Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Component Importance Measures for Multi-Industry Vulnerability of a Freight Transportation Network

  • Published:
Networks and Spatial Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The multi-modal freight transportation network plays an important role in the economic vitality of states, regions, and the broader country. The functionality of this network is threatened by disruptive events that can disable the capacity of the network to enable flows of commodities in portions of nodes and links. This work integrates a multi-commodity network flow formulation with an economic interdependency model to quantify the multi-industry impacts of a disruption in the transportation network to ultimately measure and assess the importance of network components. The framework developed here can be used to measure the efficacy of strategies to reduce network vulnerability from the unique perspective of multi-industry impacts. The framework is illustrated with a case study considering the multi-modal freight transportation network consisting of inland waterways, railways, and interstate highways that connect the state of Oklahoma to surrounding states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja RK, Magnanti TL, Orlin JB (1993) Network flows: theory, algorithms, and applications. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert R, Barabasi A-L (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74(1):47–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (2013a) Report Card for America’s Infrastructure <http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/oklahoma/oklahoma-overview/>

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (2013b). Report Card for Oklahoma’s Infrastructure <http://www.asce.org/infrastructure/>

  • Anderson CW, Santos JR, Haimes YY (2007) A risk-based input-output methodology for measuring the effects of the august 2003 northeast blackout. Econ Syst Res 19(2):183–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkansas Waterway Commissions (2014). <http://waterways.arkansas.gov/>

  • Barker K, Santos JR (2010a) A risk-based approach for identifying key economic and infrastructure sectors. Risk Anal 30(6):962–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker K, Santos JR (2010b) Measuring the efficacy of inventory with a dynamic input-output model. Int J Prod Econ 126(1):130–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroud H, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE, Rocco CM (2014) Importance measures for inland waterway network resilience. Transp Res Part E-Logist and Transp Rev 62:55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berdica K (2002) An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and should be done. Transp Policy 9(2):117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch FT, Satyanarayana A, Suffel CL (2009) A survey of some network reliability analysis and synthesis results. Networks 54(2):99–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Economic Analysis (2010) Interactive access to input–output accounts data <http://www.bea.gov.in>

  • Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2010a) Commodity flow survey overview and methodology

  • Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2010b) Freight transportation global highlights

  • Burgholzer W, Bauer G, Posset M, Jammernegg W (2013) Analysing the impact of disruptions in intermodal transport networks: a micro simulation-based model. Decis Support Syst 54(4):1580–1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen A, Yang C, Kongsomsaksakul S, Lee M (2007) Network-based accessibility measures for vulnerability analysis of degradable transportation networks. Netw Spat Econ 7(3):241–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen G, Dong ZY, Hill DJ, Zhang GH, Hua KQ (2010) Attack structural vulnerability of power grids: a hybrid approach based on complex networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 389(3):595–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crainic TG, Laporte G (1997) Planning models for freight transportation. Eur J Oper Res 97(1):409–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowther KG, Haimes YY (2010) Development and deployment of the multiregional inoperability input-output model for strategic preparedness. Syst Eng 13(1):28–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Homeland Security (2014) Quadrennial Homeland Security Review

  • Erath A, Birdsall J, Axhausen KW, Hajdin R (2010) Vulnerability assessment methodology for Swiss road network. Transp Res Rec 2137(13):118–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotuhi F, Huynh N (2017) Reliable intermodal freight network expansion with demand uncertainties and network disruption. Netw Spat Econ 17(2):405–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gedik R, Medal H, Rainwater C, Pohl EA, Mason SJ (2014) Vulnerability assessment and re-routing of freight trains under disruptions: a coal supply chain network application. Transp Res E 71:45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes YY (2009) On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Anal 29(4):498–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ham H, Kim TJ, Boyce D (2005) Implementation and estimation of a combined model of interregional, multimodal commodity shipments and transportation network flows. Transp Res B 39(1):65–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry D, Ramirez-Marquez JE (2012) Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 99(1):114–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden R, Val DV, Burkhard R, Nodwell S (2013) A network flow model for interdependent infrastructures at the local scale. Saf Sci 53(1):51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini S, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE (2016) A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 145:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingalls RG, Kamath M, Shen G and Pulat PS (2002) Freight movement model for Oklahoma: a proposal for the development of a freight movement model for Oklahoma. Oklahoma Transportation Center, Center for Engineering Logistics and Distribution

  • Jenelius E, Mattsson L (2012) Road network vulnerability analysis of area-covering disruptions: a grid-based approach with case study. Transp Res A 46(5):746–760

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenelius E, Petersen T, Mattson L (2006) Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis. Transp Res A 40:537–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenelius E, Westin J, Holmgren AJ (2010) Critical infrastructure protection under imperfect attacker perception. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot 3(1):16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson J, Hassel H, Zio E (2013) Reliability and vulnerability analyses of critical infrastructures: comparing two approaches in the context of power systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 120:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonkeren O, Azzini I, Galbusera L, Ntalampiras S, Giannopoulos G (2015) Analysis of critical infrastructure network failure in the European Union: a combined systems engineering and economic model. Networks and Spatial Economics 15(2):253–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson H, Johansson J, Johansson H (2008) Identifying critical components in technical infrastructure networks. Journal of Risk and Reliability 222(2):235–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoop VL, Snelder M, Zuylen HJV, Hoogendoorn SP (2012) Link-level vulnerability indicators for real-world networks. Transp Res A 46(5):843–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo W, Zhu X (2012) Importance measures in reliability, risk, and optimization: principles and applications. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leontief WW (1966) Input–Output Economics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Liotta G, Stecca G, Kaihara T (2015) Optimisation of freight flows and sourcing in sustainable production and transportation networks. Int J Prod Econ 164:351–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, E. 2013. Cost of storm-debris removal in City is at least twice the U.S. average. The New York Times, April 24, 2013

  • MacKenzie CA, Barker K, Grant FH (2012) Evaluating the consequences of an inland waterway port closure with a dynamic multiregional interdependency model. IEEE Trans Syst Man, and Cybern Syst Hum 42(2):359–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matisziw TC, Murray AT (2009) Modeling s-t path availability to support disaster vulnerability assessment of network infrastructure. Comput Oper Res 36(1):16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattsson L, Jenelius E (2015) Vulnerability and resilience of transport systems - a discussion of recent research. Transp Res A Policy Pract 81:16–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller-Hooks E, Zhang X, Faturechi R (2012) Measuring and maximizing resilience of freight transportation networks. Comput Oper Res 39(7):1633–1643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkel JR (2008) The 2003 northeast blackout-five years later. Scientific American, August 13. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2003-blackout-five-years-later/>

  • Minoux M (2006) Multicommodity network flow models and algorithms in telecommunications. Handbook of Optimization in Telecommunications. Springer, New York, pp 163–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishkovski I, Biey M, Kocarev L (2011) Vulnerability of complex networks. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 16(1):341–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray AT, Matisziw TC, Grubesic TH (2007) Critical network infrastructure analysis: interdiction and system flow. J Geogr Syst 9:103–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray AT, Matisziw TC, Grubesic TH (2008) A methodological overview of network vulnerability analysis. Growth and Change 39(4):573–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagurney A, Qiang Q (2007a) A network efficiency measure for congested networks. Europhys Lett 79:38005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagurney A, Qiang Q (2007b) Robustness of transportation networks subject to degradable links. Europhys Lett 80:68001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagurney A, Qiang Q (2008) A network efficiency measure with application to critical infrastructure networks. J Glob Optim 40(1–3):261–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson CD, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE (2016) Flow-based vulnerability measures for network component importance: experimentation with preparedness planning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 145:62–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Kelly ME (2014) Network hub structure and resilience. Networks and Spatial Economics 15:235–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oklahoma Department of Transportation (2013) Freight and goods movement

  • Oliva G, Setola R, Barker K (2014) Fuzzy importance measures for ranking key interdependent sectors under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Reliab 63(1):42–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2011). OECD.StatsExtrats. <http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx>

  • Orsi MJ, Santos JR (2010a) Probabilistic modeling of workforce-based disruptions and input-output analysis of interdependent ripple effects. Econ Syst Res 22(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsi MJ, Santos JR (2010b) Estimating workforce-related economic impact of a pandemic on the Commonwealth of Virginia. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 40(2):301–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang M (2014) Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121(1):43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang M, Hong L, Mao Z-J, Yu M-H, Qi F (2009) A methodological approach to analyze vulnerability of interdependent infrastructures. Simulat Model Prac Theory 17(5):817–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pant R, Barker K, Grant FH, Landers TL (2011) Interdependent impacts of inoperability at multi-modal transportation container terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation 47(5):722–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pant R, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE, C.M. Rocco S. (2014) Stochastic measures of resilience and their application to container terminals. Comput Ind Eng 70:183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pant R, Barker K, Landers TL (2015) Dynamic impacts of commodity flow disruptions in inland waterway networks. Comput Ind Eng 89:137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Cho J, Gordon P, Moore II JE, Richardson HW, Yoon S (2011) Adding a freight network to a national interstate input–output model: A TransNIEMO application for California. J Transp Geogr 19(6):1410–1422

  • Pederson P, Dudenhoeffer D, Hartley S, Permann M (2006) Critical infrastructure interdependency modeling: a survey of US and international research. Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls

    Google Scholar 

  • Port of Muskogee, Oklahoma (2013) Interactive Access to Website. <http://www.muskogeeport.com/>

  • Ramirez-Marquez JE, Rocco CM and Barker K (2016) Bi-objective Vulnerability Reduction Formulation for a Network under Diverse Attacks. Submitted to Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems

  • Reggiani A, Nijkamp P, Lanzi D (2015) Transport resilience and vulnerability: the role of connectivity. Transp Res A Policy Pract 81:4–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocco CM, Ramirez-Marquez JE, Salazar DE, Zio E (2010) A flow importance measure with application to an Italian transmission power system. International Journal of Performability Engineering 6(1):53–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose AZ, Dixon PB, Giesecke J and Avetisyan M (2012) Economic Consequences of and Resilience to Terrorism. Current Research Project Synopses, National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Paper 38

  • Rupi F, Bernardi S, Rossi G, Danesi A (2014) The evaluation of road network vulnerability in mountainous areas: a case study. Networks and Spatial Economics 15(2):397–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos JR, Haimes YY (2004) Modeling the demand reduction input-output (I-O) inoperability due to terrorism of interconnected infrastructures. Risk Anal 24(6):1437–1451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setola R, Porcellinis S De (2008) A Methodology to Estimate Input-Output Inoperability Model Parameters. Critical Information Infrastructure Security, 5141:149–160

  • Smith CM, Graffeo CS (2005) Regional impact of Hurricane Isabel on emergency departments in coastal southeastern Virginia. Acad Emerg Med 12(12):1201-1205

  • Sullivan JL, Novak DC, Aultman-Hall L, Scott DM (2010) Identifying critical road segments and measuring system-wide robustness in transportation networks with isolating links: a link-based capacity-reduction approach. Transp Res A 44(5):323–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun X, Wandelt S, Cao X (2017) On node criticality in air transportation networks. Networks and Spatial Economics. doi:10.1007/s11067-017-9342-5

  • Taylor MAP, Susilawati (2012) Remoteness and accessibility in the vulnerability analysis of regional road networks. Transp Res A 46(5):761–771

    Google Scholar 

  • The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (2013) Improving the Nation’s Freight Transportation System

  • The White House, Office of the Press Secretary (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience

  • Tierney KT (1997) Business impacts of the Northridge Earthquake. J Conting Crisis Manag 5(2):87-97

  • Timmer MP, Dietzenbacher E, Los B, Stehrer R, de Vries GJ (2015) An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: the case of global automotive production. Rev Int Econ 23(3):575–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulsa Port of Catoosa (2013) Interactive Access to Website <http://www.tulsaport.com>

  • U.S. Department of Transportation (2014) Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessment

  • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (2013) Freight Facts and Figures

  • US Army Corps of Engineers (2013) Interactive Access of Website <http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc>

  • Webb GR, Tierney KJ, Dahlhamer JM (2000) Businesses and disasters: Empirical patterns and unanswered questions. Nat Hazard Rev 1(2):83-90

  • Yu KD, Tan RR, Aviso KB, Promentilla MAB, Santos JR (2014) A vulnerability index for post-disaster resource allocation. Econ Syst Res 26(1):81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusta JM, Correa GJ, Lacal-Arantegui R (2011) Methodologies and applications for critical infrastructure protection: state-of-the-art. Energ Policy 39(10):6100–6119

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation through award 1361116 and the Southern Plains Transportation Center under the University Transportation Center grant (DTRT13-G-UTC36) from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd St., Room 124, Norman, OK, 73019, USA

    Mohamad Darayi & Kash Barker

  2. Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 20052, USA

    Joost R. Santos

Authors
  1. Mohamad Darayi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kash Barker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joost R. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kash Barker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Darayi, M., Barker, K. & Santos, J.R. Component Importance Measures for Multi-Industry Vulnerability of a Freight Transportation Network. Netw Spat Econ 17, 1111–1136 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-017-9359-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-017-9359-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation