Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A typological framework for categorizing infrastructure vulnerability

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of vulnerability is increasingly important in engineering and the socio-economic planning sciences, particularly given the enormous costs associated with addressing it. The ability to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities is extremely challenging because it is influenced by a complex and dynamic set of interacting factors that can compromise social, economic and infrastructure systems. Where the latter is concerned, the ability to assess infrastructure vulnerability involves the consideration of a range of physical, operational, geographical and socio-economic characteristics. In this paper, significant elements of infrastructure vulnerability are identified and discussed with a focus on their intrinsic spatial nature and their propensity to interact across space. Further, the developed typology of vulnerability outlined in this paper emphasizes the need to ensure that policy, planning and disaster mitigation efforts are strongly integrated at global, regional and local levels.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to the ASCE (2009), A dam’s “hazard potential” is classified on the basis of the anticipated consequences of failure, not the condition of the dam. The classifications include “high hazard potential” (anticipated loss of life in the case of failure), “significant hazard potential” (anticipated damage to buildings and important infrastructure), and “low hazard potential” (anticipated loss of the dam or damage to the floodplain, but no expected loss of life).

  2. Congestion collapse occurs when an overloaded network has settled into a stable state, where traffic demand is high, but little throughput is available in the system. As a result, high levels of latency, packet delay and loss emerges (Johari and Tan 2001).

  3. A good analogy here is the eight-track audio cartridge. While it is possible to design, produce and use a brand new eight-track cartridge today, the technology is obsolete and the sound quality, relative to digital audio technologies (e.g. compact disc) is poor.

  4. While a significant portion of pipeline infrastructure is subterranean, a tornado recently hit a natural gas pumping station in Tennessee (AP 2008), generating a massive fire.

References

  • Adger, N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque, C., Vickers, B. J., & Suda, T. S. (2004). Network border patrol: Preventing congestion collapse and promoting fairness in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 12(1), 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2004). LRFD-US-3. Bridge design specifications.

  • American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005). Report card for America’s infrastructure. URL: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm.

  • American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2009). Report card for America’s Infrastructure. URL: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/sites/default/files/RC2009_full_report.pdf.

  • Associated Press (AP) (2008). Firefighters contain massive gas fire in Tenn. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23023302/.

  • Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organization implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, J. (2007). Steam blast Jolts Midtown, killing one. New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/nyregion/19explode.html.

  • Borden, K. A., Schmidtlein, M. C., Emrich, C. T., Piegorsch, W. W., & Cutter, S. L. (2007). Vulnerability of U.S. cities to environmental hazards. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4(2).

  • Borgatti, L. (2005). Status of infrastructure in the LDCs: A cluster analysis. Background paper prepared for the least developed countries report 2006, UNCTAD, Geneva.

  • Caruson, K., & MacManus, S. A. (2007). Designing homeland security polity within a regional structure: A needs assessment of local security concerns. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4(2), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Changnon, S. A. (2008). Losses from sleet storms in the United States. Natural Hazards, 47, 465–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, R. L., & Scaparra, M. P. (2007). Protecting critical assets: The r-interdiction median problem with fortification. Geographical Analysis, 39(2), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter, S. L. (2006). Hazards, vulnerability and environmental justice. London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutter, S. L., & Finch, C. (2008). Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2301–2306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, M., & Yepes, T. (2003). Investing in infrastructure: What is needed from 2000 to 2010? World Bank. URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=636464.

  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2007). Capacity needs in the National Airspace System. URL: http://tinyurl.com/24attx.

  • Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) (2008). Why dams fail. URL: http://www.fema.gov/hazard/damfailure/why.shtm.

  • Forrey, P. (2007). Airline delays and consumer issues. Testimony before the house transportation and infrastructure subcommittee on aviation. URL: http://tinyurl.com/5jftzn.

  • Glanz, J. (2004). Sabotage taking toll on Iraq’s power lines. New York Times. June 11.

  • Grubesic, T. H., Matisziw, T. C., Murray, A. T., & Snedicker, D. (2008). Comparative approaches for assessing network vulnerability. International Regional Science Review, 31(1), 88–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H., & Murray, A. T. (2005). Spatial-historical landscapes of telecommunication network survivability. Telecommunications Policy, 29(11), 801–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H., & Murray, A. T. (2006). Vital nodes, interconnected infrastructures and the geographies of network survivability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(1), 64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H., Murray, A. T., & Mefford, J. N. (2007). Continuity in critical network infrastructures: Accounting for nodal disruptions. In A. T. Murray & T. H. Grubesic (Eds.), Critical infrastructure: Reliability and vulnerability. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. A. (2004). Defining risk. Financial Analysts Journal, 60(6), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johari, R., & Tan, D. K. H. (2001). End-to-end congestion control for the Internet: Delays and stability. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 9(6), 818–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, M. (2005). Computer system sabotage in critical infrastructure sectors. U.S. Secret Service and CERT Coordination Center/SEA, Washington, D.C.

  • Kramer, A. E. (2009). Gazprom shuts off gas links to Ukraine. New York Times. URL: http://tinyurl.com/3mb24nh.

  • Lewis, T. G. (2006). Critical infrastructure protection in homeland security. New York: Wiley.

  • Lichtenstein, A. G. (1993). The Silver Bridge collapse recounted. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 7(4), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, G. (2005). Pipeline sabotage is terrorist’s weapon of choice. Energy Security. URL: http://www.iags.org/n0328051.htm.

  • Lyons, W. (2010). Nabucco at center of gas politics. Wall Street Journal. URL: http://tinyurl.com/yehbd9g.

  • Mack, E. A., & Grubesic, T. H. (2009). Broadband provision and firm location in Ohio: An exploratory spatial analysis. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(3), 298–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marland, G., & Weinberg, A. M. (1988). Longevity of infrastructure. In J. H. Ausubel & R. Herman (Eds.), Cities and their vital systems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matisziw, T. C., Murray, A. T., & Grubesic, T. H. (2008). Exploring the vulnerability of network infrastructure to disruption. Annals of Regional Science. doi:10.1007/s00168-008-0235-x.

  • Matisziw, T. C., Murray, A. T., & Grubesic, T. H. (2010). Strategic network restoration. Networks and Spatial Economics, 10(3), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels, T., Chang, S., Peterson, K., Mikawoz, J., & Reed, D. (2007). Empirical framework for characterizing infrastructure failure interdependencies. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 13(3), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MW). (2008a). Vulnerability. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/.

  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MW). (2008b). Decay. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/.

  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MW). (2008c). Capacity. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/.

  • Minkel, J. R. (2008). The 2003 Northeast blackout—Five years later. Scientific American. URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=2003-blackout-five-years-later.

  • Murray, A. T., & Grubesic, T. H. (2007). Critical infrastructure: Reliability and vulnerability. Berlin: Springer.

  • Murray, A. T., Matisziw, T. C., & Grubesic, T. H. (2007). Critical network infrastructure analysis: Interdiction and system flow. Journal of Geographical Systems, 9(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, A. T., Matisziw, T. C., & Grubesic, T. H. (2008). A methodological overview of network vulnerability analysis. Growth and Change, 39(4), 573–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. J. (2007). Fatigue could loom large in bridge collapse. Design News. URL: http://tinyurl.com/5jclc8.

  • Nagle, J. (1984). Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks. Computer Communication Review, 14(4), 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2006). Terrorism and the chemical infrastructure: Protecting people and reducing vulnerabilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Transportation Safety Board. (2004). CSX freight train derailment and subsequent fire in the Howard street tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 18, 2001. URL: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/RAB0408.htm.

  • National Transportation Safety Board. (2008). Transportation for tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. URL: http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/.

  • Parfomak, P. W. (2005). Vulnerability of concentrated infrastructure: Background and policy options. CRS Report for Congress. URL: http://www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=55205&coll=limited.

  • Pederson, P., Dudenhoeffer, D., Hartley, S., & Permann, M. (2006). Critical infrastructure interdependency modeling: A survey of U.S. and international research. Idaho National Laboratory. URL: http://tinyurl.com/6fzweo.

  • Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, R. L. (2008). The infrastructure crisis. Civil Engineering. January.

  • Richardson, H. W., Gordon, P., & Moore II, J. E. (2006). The economic impacts of terrorist attacks. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

  • Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. K. (2001). Identifying, understanding and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine. December 11–25.

  • Sage, A. P., & White, E. B. (1980). Methodologies for risk and hazard assessment: A survey and status report. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 10(8), 425–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., Pielke, R., & Keykhah, M. (2003). Vulnerability and risk: Some thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 805–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidtlein, M. C., Deutsch, R. C., Piegorsch, W. W., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Analysis, 28(4), 1099–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tighe, S., Li, N., Falls, L. C., & Haas, R. (2000). Incorporating road safety into pavement management. Transportation Research Record, 1699, 1–10. doi:10.3141/1699-01.

  • Transportation Research Board. (2005). Inspection and management of bridges with fracture-critical details. URL: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_354.pdf.

  • U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (USCPSOTF). (2004). URL: https://reports.energy.gov/.

  • United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2008). URL: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/.

  • United States House of Representatives. (2006). A failure of initiative: The final report of the select Bipartisan Committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. URL: http://katrina.house.gov/full_katrina_report.htm.

  • White House. (2003). The national strategy for the physical protection of critical infrastructures and key assets. URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/physical.html.

  • Willis, H. L. (2002). Spatial electric load forecasting. New York: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Tony H. Grubesic

  2. Department of Geography, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Timothy C. Matisziw

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Timothy C. Matisziw

Authors
  1. Tony H. Grubesic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy C. Matisziw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony H. Grubesic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grubesic, T.H., Matisziw, T.C. A typological framework for categorizing infrastructure vulnerability. GeoJournal 78, 287–301 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-011-9411-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-011-9411-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation