Road networks are essential to societal functioning yet remain highly vulnerable to natural hazards and cascading disruptions. This study presents a systematic review of road network resilience, synthesizing resilience metrics, assessment methods, and research gaps. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 109 peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2025 were analyzed from the ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The results indicate that resilience assessment is primarily based on topology-based, functional performance-based, and hybrid metrics, with 31% of studies focusing on robustness and 25% emphasizing vulnerability and preparedness, while only 4% adopt fully integrated resilience frameworks. Methodologically, conventional approaches dominate the literature, including network analysis (24%), GIS-based methods (15%), and uncertainty modeling techniques (15%), alongside traffic assignment, traffic simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast, emerging approaches such as graph neural networks, deep reinforcement learning, digital twins, and hybrid data-driven frameworks are applied in no >14% of the reviewed studies, indicating limited but increasing adoption. Despite methodological progress, persistent gaps remain, including limited link-level analysis, inadequate modeling of spatial and temporal traffic dynamics, weak predictive and real-time capability, and insufficient consideration of multi-hazard scenarios. The study highlights the need for integrated frameworks combining machine learning with analytical and simulation-based methods to enhance dynamic resilience assessment and support proactive decision-making.

Resilience of road networks to natural hazards: A systematic literature review

Zeleke Y. S.
;
Scaini C.
2026-01-01

Abstract

Road networks are essential to societal functioning yet remain highly vulnerable to natural hazards and cascading disruptions. This study presents a systematic review of road network resilience, synthesizing resilience metrics, assessment methods, and research gaps. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 109 peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2025 were analyzed from the ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The results indicate that resilience assessment is primarily based on topology-based, functional performance-based, and hybrid metrics, with 31% of studies focusing on robustness and 25% emphasizing vulnerability and preparedness, while only 4% adopt fully integrated resilience frameworks. Methodologically, conventional approaches dominate the literature, including network analysis (24%), GIS-based methods (15%), and uncertainty modeling techniques (15%), alongside traffic assignment, traffic simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast, emerging approaches such as graph neural networks, deep reinforcement learning, digital twins, and hybrid data-driven frameworks are applied in no >14% of the reviewed studies, indicating limited but increasing adoption. Despite methodological progress, persistent gaps remain, including limited link-level analysis, inadequate modeling of spatial and temporal traffic dynamics, weak predictive and real-time capability, and insufficient consideration of multi-hazard scenarios. The study highlights the need for integrated frameworks combining machine learning with analytical and simulation-based methods to enhance dynamic resilience assessment and support proactive decision-making.
2026
Resilience; Resilience metrics; Review; Road networks;
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Yohannes-unibs_1-s2.0-S2666691X26000011-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 2.49 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.49 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14083/49403
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact