Structural robustness and service reachability in urban settings

  • Sofiane Abbar
  • Tahar Zanouda
  • Javier Borge-Holthoefer
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue on Data Mining for Smart Cities

Abstract

The concept of city or urban resilience has emerged as one of the key challenges for the next decades. As a consequence, institutions like the United Nations or Rockefeller Foundation have embraced initiatives that increase or improve it. These efforts translate into funded programs both for action “on the ground” and to develop quantification of resilience, under the for of an index. Ironically, on the academic side there is no clear consensus regarding how resilience should be quantified, or what it exactly refers to in the urban context. Here we attempt to link both extremes providing an example of how to exploit large, publicly available, worldwide urban datasets, to produce objective insight into one of the possible dimensions of urban resilience. We do so via well-established methods in complexity science, such as percolation theory—which has a long tradition at providing valuable information on the vulnerability in complex systems. Our findings uncover large differences among studied cities, both regarding their infrastructural fragility and the imbalances in the distribution of critical services.

Keywords

Complex networks City resilience City robustness Percolation LBSNs 

References

  1. Albert R, Jeong H, Barabási A-L (2000) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406(6794):378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcaute E, Molinero C, Hatna E, Murcio R, Vargas-Ruiz C, Masucci AP, Batty M (2016) Cities and regions in britain through hierarchical percolation. R Soc Open Sci 3(4):150691MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrington-Leigh C, Millard-Ball A (2017) The world’s user-generated road map is more than 80% complete. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0180698.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180698
  4. Berry BJL, Pred A (1965) Central place studies: a bibliography of theory and applications, vol 1. Regional Science Research Institute, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollobás B (1985) Random graphs. Academic, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Boykov Y, Kolmogorov V (2004) An experimental comparison of min-cut/max-flow algorithms for energy minimization in vision. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 26(9):1124–1137CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Buldyrev SV, Parshani R, Paul G, Stanley HE, Havlin S (2010) Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature 464(7291):1025–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaway DS, Newman ME, Strogatz SH, Watts DJ (2000) Network robustness and fragility: percolation on random graphs. Phys Rev Lett 85(25):5468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardillo A, Scellato S, Latora V, Porta S (2006) Structural properties of planar graphs of urban street patterns. Phys Rev E 73:066107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen C, Lu C, Huang Q, Yang Q, Gunopulos D, Guibas L (2016) City-scale map creation and updating using gps collections. In: Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ’16, pp 1465–1474, New York, NY, USA, ACMGoogle Scholar
  11. Christaller W (1966) Central places in southern Germany. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen R, Erez K, Ben-Avraham D, Havlin S (2000) Resilience of the internet to random breakdowns. Phys Rev Lett 85(21):4626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gao J, Buldyrev SV, Stanley HE, Havlin S (2012) Networks formed from interdependent networks. Nat Phys 8(1):40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hao J, Orlin JB (1994) A faster algorithm for finding the minimum cut in a directed graph. J Algorithms 17(3):424–446MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Jiang B, Claramunt C (2004) Topological analysis of urban street networks. Environ Plan 31(1):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li D, Fu B, Wang Y, Lu G, Berezin Y, Stanley HE, Havlin S (2015) Percolation transition in dynamical traffic network with evolving critical bottlenecks. Proc Nat Acad Sci 112(3):669–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Louf R, Barthelemy M (2014) A typology of street patterns. J R Soc Interface 11(101):20140924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M (2016) Defining urban resilience: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 147:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Porta S, Crucitti P, Latora V (2006) The network analysis of urban streets: a dual approach. Physica A 369(2):853–866CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Stanojevic R, Abbar S, Thirumuruganathan S, Morales GDF, Chawla S, Filali F, Aleimat A (2018) Road network fusion for incremental map updates. In: To appear in the special volume of Springer’s (Lecture notes in cartography and geoinformation (LBS 2018.)). Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Stoer M, Wagner F (1997) A simple min-cut algorithm. J ACM 44(4):585–591MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang J (2015) Resilience of self-organised and top-down planned cities. A case study on london and beijing street networks. PLoS ONE 10(12):1–20Google Scholar
  23. Yang D, Zhang D, Chen L, Qu B (2015) Nationtelescope: monitoring and visualizing large-scale collective behavior in LBSNs. J Netw Comput Appl 55:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yang D, Zhang D, Qu B (2016) Participatory cultural mapping based on collective behavior data in location-based social networks. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 7(3):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Qatar Computing Research Institute - HBKUDohaQatar
  2. 2.Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3-UOC)Universitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations