science ap- Eur. J. Oper. Res. 229 (2), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.001.
proach. Mach. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-019-05828-9. Faturechi, R., Miller-Hooks, E., 2014. Travel time resilience of roadway networks under
Blockley, D., Agarwal, J., Godfrey, P., 2012. Infrastructure resilience for high-impact low- disaster. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 70, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.08.
chance risks. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering 165 007.
(6), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.11.00046. Faturechi, R., Miller-Hooks, E., 2015. Measuring the performance of transportation in-
Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D.M., 2012. Optimal resilience- and cost-based Postdisaster in- frastructure Systems in Disasters: a comprehensive review. Journal of Infrastructure
tervention prioritization for bridges along a highway Segment. J. Bridge Eng. Am. Systems. American Society of Civil Engineers 21 (1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
Soc. Civil Eng. 17 (1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592. IS.1943-555X.0000212. (4014025).
0000201. Freckleton, D., et al., 2012. Evaluation of resiliency of transportation networks after
Bocchini, P., et al., 2014. Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a disasters, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. American Society of Civil Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 2284, 109–116.

13
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Ganin, A.A., et al., 2017. Resilience and efficiency in transportation networks. Sci. Adv. 3 and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering. American Society
(12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701079. of Civil Engineers. 3(3)https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000908. 4017004.
Guimarães, J.C., 2007. A estrutura conceptual da Contabilidade–do POC ao SNC. Revista Markolf, S.A., et al., 2019. Transportation resilience to climate change and extreme
TOC no 91, 42–56. weather events – Beyond risk and robustness. Transp. Policy 74, 174–186. https://
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4 doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.003.
(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245. Mattsson, L.-G., Jenelius, E., 2015. Vulnerability and resilience of transport systems – A
Hosseini, S., Barker, K., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E., 2016. A review of definitions and mea- discussion of recent research. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 81, 16–34. https://doi.org/
sures of system resilience. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145, 47–61. https://doi.org/10. 10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.002.
1016/j.ress.2015.08.006. McDaniels, T., et al., 2008. Fostering resilience to extreme events within infrastructure
Hromkovič, J., 2013. Algorithmics for Hard Problems: Introduction to Combinatorial systems: characterizing decision contexts for mitigation and adaptation. Glob.
Optimization, Randomization, Approximation, and Heuristics. Springer Science & Environ. Chang. 18 (2), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.001.
Business Media. Miller-Hooks, E., Zhang, X., Faturechi, R., 2012. Measuring and maximizing resilience of
Iida, Y., 1999. Basic concepts and future directions of road network reliability analysis. freight transportation networks, Computers & Operations Research. Pergamon 39 (7),
Journal of Advanced Transportation John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 33 (2), 125–134. https:// 1633–1643. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COR.2011.09.017.
doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670330203. Mirjafari, P.S., Poorzahedy, H., 2018. Reliability-based network flow estimation with day-
Ilbeigi, M., 2019. Statistical process control for analyzing resilience of transportation to-day variation: a model validation on real large-scale urban networks AU - Torkjazi,
networks. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 33, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr. Mohammad. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems. Taylor & Francis 22 (2),
2018.10.002. 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2017.1413555.
Ip, W.H., Wang, D., 2011. Resilience and friability of transportation networks: evaluation, Moriarty, P., 2016. Reducing levels of urban passenger travel. International Journal of
analysis and optimization. IEEE Syst. J. 5 (2), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1109/ Sustainable Transportation Taylor & Francis 10 (8), 712–719. https://doi.org/10.
JSYST.2010.2096670. 1080/15568318.2015.1136364.
Ishfaq, R., 2012. Resilience through flexibility in transportation operations, International Murray-Tuite, P.M., 2006. A comparison of transportation network resilience under si-
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications. Taylor & Francis 15 (4), 215–229. mulated system optimum and user equilibrium conditions. In: Proceedings of the
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2012.709835. 38th conference on Winter simulation. Monterey, California. Winter Simulation
Ivory, V., Trotter, M., 2020. Resilience, freight mobility and governance: mapping the Conference, pp. 1398–1405.
actors in New Zealand's transport network. Available at: https://atrf.info/papers/ Nakanishi, H., Black, J., Matsuo, K., 2014. Disaster resilience in transportation: Japan
2017/files/ATRF2017_069.pdf. earthquake and tsunami 2011. Int. J. Disaster Resilience Built Environ. 5 (4),
Jenelius, E., Mattsson, L.-G., 2012. Road network vulnerability analysis of area-covering 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-12-2012-0039.
disruptions: a grid-based approach with case study. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 46 Nemry, F., Demirel, H., 2012. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports: Impacts of Climate
(5), 746–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.02.003. Change on Transport: A Focus on Road and Rail Transport Infrastructures, European
Jenelius, E., Petersen, T., Mattsson, L.-G., 2006. Importance and exposure in road network Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological
vulnerability analysis. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 40 (7), 537–560. https://doi.org/ Studies (IPTS). https://doi.org/10.2791/15504. Luxembourg.
10.1016/j.tra.2005.11.003. Nicholson, A., et al., 2003. Assessing Transport Reliability: Malevolence and User
Jin, J.G., et al., 2014. Enhancing metro network resilience via localized integration with Knowledge, in The Network Reliability of Transport. Emerald Group Publishing
bus services, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. Limited, pp. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781786359544-001.
Pergamon 63, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRE.2014.01.002. Nicholson, A.j., 2007. Road network unreliability: impact assessment and mitigation.
Khademi, N., et al., 2015. Transportation network vulnerability analysis for the case of a International journal of critical infrastructures 3 (3/4), 346–375. Available at:
catastrophic earthquake. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 12, 234–254. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCIS.2007.014115.
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.01.009. Nogal, M., et al., 2016. Resilience of traffic networks: from perturbation to recovery via a
Kim, H., Kim, C., Chun, Y., 2016. Network Reliability and Resilience of Rapid Transit dynamic restricted equilibrium model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 156, 84–96. https://doi.
Systems. The Professional Geographer. Routledge 68 (1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10. org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.07.020.
1080/00330124.2015.1028299. Omer, M., et al., 2012. A framework for assessing resiliency of maritime transportation
Kim, S., Yeo, H., 2016. A flow-based vulnerability measure for the resilience of urban road systems, Maritime Policy & Management. Routledge. 39(7). pp. 685–703. https://doi.
network. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier 218, 13–23. https://doi. org/10.1080/03088839.2012.689878.
org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2016.04.006. Omer, M., Mostashari, A., Nilchiani, R., 2013. Assessing resilience in a regional road-
Knoop, V.L., et al., 2012. Link-level vulnerability indicators for real-world networks. based transportation network, International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 46 (5), 843–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.02. Engineering. Inderscience Publishers 13 (4), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISE.
004. 2013.052605.
Ko, Y., Jang, K., Radke, J.D., 2017. Toward a solar city: trade-offs between on-site solar Osogami, T., et al., 2013. Toward simulating entire cities with behavioral models of
energy potential and vehicle energy consumption in San Francisco, California. traffic. IBM J. Res. Dev. 57 (5). https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2013.2264906. 6:1-
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation Taylor & Francis 11 (6), 6:10.
460–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1274807. Pant, R., Barker, K., Zobel, C.W., 2014. Static and dynamic metrics of economic resilience
Koetse, M.J., Rietveld, P., 2009. The impact of climate change and weather on transport: for interdependent infrastructure and industry sectors. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 125,
an overview of empirical findings. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 14 (3), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.09.007.
205–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2008.12.004. Pawson, R., et al., 2005. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for
Leobons, C.M., Gouvêa Campos, V.B., de Mello Bandeira, R.A., 2019. Assessing urban complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. SAGE
transportation systems resilience: a proposal of indicators. Transportation Research publications 10 (1_suppl), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530.
Procedia 37, 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.199. Perera, S., Bell, M.G.H., Bliemer, M.C.J., 2017. Network science approach to modelling
Leu, G., Abbass, H., Curtis, N., 2010. Resilience of ground transportation networks: A case the topology and robustness of supply chain networks: a review and perspective.
study on Melbourne. In: World Transit Research, Available at: https://www. Applied Network Science 2 (1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-017-0053-0.
worldtransitresearch.info/research/3825, Accessed date: 29 October 2018. Pregnolato, M., et al., 2017. The impact of flooding on road transport: a depth-disruption
Lhomme, S., et al., 2013. Analyzing resilience of urban networks: a preliminary step to- function. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 55, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wards more flood resilient cities. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13 (2), 221–230. trd.2017.06.020.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-221-2013. Pregnolato, M., et al., 2019. Assessing urban strategies for reducing the impacts of ex-
Li, T., Rong, L., Yan, K., 2019. Vulnerability analysis and critical area identification of treme weather on infrastructure networks. Royal Society Open Science. Royal Society
public transport system: a case of high-speed rail and air transport coupling system in 3 (5), 160023. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160023.
China. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 127, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019. Rao, A.M., Rao, K.R., 2012. Measuring Urban Traffic Congestion-A Review. International
07.008. Journal for Traffic & Transport Engineering 2 (4).
Liao, T.-Y., Hu, T.-Y., Ko, Y.-N., 2018. A resilience optimization model for transportation Reed, D.A., Kapur, K.C., Christie, R.D., 2009. Methodology for assessing the resilience of
networks under disasters. Nat. Hazards 93 (1), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/ networked infrastructure. IEEE Syst. J. 3 (2), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1109/
s11069-018-3310-3. JSYST.2009.2017396.
Lu, Q.-C., 2018. Modeling network resilience of rail transit under operational incidents. Reggiani, A., 2013. Network resilience for transport security: some methodological con-
Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 117, 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08. siderations. Transp. Policy 28, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.09.
015. 007.
Madlener, R., Sunak, Y., 2011. Impacts of urbanization on urban structures and energy Reggiani, A., Nijkamp, P., Lanzi, D., 2015. Transport resilience and vulnerability: the role
demand: what can we learn for urban energy planning and urbanization manage- of connectivity. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 81, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.
ment? Sustain. Cities Soc. 1 (1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2010.08.006. 2014.12.012.
Maltinti, F., Melis, D., Annunziata, F., 2011. Methodology for vulnerability assessment of Ribeiro, P.J.G., Pena Jardim Gonçalves, L.A., 2019. Urban resilience: a conceptual fra-
a road network, ICSDC 2011. (Proceedings). pp. 686–693. https://doi.org/10.1061/ mework. Sustain. Cities Soc. 50, 101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.
41204(426)84. 101625.
Mansouri, M., Nilchiani, R., Mostashari, A., 2009. A risk management-based decision Rodrigues, R.V.G., 2014. Transport Modelling: Macro and Micro Simulation for the stu-
analysis framework for resilience in maritime infrastructure and transportation sys- died case of Funchal.
tems. In: 2009 3rd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, pp. 35–41. https://doi.org/10. Rose, A., 2007. Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: multidisciplinary
1109/SYSTEMS.2009.4815768. origins and contextual dimensions. Environmental Hazards 7 (4), 383–398. https://
Maria, N., et al., 2017. Novel probabilistic resilience assessment framework of trans- doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.10.001.
portation networks against extreme weather events. In: ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk Rupi, F., et al., 2015. The evaluation of road network vulnerability in mountainous areas:

14
L.A.P.J. Gonçalves and P.J.G. Ribeiro Journal of Transport Geography xxx (xxxx) xxxx

a case study. Netw. Spat. Econ. 15 (2), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067- 978-3-540-68056-7_2.

014-9260-8. Taylor, M.A.P., Sekhar, S.V.C., D'Este, G.M., 2006. Application of accessibility based
Samimi, A., Mohammadian, A.K., 2010. Health impacts of urban development and methods for vulnerability analysis of strategic road networks. Netw. Spat. Econ. 6 (3),
transportation systems. Journal of Urban Planning and Develop. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-006-9284-9.
136 (3), 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000020. Thompson, R.G., Rajabifard, A., 2017. Improving regional road network resilience by
Schweikert, A., et al., 2015. Resilience versus risk: assessing cost of climate change optimised traffic guidance AU - Kaviani, Arash, Transportmetrica A: Transport Science.
adaptation to California's transportation system and the City of Sacramento, Taylor & Francis 13 (9), 794–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2017.
California. Transportation Research Record SAGE Publications Inc 2532 (1), 13–20. 1335807.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2532-02. Torrisi, V., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., 2017. Estimating travel time reliability in urban
Scott, D.M., et al., 2006. Network robustness index: a new method for identifying critical areas through a dynamic simulation model. Transportation Research Procedia 27,
links and evaluating the performance of transportation networks. J. Transp. Geogr. 857–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.12.134.
14 (3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2005.10.003. Uchida, K., 2018. A study on benefit estimation that considers the values of travel time
Seeliger, L., Turok, I., 2013. Towards sustainable cities: extending resilience with insights and travel time reliability in road networks AU - Kato, T.’. Transportmetrica A:
from vulnerability and transition theory. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Transport Science. Taylor & Francis 14 (1–2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/
su5052108. 23249935.2017.1321695.
Shafieezadeh, A., Ivey Burden, L., 2014. Scenario-based resilience assessment framework Uday, P., Marais, K., 2015. Designing resilient systems-of-systems: a survey of metrics,
for critical infrastructure systems: case study for seismic resilience of seaports, methods, and challenges, Systems Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 18 (5),
Reliability Engineering & System Safety. Elsevier 132, 207–219. https://doi.org/10. 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21325.
1016/J.RESS.2014.07.021. Ukkusuri, S.V., 2015. Resilience as an objective in the optimal reconstruction sequence
Shlayan, N., Kachroo, P., Wadoo, S., 2011. Transportation reliability based on informa- for transportation networks AU - ye, Qing. Journal of Transportation Safety &
tion theory. In: 2011 14th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Security. Taylor & Francis 7 (1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2014.
Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 1415–1420. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2011. 907384.
6083067. Van Wee, B., Banister, D., 2016. How to write a literature review paper? Transport
Soltani-Sobh, A., Heaslip, K., El Khoury, J., 2015. Estimation of road network reliability Reviews Routledge 36 (2), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.
on resiliency: an uncertain based model. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 14, 536–544. 1065456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.10.005. Vugrin, E.D., Turnquist, M.A., Brown, N.J.K., 2014. Optimal recovery sequencing for
Soltani-Sobh, A., Heaslip, K., Scarlatos, P., et al., 2016a. Reliability based pre-positioning enhanced resilience and service restoration in transportation networks. International
of recovery centers for resilient transportation infrastructure. Int. J. Disaster Risk Journal of Critical Infrastructures Inderscience Publishers 10 (3–4), 218–246.
Reduc. 19, 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.004. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCIS.2014.066356.
Soltani-Sobh, A., Heaslip, K., Stevanovic, A., et al., 2016b. Evaluation of transportation Wamsler, C., Brink, E., Rivera, C., 2013. Planning for climate change in urban areas: from
network reliability during unexpected events with multiple uncertainties. Int. J. theory to practice. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.
Disaster Risk Reduc. 17, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.04.011. 12.008.
Spiegler, V.L.M., Naim, M.M., Wikner, J., 2012. A control engineering approach to the Wan, C., et al., 2017. Resilience in transportation systems: a systematic review and future
assessment of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research directions’. Transport Reviews. Routledge 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.
Taylor & Francis 50 (21), 6162–6187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012. 2017.1383532.
710764. Wang, J.W., et al., 2017. On an integrated approach to resilient transportation systems in
Stamos, I., et al., 2015. Impact assessment of extreme weather events on transport net- emergency situations. Nat. Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-016-9605-y.
works: a data-driven approach. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 34, 168–178. Xu, X., et al., 2018. Transportation network redundancy: complementary measures and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.11.002. computational methods. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 114, 68–85. https://doi.org/10.
Suarez, P., et al., 2005. Impacts of flooding and climate change on urban transportation: a 1016/j.trb.2018.05.014.
systemwide performance assessment of the Boston Metro Area. Transp. Res. Part D: Yazıcıoğlu, A.Y., Roozbehani, M., Dahleh, M.A., 2018. Resilient control of transportation
Transp. Environ. 10 (3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.04.007. networks by using variable speed limits. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network
Szeto, W.Y., 2011. Cooperative game approaches to measuring network reliability con- Systems 5 (4), 2011–2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2017.2782364.
sidering paradoxes. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 19 (2), Zhang, W., Wang, N., 2016. Resilience-based risk mitigation for road networks. Struct.
229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2010.05.010. Saf. 62, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.06.003.
Ta, C., Goodchild, A., Pitera, K., 2009. Structuring a definition of resilience for the freight Zhang, W., Wang, N., Nicholson, C., 2017. Resilience-based post-disaster recovery stra-
transportation system, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation tegies for road-bridge networks, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Taylor &
Research Board. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 2097, Francis 13 (11), 1404–1413. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1271813.
19–25. Zhang, X., Miller-Hooks, E., 2015. Scheduling short-term recovery activities to maximize
Tamvakis, P., Xenidis, Y., 2012. Resilience in transportation systems. Procedia Soc. transportation network resilience. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering.
Behav. Sci. 48, 3441–3450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1308. American Society of Civil Engineers 29 (6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.
Tang, J., Heinimann, H.R., 2018. A resilience-oriented approach for quantitatively as- 1943-5487.0000417. (p. 4014087).
sessing recurrent spatial-temporal congestion on urban roads. PLOS ONE. Public Zhang, X., Miller-Hooks, E., Denny, K., 2015. Assessing the role of network topology in
Library of Science 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190616. transportation network resilience, Journal of Transport Geography. Pergamon 46,
e0190616. Available at. 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2015.05.006.
Taylor, M.A.P., Susilawati, 2012. Remoteness and accessibility in the vulnerability ana- Zhou, Y., Wang, J., Yang, H., 2019. Resilience of transportation systems: concepts and
lysis of regional road networks. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 46 (5), 761–771. https:// comprehensive review. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 20 (12), 4262–4276. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.02.008. doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2018.2883766.
Taylor, M.A.P., D'Este, G.M., 2007. In: Murray, A.T., Grubesic, T.H. (Eds.), Transport Zobel, C.W., Khansa, L., 2014. Characterizing multi-event disaster resilience, Computers &
Network Vulnerability: a Method for Diagnosis of Critical Locations in Transport Operations Research. Pergamon 42, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COR.2011.09.
Infrastructure Systems BT - Critical Infrastructure: Reliability and Vulnerability. 024.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/

15