ArticlePloS one2021
Quantitative method for resilience assessment framework of airport network during COVID-19.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on O-D flow and airport networks in the origin country and in Northeast Asia.Journal of air transport management · 2022Article
- System resilience distribution identification and analysis based on performance processes after disruptions.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The resilience and vulnerability of airport networks are significant challenges during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Previous studies considered node failure of networks under natural disasters and extreme weather. Herein, we propose a complex network methodology combined with data-driven to assess the resilience of airport networks toward global-scale disturbance using the Chinese airport network (CAN) and the European airport network (EAN) as a case study. The assessment framework includes vulnerability and resilience analyses from the network- and node-level perspectives. Subsequently, we apply the framework to analyze the airport networks in China and Europe. Specifically, real air traffic data for 232 airports in China and 82 airports in Europe are selected to form the CAN and EAN, respectively. The complex network analysis reveals that the CAN and the EAN are scale-free small-world networks, that are resilient to random attacks. However, the connectivity and vulnerability of the CAN are inferior to those of the EAN. In addition, we select the passenger throughput from the top-50 airports in China and Europe to perform a comparative analysis. By comparing the resilience evaluation of individual airports, we discovered that the factors of resilience assessment of an airport network for global disturbance considers the network metrics and the effect of government policy in actual operations. Additionally, this study also proves that a country's emergency response-ability towards the COVID-19 has a significantly affectes the recovery of its airport network.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.