Abstract
As concerns over the security of intercity connections intensify, the concept of urban network resilience has increasingly captured the attention of researchers in related fields. This study aimed to clarify the varying interpretations of urban network resilience among scholars and to identify the advancements and potential gaps in existing literature. The results indicated that differences in perceptions of urban networks have led scholars to define urban network resilience from two distinct perspectives. This divergence influenced the focal points of research, as well as the methodologies, structural measurement indicators, and optimization strategies employed in these studies. We argued for the need to further explore the concept of urban network resilience by considering the nuances of different urban networks, refining methodologies for the identification, description, and measurement of resilience, and recognizing the interconnections among various types and scales of urban networks. This review can provide scholars and policymakers with comprehensive insights into urban resilience, thereby assisting them in making more informed and effective decisions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
As economic globalization and regional integration progress, the swift advancements in modern communication and high-speed transportation technologies have propelled cities and regions into a sophisticated stage of networked development. This evolution has fostered complex interconnections among urban areas (Batty, 2013; Beaverstock et al., 2000; Derudder & Neal, 2018). Increasingly, scholars from urban planning and geography fields are focusing on urban networks, gradually establishing this focus as a new paradigm for assessing regional development (Shan et al., 2023). Scholars have utilized a variety of relational data sources, such as infrastructure lines (Derudder & Witlox, 2008; Liu et al., 2016), socio-economic connections (Chen & Jiang, 2022; Taylor et al., 2002, 2014), and factor flows (Cao et al., 2022), to analyze urban networks at different scales. On this basis, they have explored the urban networks’ spatial pattern characteristics (De Goei et al., 2010), spatial-temporal evolution trends (Dai et al., 2023), growth dynamics mechanisms (Yao & Li, 2022), externalities, and spillover effects (Mao et al., 2023).
Global urban development faces a multitude of intricate and unprecedented challenges. Cities worldwide are grappling with risks associated with recurring extreme natural events, such as extreme temperatures, heavy rainfall, floods, and droughts, all of which significantly threaten urban safety (Koks et al., 2019). Simultaneously, the socioeconomic environment is undergoing a subtle yet profound transformation, driven by several factors like the reshoring of manufacturing industries to the United States, trade tensions between China and the United States, the extensive impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine (AlKhatib et al., 2020). In response to these dynamics, the focus of urban development is shifting strategically from a traditional emphasis on "growth and efficiency" to a prioritization of "safety and stability". This strategic realignment is mirrored in urban studies, where there is a growing focus on enhancing urban and regional resilience (Liu et al., 2022; Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2019; Sharifi, 2019).
The term "resilience" derives from the Latin "resilio", meaning "to jump back" (Klein et al., 2003). Urban network resilience is a concept that has been developed by incorporating resilience into the study of urban networks (Champlin et al., 2023). This concept is utilized to examine the capacity of regional urban systems to withstand various disturbances, which has become a popular research topic in recent years (Li et al., 2021; Wei & Xiu, 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). Despite extensive research in this field, several limitations persist. Predominantly, most of the research consists of disparate case studies, lacking a cohesive synthesis. Additionally, the definition of "urban network resilience" varies significantly across different academic works, resulting in conceptual ambiguity. This study undertook a comprehensive literature review, categorizing the concept of urban network resilience identified in prior studies into two types. It further examined the research methodologies, structural measurement indicators, and optimization strategies employed in research of urban network resilience. Finally, the study concluded by delineating potential directions for future research on urban network resilience, aiming to guide further scholarly investigation in this field.
2 From urban network to urban network resilience
2.1 What is urban network?
In the context of economic globalization and regional integration, cities are increasingly engaging in various interactions. As a result, cities have become interconnected and have established diverse relationships with one another, giving rise to the emergence of urban networks spanning different spatial dimensions (Derudder and Neal, 2018; Pflieger and Rozenblat, 2010). Recently, scholarly attention in urban planning and geography has increasingly turned toward urban network research, heralding a new paradigm for assessing regional development (Shan et al., 2023). Scholars refer to spatial entities of different scales as nodes and the diverse interaction connections between these entities as edges to construct urban networks. This approach redefines regional research concerns into network-focused inquiries, enabling exploration through network analysis methodologies.
Given the complexities of urban networks, they can typically only be constructed from specific perspectives by utilizing one or several types of intercity interaction data (Hu and Lu, 2020). This leads to a diverse range of urban network configurations (Cao et al., 2022; Chen and Jiang, 2022; Derudder and Witlox, 2008), which can be broadly categorized into physical and organizational networks (Ma and Li, 2012; Malecki, 2002). Physical networks include various intercity infrastructure networks such as transportation, communication, energy networks, and ecological networks connecting different urban areas, all highly reliant on physical space. In contrast, organizational networks are intercity functional correlation networks based on the socio-economic connections among actors across cities and are less dependent on physical space, characterized by their flexibility and capacity for self-regulation (Mäkinen, 2001). These two types of urban networks significantly influence each other: the physical network underpins the organizational network, enhancing its efficacy, while the organizational network influences the development and evolution of the physical network.
2.2 Defining urban network resilience
Although urban network resilience has attract a wide range of attention, its definition is still unclear. Through a review of existing literature, we have identified two distinct concepts of urban network resilience. The conceptual nuances between these two types will be explored in the following section.
2.2.1 Resilience from urban network
Several studies have described urban network resilience as the ability to anticipate, withstand, react to, and adjust to the effects of various disturbances, as well as to recover or evolve by leveraging cooperative relationships with other cities in a specific area (Sheng et al., 2023; Wang & Ge, 2023; Wang et al., 2023). In this definition, resilience is viewed as an externality of urban network, which we refer to as resilience from urban network (RFUN). It is crucial to recognize that urban networks have a dual impact on how cities interact with disturbances (Foti et al., 2013) (see Fig. 1). Initially, studies primarily highlighted the positive externalities of urban networks, focusing on their role in enhancing the capacity of cities to deal with the disturbance. However, there has been increasing interest in the negative spillover effects of urban networks in recent years, emphasizing the necessity to better understand and mitigate the potential of urban networks to exacerbate the repercussions of disturbances (Kraemer et al., 2020; Von Braun, 2008).
Urban networks exhibit positive externalities when confronted with both short-term shocks and long-term growth challenges. In instances of abrupt upheavals like natural calamities or unforeseen incidents, urban networks enable cities to access resources such as personnel, supplies, information from neighboring cities. This support facilitates individuals, businesses, and governmental sectors in affected cities to improve their adaptive capabilities during the disruptive phase and expedite their recovery process thereafter (Champlin et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2017). For instance, the interconnected medical resources and workforce across different cities in China played a pivotal role in effectively containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, in response to persistent challenges like technological transformations and industrial renewal, the positive externalities of urban networks are evident in their capacity to facilitate the flow of knowledge, technology, and talents among cities. This exchange can continually enrich the city’s knowledge pool, thereby preventing technological lock-in and supporting sustainable development. For instance, several studies indicates that well-established intercity innovation networks play a crucial role in bolstering regional economic resilience (Boschma, 2015; Tóth et al., 2022).
The negative externalities of urban networks manifest in two ways. First, urban networks can serve as channels for the spread of harmful factors, such as pathogens, hazardous materials, and negative public sentiments, enabling their propagation across vast distances with pronounced impacts. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, urban agglomerations and megacities, characterized by significant population mobility, were especially vulnerable. The frequent movement of people between cities intensified the spread of the virus (Coven et al., 2023; Niu et al., 2021). Second, the development of urban networks increases the interdependence among cities, which heightens their susceptibility to cascading failures of cities (Balsa-Barreiro et al., 2020; Che et al., 2022). A case in point is the 2016 earthquake in Kumamoto, Japan, which disrupted local automobile manufacturing facilities. This event initiated a chain reaction throughout the supply chain, culminating in a substantial reduction in national automobile production levels (Klimova & Akimova, 2011).
2.2.2 Resilience of urban network
Some studies regarded urban network resilience as the ability of urban networks to withstand disturbances and maintain structural or functional integrity (Shan et al., 2023; van Ginkel et al., 2021; Wei & Pan, 2021). In this definition, resilience is identified as an intrinsic attribute of urban networks, referred to as resilience of urban network (ROUN). Like other networks, urban networks can be damaged by various disturbances, yet those that maintain their structural or functional integrity are deemed resilient. As mentioned above, urban networks can be categorized into two types: physical and organizational networks. The typical disturbance faced by these two types of urban networks may vary, leading to differences in how they respond and evolve in response to these disturbances (Ma & Li, 2012b). Therefore, we analyzed the resilience of each type of urban network separately (Fig. 2).
Physical networks, characterized by strong spatial dependence, are mainly influenced by disturbances that impact the physical environment, such as earthquakes, floods, armed conflicts, etc. (van Ginkel et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022). Due to their physical nature, it is typically straightforward to notice and repair structural and functional issues in a physical network within a short period. Therefore, the resilience of physical networks can be understood from the perspective of engineering or ecological resilience as the ability to withstand physical damage and sustain a certain level of connectivity to ensure the continuous flow of various factors between cities (Wang et al., 2019).
Organizational networks can be influenced by disturbances in two ways. On the one hand, disturbances that impact the physical environment may pose indirect effects on organizational networks. For example, severe weather conditions such as heavy rainfall and flooding may interrupt intercity transportation lines, thereby hindering the movement of individuals and goods among cities (van Ginkel et al., 2022). On the other hand, disturbances such as economic downturns, regional industrial shifts, market player relocations, and epidemics can have the potential to destabilize intercity organizational networks without causing damage to the physical environment (Kim & Jun, 2022). Unlike physical networks, disturbances typically do not alter the configuration of organizational networks directly. Instead, disturbances impact organizational networks indirectly by changing the behaviors of various actors within the networks. The response to disturbances involves a time lag, as numerous actors adjust their behaviors, making the effects on the organizational network potentially delayed. Once established, these behavioral patterns are challenging to reverse, thus resulting permanent changes in organizational networks (Burger & Meijers, 2016). Therefore, the analytical framework of evolutionary resilience is better appropriate for analyzing the resilience of organizational networks. From this perspective, the resilience of organizational networks can be defined as the capacity to sustain current intercity collaborative relationships when faced with specific natural disturbances or shifts in the social and economic landscape, while also continuously improving network configuration to facilitate long-term regional advancement.
2.3 Relationship between RFUN and ROUN
Based on the analysis above, we found that the emergence of two different definitions of urban network resilience stems from varying understandings of urban networks (Fig. 3). Research adopting the RFUN perspective viewed urban networks as complementary and collaborative relationships among cities. It was clear that such studies deem urban networks as unaffected under disturbances and the main concern was the performance of intercity relationship for supporting affected cities to handle and adjust to various disturbances. Moreover, these studies enhanced our understanding of the factors influencing regional resilience from a relational perspective, contributing to the existing research that typically concentrates on attribution factors (Balland et al., 2015; Hu et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). The studies oriented around ROUN perceive urban networks as symbols of specific regions from a spatial structure perspective (Yang et al., 2011). In contrast to RFUN studies, ROUN studies focused on the susceptibility of urban network structure to disruption, aiming to maintain their structural or functional integrity. In addition, this viewpoint enabled the utilization of network analysis methods (including complex network analysis and social network analysis) to achieve a more detailed examination of regional resilience (Shan et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2019).
Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that the two definitions of urban network resilience discussed above are interconnected. Typically, when cities encounter disturbances, both the individual cities and the urban network structure are affected simultaneously. Only urban networks that operate effectively under disturbances can demonstrate their externalities. Thus, ROUN serves as the basis for RFUN. On the other hand, RFUN reflects the effective cooperation mechanisms among cities to some extent, which can also be conducive to enhancing the ability of urban networks to deal with disturbances. In other words, RFUN can also impact ROUN.
3 Research progress in urban network resilience
After distinguishing the two concepts of urban network resilience, this study attemptted to provide a summary of previous studies in terms of research methodologies, characteristic indicators of resilience, and strategies for enhancing resilience (Fig. 4).
3.1 Methodology of urban network resilience research
RFUN and ROUN represent distinct concepts within the realm of urban network resilience, each with markedly different research methodologies. RFUN, essentially a type of urban network externality, primarily focuses on whether urban networks can provide sufficient support for cities within it to cope with various disturbances. In pursuit of this, several scholars utilized static structural indicators to describe network characteristics that might affect RFUN’s performance (Fang et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2022). Although these studies were inspiring, they primarily derived the relationships between various network structures and urban/regional resilience based theoretical analyses. To address those limitations, some scholars have applied a variety of econometric models to demonstrate and quantify the impact of urban networks on urban resilience (Balland et al., 2015; Kharrazi et al., 2017). For instance, Balland et al. executed a thorough analysis of how the flexibility of innovation collaboration networks influences the resilience of innovation outcomes across 366 metropolitan areas in the United States (Balland et al., 2015). Kharrzi et al. explored the interplay between the structural configuration of international trade networks and their resilience during the global financial crisis (Kharrazi et al., 2017).
On the other hand, ROUN is essentially the intrinsic structural resilience of urban networks. Research on ROUN primarily investigated whether urban networks can maintain their structural and functional integrity when faced with disturbance. Such studies mainly focused on accessing the robustness of physical networks against short-term shocks and the transformability of organizational networks to long-term changes. Although static structure measures were also utilized, the primary method for analyzing ROUN were dynamic analysis approaches. By examining how the key structural and functional characteristics of urban networks change under simulated or actual disturbance conditions, the ROUN was measured in a dynamic way. Due to challenges in obtaining real-time monitoring data for actual disturbances, simulated scenarios were more frequently used in existing studies. In terms of scenario simulation, scenarios involving random failures and deliberate attacks are particularly prevalent (Burleson-Lesser et al., 2020). While nodes and edges are randomly removed to simulate random failures triggered by disturbances like natural disasters or public health emergencies, edges were sequentially removed to simulate deliberate attacks such as armed conflicts or technological embargoes (Albert et al., 2000; Bombelli et al., 2020)s. Moreover, several studies identified pivotal and susceptible nodes or links by examining the impacts of specific node or link failures within urban networks (Karakoc et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2019).
3.2 Static structural indicators of urban networks resilience
Both RFUN and ROUN studies used static structural indicators to measure urban network resilience. However, as previous sections have already demonstrated the distinctions between the two definitions of urban network resilience, it is crucial to determine how the commonly used indicators represent urban network resilience and whether the resilience measured is ROUN or RFUN.
RFUN, a type of urban network externality, can be measured at both the individual city level and the overall network level (Fang et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2022). For individual cities, urban networks serve as conduits to access external resources. The degree of a city’s integration into urban networks can directly influence the support it receives from other cities and is often measured by indicators such as degree, closeness, and betweenness centrality. Cities with higher centrality are generally more interconnected with other cities, allowing for more efficient access to external resources. This high centrality helps mitigate the effects of disruptions, minimize losses, and accelerate recovery (Che et al., 2022; Karakoc et al., 2023). Therefore, those nodes are regarded as resilient in terms of RFUN. For the entire region, urban networks play a crucial role in optimizing the distribution of regional resources, thereby bolstering the region’s ability to manage disturbances effectively. Global structure indicators that signify the level of hierarchy (degree distribution coefficient) and assortativity (degree correlation coefficient) are most utilized to measure RFUN at the overall network level. Most scholars believe that urban networks characterized by core-peripheral and disassortative patterns, which have high degree distribution and negative degree correlation, are considered resilient from the RFUN perspective (Crespo et al., 2014; Fang et al., 2023; Shi et al., 2022). These network patterns facilitate the efficient distribution of elements and enhance exchanges between core and peripheral areas, enabling quick responses to sudden disruptions in certain cities and preventing long-term technological lock-in issues. Indicators signifying the agglomeration level of the entire urban network are also utilized in RFUN studies. While some scholars argue that high agglomeration fosters a trust-based environment beneficial for RFUN, others caution that excessive agglomeration may lead to regional technological lock-in risk, which is harmful to RFUN.
ROUN, the structural resilience of urban networks, encompasses both robustness against shocks and transformability for long-term development. The robustness of urban networks is often accessed by the level of structural redundancy and modularity. Key indicators for assessing network redundancy include network density, average number of independent paths, and standard network structure entropy (Hou & Sun, 2022; Zhang & Huang, 2022), while the modularity coefficient is often utilized to characterize the network’s modularity level (Zhang et al., 2021). Furthermore, some researchers have applied hierarchy and transmission indicators, commonly employed to characterize RFUN, to describe ROUN. However, the explanations for why urban networks with high hierarchy and transmission levels are considered resilient from the ROUN perspective vary. For example, it has been highlighted that due to the prominence of the key components, networks with pronounced hierarchical structures are resilient to random failures but vulnerable to deliberate attacks (Wei & Pan, 2021). Additionally, urban networks with high transmission levels are deemed resilient due to fewer intermediate nodes between each node pair, reducing the potential for link interruptions (Guo et al., 2022). Despite these insights, the long-term transformability of urban networks has garnered less attention. Only a few scholars have attempted to analyze the transformability of the urban network, using the indicators of structural equilibrium and reciprocity to characterize urban network resilience. It is argued that urban networks with higher balanced and reciprocal structures are more favorable for the long-term development of synergistic or complementary urban networks(Li & Zhen, 2023; Zhang & Huang, 2022).
3.3 Strategies for improving urban network resilience
The ultimate objective of urban network resilience research is to optimize the layout of urban networks to support safe regional development. Within the realm of RFUN research, the key aim is to enhance urban networks’ positive impact on facilitating regional cooperation in handling disruptions, while minimizing their negative effects on the spread of disturbances and chain reactions. Strategies proposed to achieve this goal often emphasize enhancing connectivity and efficiency within urban networks, as well as establishing smoother connections between central and peripheral nodes (Peng et al., 2018; Ye & Qian, 2021). In the current era of economic globalization and regional integration, collaboration among cities is not only advantageous but also an irreversible trend in urban development. Therefore, a cautious approach is necessary to mitigate potential negative consequences associated with urban networks to ensure the safe development of interconnected urban areas. In response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have explored the relationship between intercity human mobility and virus spread (Boyce & Katz, 2021; Coven et al., 2023; H. Zhang et al., 2023), suggesting that developing polycentric urban networks and establishing robust surveillance systems for monitoring intercity resource exchanges could effectively counter the negative impacts of urban networks (Jia et al., 2020; Niu et al., 2021).
From the perspective of ROUN, the primary objective of urban network optimization is to bolster the refinement of the network structure, ensuring its ability to withstand shocks while continuously transforming to meet the long-term development requirements of cities within them. Previous research predominantly concentrates on strategies to improve the robustness of urban networks, with scholars commonly asserting that the redundancy of nodes and connections plays a pivotal role in enhancing urban networks’ resilience to disruptions (Xu et al., 2021). Additionally, it is suggested that establishing a polycentric and flat spatial configuration can effectively mitigate disturbances that may disrupt the spatial organization pattern (Wang et al., 2024). Furthermore, it is also of great significance to safeguard the key nodes and edges within the network, maintaining their secure connections with other cities in the region to reduce the likelihood of urban nodes becoming isolated from the broader network (Peng et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2022).
4 Future research agenda of urban network resilience
4.1 Toward in-depth resilience connotation of various urban networks
By integrating studies on urban networks and resilience, research on urban network resilience can shed light on traditional urban network studies that overlook potential disturbances, as well as on traditional urban and regional studies that solely focus on attributive factors. Currently, research on urban network resilience is still in its early stages, with prevalent confusion due to varied definitions of the concept. We identified two distinct types of urban network resilience concepts that have emerged in prior research: RFUN and ROUN. From the RFUN perspective, urban networks are viewed as pathways for affected cities to receive support from others. These researches emphasize minimizing losses for both the impacted cities and the entire region by fostering collaborative intercity relationships. The ROUN perspective focuses on the structural resilience of urban networks when faced with disturbances, focusing on their capacity to absorb and recover from disturbances.
Further investigation is required to explore how urban networks respond to various real disturbances, thereby deepening our comprehension of urban network resilience (Meerow et al., 2016). A key question in this field is to determine the primary focus of resilience and the role urban networks play in specific disturbance scenarios. By elucidating the concept theoretically, the integration of resilience into urban network research can be further advanced. Furthermore, recognizing the unique characteristics of different urban networks is vital in such research. Especially for organizational networks, it is essential to thoroughly evaluate the data types employed in constructing the network and the nature of depicted intercity connections. Conducting resilience analyses of urban networks based on these considerations is crucial to ensure that the research outcomes offer valuable insights for relevant policy decision-making.
4.2 Optimize research methodology for urban network resilience
Although there are already a considerable number of studies exploring urban network resilience (Bombelli et al., 2020; Crespo et al., 2014; Karakoc et al., 2023), the research methodologies in this field remain underdeveloped. Enhancements are necessary in the construction of urban networks, the selection of characteristic indicators, and the design of measurement methods.
Firstly, it is advisable to incorporate more details when constructing urban networks. A prevalent limitation in existing studies is the reliance on a simplistic binary network model that overlooks the varying strengths of connections within the networks (Wang et al., 2023). In reality, urban networks are typically heterogeneous and asymmetric, meaning that interactions between cities often exhibit diverse and unequal intensities (Kharrazi et al., 2017). Therefore, future research should integrate the specific characteristics of nodes and edges and adopt a weighted network model in urban network resilience research. This methodological approach is expected to increase the depth of analysis, leading to more valuable and insightful findings for enhancing urban network resilience (Wei & Xiu, 2020).
Secondly, future research should validate the effectiveness of diverse network structure indicators for representing urban network resilience, both theoretically and empirically. Currently, numerous researchers employ similar indicators to describe structure characteristics related to urban network resilience, frequently overlooking the subtle differences across various urban networks. Moreover, given the inherent disparities among types of urban networks, employing a uniform set of indicators is not only inappropriate but can also be problematic. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen empirical studies on the relationship between urban network structure indicators and resilience, and thus provide more tailored and rational indicator sets for the measurement of urban network resilience.
Thirdly, existing research has primarily focused on evaluating the robustness of urban networks. However, resilience encompasses a broader range of characteristics beyond the robustness. Future studies should enhance measurement techniques to capture the full spectrum of urban network resilience. For physical urban networks, it is crucial to assess their ability to maintain and restore functionality by considering the intercity flows they facilitate (Goldbeck et al., 2019). For organizational urban networks, adopting an analytical framework of evolutionary resilience can help analyze how different disturbances impact the formation, maintenance, and expansion of intercity connections over time (Marull et al., 2015). Moreover, the prevalent dynamic simulation approach utilized in prior research is adapted from studies on infrastructure network resilience assessment, demonstrating applicability to regional physical networks. While this method has been employed in evaluating the resilience of organizational networks, there is a requirement for additional investigation into the optimal design of disturbance scenarios and the interpretation of measurement results.
4.3 Conduct resilience research on interdependent urban networks
Currently, studies on urban network resilience tend to concentrate on a single type or scale of urban network. However, various urban networks are interconnected and interdependent (Kenett et al., 2014; Y. Li and Shi, 2015). For instance, the intercity infrastructure network serves as a foundation for the establishment and evolution of various intercity organizational relationships. The organizational network can also be influenced by the continuous evolution of the physical network. Additionally, there are intricate interactions among urban networks of different scales (Pflieger & Rozenblat, 2010). It is commonly recognized that in the era of globalization, the expansion and evolution of local or regional urban networks are greatly influenced by urban networks at national or global scales (Li and Phelps, 2018). Therefore, it is plausible to anticipate that under disturbance scenarios, risk factors will disseminate across various types and scales of urban networks, potentially leading to devastating cascading failures (Goldbeck et al., 2019; Havlin and Kenett, 2015). Consequently, focusing solely on a single type or scale in resilience research may introduce biases, potentially impeding a comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing urban network resilience and even leading to misinterpretations.
To achieve a more holistic understanding, future research should not only explore the resilience connotation, characteristics, and optimization strategies of specific types of urban networks but also consider their interdependence and coordination. This requires a detailed theoretical examination of the correlations between different types and scales of urban networks. Concurrently, there is a need to refine the methodologies of network construction and resilience measurement for multi-type and multi-scale complex urban networks, laying the groundwork for empirical studies (Caschili et al., 2015). Such studies are beneficial for thoroughly understanding how disturbances affect regional urban systems and can provide a scientific reference for policy decision-making in urban planning, emergency management, and other related fields.
5 Conclusion
Urban network resilience has attracted considerable interest from researchers across various disciplines. The purpose of this research was to clarify the definition of urban network resilience, summarize the research methodologies, structural measurement indicators, and optimization strategies employed in existing studies, and thus identify potential research gaps for future studies.
Through a comprehensive literature review, this paper categorized the definition of urban network resilience in relevant studies into two types: RFUN and ROUN. Urban networks, viewed as conduits through which cities garner support from others, position RFUN as a type of urban network externality related to resilience. Studies have characterized RFUN using static structural indicators based on theoretical analysis, assessed the impact of urban networks on urban or regional resilience using econometric methods, and recommended strategies to harness intercity collaborative relationships to minimize losses. On the other hand, scholars advocating the ROUN perspective interpret urban networks as symbols of urban systems from a spatial structure standpoint, considering ROUN to be an intrinsic structural characteristic of urban networks. Relevant studies have analyzed the structural resilience of various urban network types using both static indicators and dynamic simulation methods, subsequently proposing strategies to assist urban networks in maintaining their structural and functional integrity.
We recommended that future research deepen the interpretation of urban network resilience by examining the role of urban networks with distinct characteristics in real-world disturbance scenarios. Adopting a weighted network model could enable a more detailed integration of the varied strengths of intercity connections. Additionally, it is suggested to develope and utilizemore precise and appropriate indicator sets tailored to the specific resilience of specific urban networks, and create rational evaluation techniques to capture the entire spectrum of urban networks. Given the increasing interdependencies among various types and scales of urban networks, it is essential to study the resilience of multi-type and multi-scale complex urban networks to provide more practical insights for policy decision-making.
References
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A. L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406(6794), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/35019019
AlKhatib, M., El Barachi, M., AleAhmad, A., Oroumchian, F., & Shaalan, K. (2020). A sentiment reporting framework for major city events: Case study on the China-United States trade war. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121426
Balland, P. A., Rigby, D., & Boschma, R. (2015). The technological resilience of US cities. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsv007
Balsa-Barreiro, J., Vié, A., Morales, A. J., & Cebrián, M. (2020). Deglobalization in a hyper-connected world. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0403-x
Batty, M. (2013). The New Science of Cities. MIT Press.
Beaverstock, J. V., Smith, R. G., Taylor, P. J., Walker, D. R. F., & Lorimer, H. (2000). Globalization and world cities: Some measurement methodologies. Applied Geography, 20(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-6228(99)00016-8
Bombelli, A., Santos, B. F., & Tavasszy, L. (2020). Analysis of the air cargo transport network using a complex network theory perspective. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 138, 101959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101959
Boschma, R. (2015). Towards an Evolutionary Perspective on Regional Resilience. Regional Studies, 49(5), 733–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.959481
Boyce, M. R., & Katz, R. (2021). COVID-19 and the proliferation of urban networks for health security. Health Policy And Planning, 36(3), 357–359. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa194
Burger, M. J., & Meijers, E. J. (2016). Agglomerations and the rise of urban network externalities. Papers in Regional Science, 95(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12223
Burleson-Lesser, K., Morone, F., Tomassone, M. S., & Makse, H. A. (2020). K-core robustness in ecological and financial networks. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 3357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59959-4
Cao, Z., Derudder, B., Dai, L., & Peng, Z. (2022). ‘Buzz-and-pipeline’ dynamics in Chinese science: The impact of interurban collaboration linkages on cities’ innovation capacity. Regional Studies, 56(2), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1906410
Caschili, S., Medda, F. R., & Wilson, A. (2015). An Interdependent Multi-Layer Model: Resilience of International Networks. Networks and Spatial Economics, 15(2), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-014-9274-2
Champlin, C., Sirenko, M., & Comes, T. (2023). Measuring social resilience in cities: An exploratory spatio-temporal analysis of activity routines in urban spaces during Covid-19. Cities, 135, 104220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104220
Che, L., Xu, J., Chen, H., Sun, D., Wang, B., Zheng, Y., Yang, X., & Peng, Z. (2022). Evaluation of the Spatial Effect of Network Resilience in the Yangtze River Delta: An Integrated Framework for Regional Collaboration and Governance under Disruption. Land, 11(8), 1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081359
Chen, Y., & Jiang, A. (2022). Spatial characteristics and complexity of the urban economic network structure based on the secure Internet of Things. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 35, 100729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2022.100729
Coven, J., Gupta, A., & Yao, I. (2023). JUE Insight: Urban flight seeded the COVID-19 pandemic across the United States. Journal Urban Economics, 133, 103489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2022.103489
Crespo, J., Suire, R., & Vicente, J. (2014). Lock-in or lock-out? How structural properties of knowledge networks affect regional resilience. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbt006
Dai, L., Derudder, B., Cao, Z., & Ji, Y. (2023). Examining the evolving structures of intercity knowledge networks: The case of scientific collaboration in China. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 27(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2022.2042365
De Goei, B., Burger, M. J., Van Oort, F. G., & Kitson, M. (2010). Functional Polycentrism and Urban Network Development in the Greater South East, United Kingdom: Evidence from Commuting Patterns, 1981–2001. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1149–1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903365102
Derudder, B., & Neal, Z. (2018). Uncovering Links Between Urban Studies and Network Science. Networks and Spatial Economics, 18(3), 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-019-09453-w
Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2008). Mapping world city networks through airline flows: Context, relevance, and problems. Journal of Transport Geography, 16(5), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.12.005
Fang, Y., Su, X., Huang, Z., & Guo, B. (2023). Structural Characteristics and Resilience Evaluation of Tourism Flow Networks in Five Major Urban Agglomerations in Coastal China: From the Perspective of Evolutionary Resilience. Economic Geography, 42(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2022.02.022 (in Chinese)
Foti, N. J., Pauls, S., & Rockmore, D. N. (2013). Stability of the world trade web over time–an extinction analysis. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37(9), 1889–1910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2013.04.009
Goldbeck, N., Angeloudis, P., & Ochieng, W. Y. (2019). Resilience assessment for interdependent urban infrastructure systems using dynamic network flow models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 188:62–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.007
Guo, W., Zhong, Y., & Feng, X. (2022). Research on the resilience of China′s high-speed rail urban network from the perspective of vulnerability. Geographical Research, 41(5), 1371–1387. (in Chinese).
Havlin, S., & Kenett, D. Y. (2015). Cascading failures in interdependent economic networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Modeling and Simulation, plus Econophysics Colloquium 2014 (pp. 87-97). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20591-5_8
Hou, L., & Sun, J. (2022). Evaluation of network structure resilience of Chengdu-Chongqing urban agglomeration from the perspective of complex networks. World Regional Studies, 31(3), 561–571. (in Chinese).
Hu, J., & Lu, Y. (2020). Progress, thoughts, and prospect of urban network research based on enterprise perspective. Progress in Geography, 39(9), 1587–1596. (in Chinese).
Hu, X., Dong, K., & Yang, Y. (2021). An analytical framework on regional economic resilience from the perspective of evolutionary strategic coupling. Geographical Research, 40(12), 3272–3286. (in Chinese).
Jia, J. S., Lu, X., Yuan, Y., Xu, G., Jia, J., & Christakis, N. A. (2020). Population flow drives spatio-temporal distribution of COVID-19 in China. Nature, 582(7812), 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2284-y
Karakoc, D. B., Konar, M., Puma, M. J., & Varshney, L. R. (2023). Structural chokepoints determine the resilience of agri-food supply chains in the United States. Nature Food, 4(7), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00793-y
Kenett, D. Y., Gao, J., Huang, X., Shao, S., Vodenska, I., Buldyrev, S. V., Paul, G., Stanley, H. E., & Havlin, S. (2014). Network of Interdependent Networks: Overview of Theory and Applications. In G. D’Agostino & A. Scala (Eds.), Networks of Networks: The Last Frontier of Complexity (pp. 3–36). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03518-5_1
Kharrazi, A., Rovenskaya, E., & Fath, B. D. (2017). Network structure impacts global commodity trade growth and resilience. PloS One, 12(2), e0171184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171184
Kim, Y. L., & Jun, B. (2022). Inside out: Human mobility big data show how COVID-19 changed the urban network structure in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 15(3), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsac028
Klein, R. J., Nicholls, R. J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 5(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2004.02.001
Klimova, N., & Akimova, A. (2011). Supply Chain Security. Tools, Trends, and Techniques: Toyota and Honda cases. JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY.
Koks, E. E., Rozenberg, J., Zorn, C., Tariverdi, M., Vousdoukas, M., Fraser, S. A., Hall, J. W., & Hallegatte, S. (2019). A global multi-hazard risk analysis of road and railway infrastructure assets. Nature Communications, 10(1), 2677. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10442-3
Kraemer, M. U. G., Yang, C.-H., Gutierrez, B., Wu, C.-H., Klein, B., Pigott, D. M., Open COVID-19 Data Working Group, Du Plessis, L., Faria, N. R., Li, R., Hanage, W. P., Brownstein, J. S., Layan, M., Vespignani, A., Tian, H., Dye, C., Pybus, O. G., & Scarpino, S. V. (2020). The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science, 368(6490), 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb4218
Li, Z., & Zhen, F. (2023). The Prospect of the Research on the “Resilience Connection” of Urban-rural Space: Connotation Analysis and Theoretical Framework Construction. Urban Development Studies., 5, 11–17. (in Chinese) (in Chinese).
Li, G., Kou, C., & Wen, F. (2021). The dynamic development process of urban resilience: From the perspective of interaction and feedback. Cities. 114, 103206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103206
Li, Y., & Phelps, N. (2018). Megalopolis unbound: Knowledge collaboration and functional polycentricity within and beyond the Yangtze River Delta Region in China, 2014. Urban Studies, 55(2), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016656971
Li, Y., & Shi, L. (2015). The resilience of interdependent industrial symbiosis networks: A case of Yixing economic and technological development zone. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12267
Liu, X., Derudder, B., & Wu, K. (2016). Measuring Polycentric Urban Development in China: An Intercity Transportation Network Perspective. Regional Studies, 50(8), 1302–1315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1004535
Liu, Y., Ji, J., Xu, T., & Zhang, X. (2021). The impact of strategic coupling on regional economic resilience under globalization: A case study of Guangdong province. Geographical Research, 40(12), 3382–3398. (in Chinese).
Liu, L., Lei, Y., Zhuang, M., & Ding, S. (2022). The impact of climate change on urban resilience in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Science of the Total Environment, 827, 154157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154157
Ma, X., & Li, G. (2012b). Research Methods for World City Network and Relevant Inspirations. Progress in Geography, 31(2), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.02.015 (in Chinese)
Ma, X., & Li, G. (2012). Progress and Application Practice in Western City Network Studies. Urban Planning International, 27(4), 65–70. (in Chinese).
Mäkinen, H. (2001). On the emergence and structure of a new regional network. Human Systems Management, 20(3), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-2001-20307
Malecki, E. J. (2002). Hard and Soft Networks for Urban Competitiveness. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 929–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220128381
Mao, B., Gu, J., & Lu, Q. (2023). A pipeline for urban knowledge spillover: Based on the internal linkage of cross-regional multilocation enterprises. Cities, 143, 104585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104585
Marull, J., Font, C., & Boix, R. (2015). Modelling urban networks at mega-regional scale: Are increasingly complex urban systems sustainable? Land Use Policy, 43, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.014
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
Niu X., Yue Y., & Liu S. (2021). Negative effects of massive intercity population movement on the security of urban agglomerations. Journal of Natural Resource, 36(9), 2181. https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20210902
Peng, C., Yuan, M., Gu, C., Peng, Z., & Ming, T. (2017). A review of the theory and practice of regional resilience. Sustainable Cities and Society, 29, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.12.003
Peng, C., Chen, S., & Wang, B. (2019). Analyzing City Network’s Structural Resilience Under Disruption Scenarios: A Case Study of Passenger Transport Network in the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River. Economic Geography, 39(8), 9. (in Chinese).
Peng, C., Lin, yingzi, & Gu, C. (2018). Evaluation and optimization strategy of city network structural resilience in the middle reaches of Yangtze River. Geographical Research, 37(6), 1193. https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201806010 (in Chinese)
Pflieger, G., & Rozenblat, C. (2010). Introduction. Urban Networks and Network Theory: The City as the Connector of Multiple Networks. Urban Studies. 47(13), 2723–2735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010377368
Ribeiro, P. J. G., & Gonçalves, L. A. P. J. (2019). Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101625
Shan, X., Xinran, W., Huadu, T., & Ding, W. (2023). Spatio-temporal evolution of population mobility differentiation patterns in a pandemic context: Based on a network perspective. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 14(1), 2240945. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2023.2240945
Sharifi, A. (2019). Resilient urban forms: A macro-scale analysis. Cities, 85, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.023
Sheng, H., Dai, X., & He, C. (2023). Gone with the epidemic? The spatial effects of the Covid-19 on global investment network. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England), 156, 102978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102978
Shi, J., Wang, X., Wang, C., Liu, H., Miao, Y., & Ci, F. (2022). Evaluation and Influencing Factors of Network Resilience in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area: A Structural Perspective. Sustainability, 14(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138005
Taylor, P. J., Catalano, G., & Walker, D. R. F. (2002). Measurement of the World City Network. Urban Studies, 39(13), 2367–2376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220080011
Taylor, P. J., Derudder, B., Faulconbridge, J., Hoyler, M., & Ni, P. (2014). Advanced Producer Service Firms as Strategic Networks, Global Cities as Strategic Places. Economic Geography, 90(3), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecge.12040
Tóth, G., Elekes, Z., Whittle, A., Lee, C., & Kogler, D. F. (2022). Technology Network Structure Conditions the Economic Resilience of Regions. Economic Geography, 98(4), 355–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2022.2035715
van Ginkel, K. C., Dottori, F., Alfieri, L., Feyen, L., & Koks, E. E. (2021). Flood risk assessment of the European road network. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 21(3):1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1011-2021
van Ginkel, K. C. H., Koks, E. E., de Groen, F., Nguyen, V. D., & Alfieri, L. (2022). Will river floods “tip” European road networks? A robustness assessment. Transportation Research PartD-Transpor and Environment, 108, 103332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103332
Von Braun, J. (2008). Food and financial crises: Implications for agriculture and the poor. Food Policy Report No 20, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.
Wang, H., & Ge, Q. (2023). Spatial association network of economic resilience and its influencing factors: Evidence from 31 Chinese provinces. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–14.
Wang, W., Yang, S., Stanley, H. E., & Gao, J. (2019). Local floods induce large-scale abrupt failures of road networks. Nature Communications, 10(1), 2114.
Wang, X., Xu, S., & Wang, D. (2023). Analysis of regional resilience network from the perspective of relational and dynamic equilibrium. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425, 138859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138859
Wang, C., Chen, Z., Yu, B., Wu, B., Wei, Y., Yuan, Y., Liu, S., Tu, Y., Li, Y., & Wu, J. (2024). Impacts of COVID-19 on urban networks: Evidence from a novel approach of flow measurement based on nighttime light data. Computers Environment And Urban Systems, 107, 102056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2023.102056
Wei, Y., & Xiu, C. (2020). Study on the concept and analytical framework of city network resilience. Progress in Geography, 39(3), 488–502. (in Chinese).
Wei, M., Fang, S. J., Chen, S., Lin, R. Y., Huang, Y., & Yang, L. (2022). Resilience Assessment of Road Networks in the Extremely Severe Disaster Areas of the Wenchuan Earthquake. Frontiers in Earth Science, 10, 834302. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.834302
Wei, S., & Pan, J. (2021). Network structure resilience of cities at the prefecture level and above in China. Acta Geograophic Sinica, 76(6), 1394–1407. https://doi.org/10.11821/dlxb202106006 (in Chinese)
Xu, X., Chen, A., Xu, G., Yang, C., & Lam, W. H. (2021). Enhancing network resilience by adding redundancy to road networks. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 154, 102448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102448
Xu, W., Zhou, J., Zhou, M., Zheng, J., & Liu, C. (2022). Resilience Evolution and Driving Mechanism of Collaborative Innovation Network in the Yangtze River Delta. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 39(3), 40–49. (in Chinese)
Yang, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., & Bai, L. (2022). A Review of Complex Network Theory and Its Application in the Resilience of Public Transportation Systems. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 35(4), 215. (in Chinese)
Yang, Y., Leng, B., Tan, Y., & Li, T. (2011). Review on world city studies and their implication in urban systems. Geographical Research, 30(6), 1009. https://doi.org/10.11821/yj2011060005 (in Chinese)
Yao, L., & Li, J. (2022). Intercity innovation collaboration and the role of high-speed rail connections: Evidence from Chinese co-patent data. Regional Studies, 56(11), 1845–1857. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.2008340
Ye, S., & Qian, Z. (2021). The Economic Network Resilience of the Guanzhong Plain City Cluster, China: A network analysis from the evolutionary perspective. Growth and Change, 52(4), 2391–2411. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12530
Zhang, X., & Huang, Y. (2022). What factors affect the structural resilience of urban networks during COVID-19 epidemic? A comparative analysis in China. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(8), 858–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2108928
Zhang, Y., Song, R., Zhang, K., & Wang, T. (2021). The Characteristics and Modes of Urban Network Evolution in the Yangtze River Delta in China from 1990 to 2017. Ieee Access, 9, 5531–5544. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048948
Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., He, S., Fang, Y., Cheng, Y., Shi, Z., Shao, C., Li, C., Ying, S., Gong, Z., Liu, Y., Dong, L., Sun, Y., Jia, J., Stanley, H. E., & Chen, J. (2023). A general urban spreading pattern of COVID-19 and its underlying mechanism. NPJ Urban Sustainability, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00082-4
Zhao, R., Fang, C., & Liu, H. (2020). Progress and prospect of urban resilience research. Progress in Geography, 39(10), 1717–1731. (in Chinese).
Acknowledgments
Not Applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant number 2020YFB2103901), the National Natural Science Foundation of China General Program (Grant number 52178048), the National Natural Science Foundation of China General Program (Grant number 52278071), the Anhui Province University Outstanding Scientific Research and Innovation Team (Grant number 2022AH010021), the China State Scholarship Fund (Grant number 202206260214).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Ren Jie and Yan Wentao conceived the study and wrote the manuscript. Yan Wentao participated in critically revising the content of the paper. Huang Yuting and Li zihao participated in proofreading and polishing the language. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Availability of data and material
Not Applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Jie, R., Wentao, Y., Yuting, H. et al. Defining urban network resilience: a review. FURP 2, 14 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44243-024-00039-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44243-024-00039-w