AUnifiedAssessmentApproachforUrbanInfrastructure...

Research ArticleA Unified Assessment Approach for Urban InfrastructureSustainability and Resilience

Liang Wang1 Xiaolong Xue 12 Zeyu Wang2 and Linshuang Zhang3

1School of Management Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin 150001 China2School of Management Guangzhou University Guangzhou 510006 China3China Mobile Communications Corporation Shijiazhuang 050021 China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xiaolong Xue xlxuehiteducn

Received 19 April 2018 Revised 13 June 2018 Accepted 25 June 2018 Published 9 July 2018

Academic Editor Dujuan Yang

Copyright copy 2018 Liang Wang et al is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

e concepts of sustainability and resilience have become very popular in the field of urban infrastructure is paper reviewsprevious research on sustainability and resilience of urban infrastructuree concepts of urban infrastructurersquos sustainability andresilience are compared from the perspectives of dimensions properties goals and methodologies e paper systematicallyassesses the sustainability and resilience of urban infrastructure by using the concept of the grade point average (GPA) e GPAof urban infrastructurersquos sustainability and resilience (urban infrastructure SR-GPA) is proposed as a unified concept eassessment index system of urban infrastructure SR-GPA is constructed from five dimensions including demand status in-fluence resource and measure e analytic network process (ANP) is used to assess urban infrastructure SR-GPA consideringthe interaction between the indexes e ANP structure model of urban infrastructure SR-GPA is established based on theassessment method and index systeme Harbin subway SR-GPA is selected as an empirical study to test the applicability of theproposed assessment method e results show that the assessment indexes have different impacts on urban infrastructure SR-GPA e Harbin subway SR-GPA is in a low level and can be upgraded through increasing construction investment allocatingresources efficiently and considering resilience in the whole life cycle

1 Introduction

e world is in the process of urbanization since the 20thcentury and by far the majority population live in cities[1 2] People construct numerous urban infrastructures tomeet the various needs and challenges for urbanization[3ndash5]ese urban infrastructures exert significant influenceon the global economy and environment and have becomecentral to ensuring a sustainable future [6 7] Meanwhilepeople need to confront tremendous technical economicand management risks to construct and operate urban in-frastructures therefore we must build resilient infrastructureto overcome these risks [8] erefore sustainability andresilience of urban infrastructure are vital to urbanizationand social development However there have been veryfew researches on how to combine resilience and sus-tainability in a unified assessment methodology for the

design construction and operation management of urbaninfrastructure

Sustainability has become increasingly important in thecivil engineering field with the global development of sus-tainability since the 1990s [9 10] Although most previousstudies support life-cycle thinking in building sector with themodel of the three sustainability dimensions and the im-portance of holistic analysis fewer studies focus on urbaninfrastructure compared to building construction [11 12]Meanwhile the concept of resilience is still considered noveland under development in the civil engineering field andmost studies focused on the conceptual and analyticaldefinitions of resilience [12 13]

Although the comprehensive description of resiliencehas been proposed from 11 different aspects in the civilengineering field the studies of urban infrastructurersquosresilience are still under preliminary period [12 14]

HindawiAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2018 Article ID 2073968 19 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520182073968

e researches of urban infrastructure sustainability andresilience are inefficient in previous studies Moreover thereare few efforts to combine urban infrastructure sustainabilityand resilience into a unified concept

e main cause of the above issue probably dues to thedifferent historical origins of urban infrastructure sustain-ability and resilience e theoretical and practical de-velopments of resilience and sustainability are separate andwithout a mutual consideration of the findings in mostdomains [12] Sustainability focuses on the influence ofcurrent behavior upon future development and resilienceemphasizes the response capability to abnormal impact[15 16] e concepts of sustainability and resilience havedifferent historical roots develop independently in boththeoretical and practical field but generate more and morecommon connotations as human society develops Urbaninfrastructure should have properties of sustainability andresilience simultaneously during the construction and op-eration process to enhance its capabilities [9] is studypresents an effort to develop a unified concept for bothurban infrastructure sustainability and infrastructure eoriginal contribution of this study consists of a unified as-sessment approach in order to address the sustainability andresilience of urban infrastructure simultaneously andquantitatively

e paper is structured as follows First previous researchon urban infrastructure sustainability and resilience arereviewed and summarized to explain the research motivationen the concept of urban infrastructure SR-GPA is proposedfor integrating the concepts of urban infrastructure sustain-ability and resilience Afterward the assessment index systemand ANP structure model are constructed to design a unifiedassessment approach for urban infrastructure SR-GPA Fi-nally Harbin subway is selected as an empirical study to testthe applicability of the unified assessment approach

2 Literature Review

21 Sustainability of Urban Infrastructure Sustainabilityreflects the ability to sustain which means the goal ofsustainability is maintaining a state at a certain level [17ndash20]e connotation of sustainability varies in different domains[21] In the field of civil engineering sustainability mainlyrefers to sustainable building which devotes to improvingthe environmental performance of buildings throughtechnical innovations [22] Assessment standards enhancethe sustainability of buildings which can be reflected in theimproved environmental performance [23] Further re-searches have extended sustainability to other dimensionsrelated to human development and emphasize the balance ofenvironment economy and society [20 24]

Current studies of urban infrastructurersquos sustainabilitymainly focus on the construction of the assessment indexsystem and the selection of assessment methodology Fromthe view of whole life cycle the urban infrastructure systemgenerates interactions and feedback mechanisms witheconomic and social systems thus the assessment standardsshould be constructed from environmental economic so-cial and engineering dimensions [25] From the perspective

of improving urban infrastructurersquos environmental perfor-mance the assessment indexes of sustainability can be di-vided into mandatory screening indexes and judgmentindexes which can be used to improve resource utilizationefficiency [26 27] In theoretical and practical level theassessment indexes of urban infrastructurersquos sustainabilityshould include all dimensions of sustainability and ap-propriate index parameters should be selected [28] Somescholars have specifically studied different urban in-frastructuresrsquo sustainability such as lifelines distributedinfrastructure systems and transportation systems [29ndash32]

Sustainability of urban infrastructure can be concludedas the unity of environmental economic and social di-mension e interactions of these three dimensions forma sustainable urban infrastructure that meets the needs ofpresent and future generations for specific functions andservices and ensures the balanced development of economysociety and environment

22 Resilience of Urban Infrastructure Resilience is theability that a system restores to its original status after beingdisturbed [33]e concept has been widely used in differentdomains (eg ecology and environment) [34] In the field ofcivil engineering engineers improve infrastructurersquos resil-ience to resist adverse impacts of extreme disasters such asearthquake and hurricane [35] Bruneau et al conceptualizeresilience from four interrelated dimensions technical or-ganizational social and economic [14] ese four di-mensions of resilience are described as the TOSEmodeleTOSE model quantifies resilience from four propertiesrobustness rapidity redundancy and resourcefulness [16]Above four dimensions and four properties form conceptualframework for analyzing resilience Under this conceptualframework a resilient system is more reliable and can re-cover quickly which ensure low socioeconomic conse-quences during a disaster [36] Bocchini et al systematicallysummarize the above eleven aspects of resilience for generalcivil infrastructure [12]

Urban infrastructurersquos resilience represents the abilitythat urban infrastructure can recover to its initial statusthrough combinations of technical economic and man-agement measures when facing unexpected situations orextreme disasters Scholars have done research on the cal-culation and assessment methods of urban infrastructurersquosresilience from different perspectives which reflect the aboveeleven aspects of resilience Various methods such assimulation [37] mathematical calculation and quantifica-tion method [38] have been used to calculate urban in-frastructurersquos resilience In addition the priority of assessmentstandards should be considered for assessing urban in-frastructure resilience and policymakersrsquo preferences play animportant role in determining the assessment standards ofresilience [39 40]

Concluded from above studies the assessment of urbaninfrastructure resilience should include three dimensions[12] (1) technical dimension comprising all technical ele-ments in urban infrastructure life cycle (2) economic di-mension involving economic factors in the restore processes

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

of urban infrastructure and (3) management dimensionincorporating social and organizational measures in oper-ation and management stages of urban infrastructureMoreover the benefits of improving urban infrastructureresilience can be concluded as follows (1) high reliabilityurban infrastructure have lower probability of functionalloss in the action of external disasters (2) fast recoveryurban infrastructure can quickly restore to its normal statusafter disasters happen and (3) low socioeconomic conse-quences reducing negative impacts on society and economyby speeding up the recovery process of urban infrastructure

23 Summary of Previous Research Sustainability andresilience have different origins and evolve separately intheory and practice although they share certain commonconnotations with the development of human society ereare some similarities between sustainability and resilience inthe whole life cycle of urban infrastructure Bocchini et alcompare similarities and differences between sustainabilityand resilience in the civil infrastructure domain [12] ecomparison is organized into eleven categories and thepossibility of conflation is evaluated Due to the differentorigins the common definitions of sustainability andresilience are not significantly matching [41] Sustainabilityassessment mostly gives a score by using different quanti-tative and qualitative indicators while resilience is usuallycalculated by quantified equation [42 43] ese differencesof sustainability and resilience cannot completely separatetwo concepts Compared with these differences the simi-larities between sustainability and resilience are moreobvious

As an important category to use for comparison thedimensions of sustainability and resilience are perfectlymatching Social and economic dimensions are used forassessing both sustainability and resilience [44] In additionthe technical and organizational dimensions of resilience arealso important for sustainability [45] At the theoretical levelsome important instruments such as LCC multicriteriadecision-making can be used to assess sustainability andresilience At the practical level the assessment results ofsustainability and resilience should be compared withprevious reference experience [12] From the point of view ofdecision-making the targets of resilience focus on robust-ness and rapidity of systems which can also reduce socialand economic impacts [46] us the targets of sustain-ability and resilience are also good matching

As the sustainability and resilience of urban infrastructureshare so many similarities scholars have attempted to com-bine these two concepts for assessment [47] Zinke et alsummarize these preliminary attempts to combine sustain-ability and resilience in infrastructure projects [48] Someconceptual descriptions are used to apply the properties ofresilience on assessing urban infrastructure sustainability[12 49 50] For instance Turner describes some interestingapproaches for combining two concepts in general and witha focus on vulnerability analyses [49] Despite the fact thatsome existing schemes such as British CEEQUAL [51] andAmerican Envision (ISI 2011) [52] are primarily meant for

assessing infrastructure sustainability the assessment ap-proaches described in these schemes also cover aspects as-sociated with some resilience properties Some sustainabilityassessment approaches cover risk-associated climate changeeven though no further hazard-related consequences areaddressed [53 54]

e properties of sustainability are also incorporated ininfrastructure resilience analysis For instance Ghosh et alpresent an approach that combines embodied energy in theassessment of aging infrastructure exposed to seismic haz-ards [55] Life-cycle energy assessment (LCEA) is used toextend the life-cycle cost analysis procedure for damagescaused by hazards e concept of sustainability is used toassess infrastructure resilience from environmental di-mension Rose incorporates a few sustainability properties inthe concept of posthazard rehabilitation measures [47] eresults manifest improvements in conditions underlyingsustainability that have helped in inherent and adaptiveresilience associated with disaster recovery e aboveanalysis shows that urban infrastructurersquos sustainability andresilience can be considered and assessed together [56]

Urban infrastructure sustainability assessment onlyanalyzes the predictable and regular influences of in-frastructure from three dimensions environment economyand society [57] When infrastructure faces extreme eventsinfrastructure sustainability assessment is ineffective toenhance infrastructure performance [25] On the otherhand resilience aims to analyze the responses of in-frastructure due to extreme events and the ability of re-covery under these circumstances [58] If urbaninfrastructure resilience is considered separately on reg-ular circumstances the status of infrastructure will alwaysbe at a high level [59] e resources will be wasted duringthe above process which will have negative impacts onurban infrastructure sustainability [60] Hence urbaninfrastructure should be resilient and sustainable togetherbut it is very difficult to compare the performance of urbaninfrastructure by individual resilience assessments orsustainability assessments A unified assessment approachshould be constructed for assessing the sustainability andresilience of urban infrastructure together [12 61]

3 Unified Assessment Approach

31 Urban Infrastructure SR-GPA As mentioned in Section23 sustainability and resilience have common connotationsin whole life cycle of urban infrastructure From the per-spective of sustainability urban infrastructure needs to meethuman needs in normal status and quickly recover in un-expected situations from the perspective of resilience urbaninfrastructure improves the resilient capacity by technicaleconomic andmanagement measures achieving sustainabledevelopment Based on the above ideas the NationalCouncil on Public Works Improvement (NCPWI) assessedthe GPA (grade point average) of infrastructure with basicquality and expanding quality [62] We constructed theunified concept of urban infrastructurersquos sustainability andresilience using GPA which was named as the urban in-frastructure SR-GPA (S is the abbreviation of sustainability

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

and R is the abbreviation of resilience) Urban infrastructureSR-GPA is described in Figure 1

Figure 1 shows that urban infrastructure SR-GPAmeasures the basic quality and expanding quality of ur-ban infrastructure e basic quality and expanding qualityof urban infrastructure respectively reect its sustainabilityand resilience Basic quality requires urban infrastructure tomeet human needs in normal status and promote co-ordinated development which consists of intergenerationalequity eshyective resource utilization and balanced economyenvironment and society Expanding quality requires urbaninfrastructure to quickly restore to normal status by tech-nical economic and management measures after the oc-currence of unexpected situations such as earthquakes andhurricanes

32 Assessment Method e analytic network process(ANP) is a more general form of the analytic hierarchyprocess (AHP) which is used for multicriteria decisionanalysis As ANP allows for complex interrelationshipsamong decision levels and attributes it has been widely usedin infrastructure performance assessment [63 64] ecomposition of the analytic network process is described inFigure 2

Figure 2 shows that the top element of the hierarchy isthe overall goal of the decision model e hierarchy de-composes from the general to a more specic attribute untila level of manageable decision criteria is met [65 66] ANPconsists of clusters elements intercluster relations andinterelement relations ANP reects interaction and feed-back between intracluster and intercluster ANP contains

Urbaninfrastructure

SR-GPA

Basic quality sustainability Expanding quality resilience

Intergenerational equity

Effective utilization ofresources

Balance between differentdimensions Management

Economy

Technology

Figure 1 e concept of urban infrastructure SR-GPA

Goal

Criterion P1 Criterion Pn

Element group C1

Element group Cn

Element group C2 Element group C3

Element group C4

Element A

Control layer

Network layer

Element B

helliphellip

Element group C

Element A influences B

Interaction of element groups

Figure 2 e typical hierarchical structure of ANP


two layers the control layer which includes goal and de-cision criteria and the network layer in which elementsconstitute mutually inuent network structure [67] Nota-bly all decisions are independent with each other and areonly governed by target elements

33 Assessment Index System

331 Combination Framework Urban infrastructure sus-tainability assessment only analyzes the predictable and reg-ular inuences of urban infrastructure from dishyerentsustainable perspectives in normal status [57] Traditionalassessment methods of urban infrastructure sustainability isineshyective to improve urban infrastructure performance un-der extreme events [25] Urban infrastructure resilience aimsto analyze the responses of urban infrastructure due to ex-treme events and the ability of recovery under these cir-cumstances [58]e status of urban infrastructure is designedat a high level to satisfy the needs of urban infrastructureresilience which has negative impacts on urban infrastructuresustainable development in normal status [59 60] It is un-reasonable that urban infrastructurersquos sustainability andresilience are assessed separately A unied assessment ap-proach should be constructed for assessing the sustainabilityand resilience of urban infrastructure together [12 61] Urbaninfrastructure SR-GPA is proposed in Section 31 as the uniedconcept of urban infrastructurersquos sustainability and resilienceS is the abbreviation of urban infrastructurersquos sustainabilitywhich requires that urban infrastructure should meet thedevelopment needs of human society from dishyerent sus-tainable perspectives in normal status [25] R is the abbrevi-ation of urban infrastructurersquos resilience which requires thaturban infrastructure should improve its resilient ability bytechnical economic and management measures in un-expected situations [68]e combination framework of urbaninfrastructurersquos sustainability and resilience is shown inFigure 3

Urban infrastructure performance is consisted of basicquality and expanding quality Basic quality represents ur-ban infrastructure sustainability which requires urban in-frastructure to meet human needs in normal status andpromote coordinated development from dishyerent sustain-able perspectives [69] Expanding quality represents urbaninfrastructure resilience which requires urban infrastructure

to quickly recover to normal status by technical economicand management measures after the occurrence of un-expected situations [70] From the perspective of sustain-ability urban infrastructure meets human needs in normalstatus which is the foundation of urban infrastructureresilience From the perspective of resilience urban in-frastructure resilience is achieved by technical economicand management measures which can improve urban in-frastructure sustainability [12]

Previous studies of sustainable assessment focus on eco-nomic dimension social dimension and environmental di-mension Urban infrastructure sustainability has transformedfrom above traditional three dimensions to the following fourdimensions demand dimension [71] status dimension[72 73] inuence dimension [74 75] and resource dimension[76ndash78] Urban infrastructure resilience is mainly assessedfrom measure dimension which reects that urban in-frastructure can quickly recover to normal status by technicaleconomic and management measures after the occurrence ofunexpected situations [8 35 79] e assessment dimensionsof urban infrastructure SR-GPA are shown in Figure 4

332 Index Selection is study develops the assessmentindex system of urban infrastructure SR-GPA which includesve dimensions demand status inuence resource andmeasure e former four dimensions assess urban in-frastructurersquos sustainability (basic quality) while the measuredimension represents urban infrastructurersquos resilience(expanding quality) e following sections explain the se-lection process of the assessment index from the above vedimensions

(1) Demand Dimension Urban economic development relieson the support of urban infrastructure For example higherurban economic development level requires more compre-hensive infrastructures to ensure sustained growth [71] isstudy selects the demand dimension index of urban in-frastructure from three aspects city size [80] economic de-velopment [25] and social level [81] which are shown inTable 1

(2) Status Dimension e state dimension indexes aremainly selected from the two aspects the supply capacity

Urban infrastructure

Sustainability

Resilience

Normal status

Unexpectedsituations

Sustainabledevelopment

Resilient ability

Basic quality

Expandingquality

SR-GPACombination

Foun

datio

n

Impr

ovem

ent

Figure 3 Combination framework of urban infrastructure sustainability and resilience


and public satisfaction Supply capacity selects three in-dexes according to the authoritative statistical data pub-lished by statistics bureau which are handling capacity

infrastructure density and proportion of built-up area intotal area [72 73] e three indexes are calculated asfollows

Handling capacity() the population that urban infrastructure can serve

total urban population (1)

Infrastructure density() the urban area covered by infrastructure

total urban area (2)

Proportion of builtminus up area in total area () the infrastructure area


Public satisfaction reects the subjective feelings of thepublic to the service quality service price security and

reliability of urban infrastructure [82] e assessmentindexes of status dimension are shown in Table 2

Urban infrastructureSR-GPA

Sustainability(basic quality)

Resilience(expanding quality)

Demand dimension

Status dimension

Influence dimension

Resource dimension

Measure dimension

Figure 4 Assessment dimensions of urban infrastructure SR-GPA

Table 1 Assessment index of demand dimension

Dimension Category Index

Demand (D)

D1 city size D11 growth rate of city resident population

D2 economic developmentD21 per capita GDP

D22 proportion of tertiary industry in GDPD23 per capita disposable income

D3 social levelD31 per nancial income

D32 per capital expenditureD33 growth rate of infrastructure investment

Table 2 Assessment index of status dimension


Status (S)

S1 supply capacityS11 handling capacity

S12 infrastructure densityS13 proportion of built-up area in total area

S2 public satisfaction

S21 service qualityS22 service price

S23 failure frequencyS24 facility maintenance timelinessS25 facility maintenance quality


(3) Influence Dimension e fundamental purpose of theconstruction and operation of urban infrastructure is toimprove the quality of peoplersquos life and promote sustainabledevelopment of urban economy and society [74] efundamental purpose of the construction and operation ofurban infrastructure is to improve the quality of peoplersquos lifeand promote sustainable development of urban economyand society [74] e influence dimension is further dividedinto three subcategories goal health and social environ-ment [25 75] e potential impacts should be assessedduring the life cycle of urban infrastructure e assessmentindexes of influence dimension are shown in Table 3

(4) Resource Dimension Using the efficiency of resources hasdirect impacts on the sustainability of urban infrastructurebecause its construction and operation consume largeamounts of resources e assessment indexes of resourcedimension which were developed based on previous re-search on resource efficiency of urban infrastructure includethree main categories that is material energy and water Inthe construction phase sustainable infrastructure shouldefficiently use all materials to reduce the ldquoembodied energyrdquowhich is consumed in the process of material productionand transportation [76] In the operation phase sustainableinfrastructure should minimize the overall energy con-sumption and consider the efficient use of multiple energysources [77] Moreover urban infrastructure should reducethe overall water consumption and consider the positive ornegative impacts on water resources [78] e detailedbreakdown of the assessment indexes of resource dimensionis shown in Table 4

(5) Measure Dimension e assessment indexes of measuredimensionmainly reflect the resilience of urban infrastructureand were selected from three aspects including technical in-novation economic support and management measuresTechnical innovation includes innovations not only in rawmaterials products processes and equipment but also in themanagement process and organizational change [79] eeconomic support involves in the construction and mainte-nance of urban infrastructure [8] On the one hand the de-velopment and use of new materials and technologies whichimprove the resilience of urban infrastructure require a lot ofcapital On the other hand the maintenance repair andimprovement of urban infrastructure require abundant eco-nomic supportsManagementmeasures enhance the resilienceof urban infrastructure and ensure urban infrastructure tohave a longer service life that meets the future needs [35]rough the above analysis the assessment indexes ofmeasuredimension are shown in Table 5

333 Index Quantification e developed assessmentindexes include both qualitative and quantitative in-dexes Qualitative indexes are difficult to describe withquantitative data and quantitative indexes can bequantified directly with quantitative data According tothe interaction between index meaning and valuequantitative indexes are divided into benefit indexes andcost indexes e score of benefit indexes has positiveimpacts on urban infrastructure GPA and the score ofcost indexes has negative impacts on urban infrastructureGPA e classification situations of assessment indexes are

Table 3 Assessment index of influence dimension


Influence (I)

I1 goalI11 improve community life quality

I12 stimulate sustainable developmentI13 develop local technology

I2 healthI21 improve public health and safety

I22 reduce noise and vibrationI23 reduce light pollution

I3 social environmentI31 protect historical and cultural resources

I32 protect local characteristicsI33 protect the environment

Table 4 Assessment index of resource dimension


Resource (R)

R1 material

R11 reduce material usageR12 support sustainable procurement practices

R13 use renewable materialsR14 use local materials

R15 dispose and recycle waste

R2 energyR21 reduce energy consumption

R22 use renewable energyR23 monitor the energy system

R3 waterR31 reduce water consumptionR32 reduce domestic water

R33 monitor the water system


Table 6 Assessment index system of urban infrastructure SR-GPA

Dimension Category Index Property

Demand (D)

D1 city size D11 growth rate of city resident population C

D2 economic developmentD21 per capita GDP B

D22 proportion of tertiary industry in GDP BD23 per capita disposable income B

D3 social levelD31 per financial income B

D32 per capital expenditure BD33 growth rate of infrastructure investment B

Status (S)

S1 supply capacityS11 handling capacity B

S12 infrastructure density BS13 proportion of built-up area in total area B


S21 service quality QS22 service price Q

S23 failure frequency QS24 facility maintenance timeliness QS25 facility maintenance quality Q

Influence (I)

I1 goalI11 improve community life quality Q

I12 stimulate sustainable development QI13 develop local technology Q

I2 healthI21 improve public health and safety Q

I22 reduce noise and vibration QI23 reduce light pollution Q

I3 social environmentI31 protect historical and cultural resources Q

I32 protect local characteristics QI33 protect the environment Q

Resource (R)

R1 save material

R11 reduce material usage QR12 support sustainable procurement practices Q

R13 use renewable materials QR14 use local materials Q

R15 dispose and recycle waste Q

R2 save energyR21 reduce energy consumption Q

R22 use renewable energy QR23 monitor the energy system Q

R3 save waterR31 reduce water consumption QR32 reduce domestic water Q

R33 monitor the water system Q

Measure (M)

M1 technology innovationM11 new materials technology and equipment Q

M12 intelligent monitoring system QM13 collaborative innovation Q

M2 economic supportM21 innovation investment Q

M22 investment on maintenance QM23 effective management capital Q

M3 management measureM31 evaluate climate change risks QM32 enhance long-term adaptation Q

M33 improve withstanding ability to extreme events QNote C cost index B benefit index Q qualitative index

Table 5 Assessment index of measure dimension


Measure (M)

M1 technology innovationM11 new materials technology and equipment

M12 intelligent monitoring systemM13 collaborative innovation

M2 economic supportM21 innovation investment

M22 investment on maintenanceM23 effective management capital

M3 management measureM31 evaluate climate change risksM32 enhance long-term adaptation

M33 improve withstanding ability to extreme events


summarized in Table 6e assessment indexes of former fourdimensions in Table 6 present urban infrastructure sustain-ability (basic quality) while the assessment indexes of measuredimension in Table 6 present urban infrastructure resilience(expanding quality)

In the assessment index system of urban infrastructureSR-GPA qualitative indexes are quantified by the 5-pointexpert grading method while quantitative indexes arequantified by the efficiency coefficient method e quan-tification processes are as follows

Score of benefit index 1 + 4 timesactual valueminus forbidden valuesatisfied valueminus forbidden value

(4)

Score of cost index 1 + 4 timesforbidden valueminus actual valueforbidden valueminus satisfied value

(5)

Equations (4) and (5) respectively select the highestvalue and the lowest value of each quantitative index as thesatisfied value and forbidden value According to the 5-pointexpert grading method the basic value and the highest valueof each quantitative index are 1 and 5 respectively

34 ANP Structure Model of Urban Infrastructure SR-GPAe assessment indexes set of ANP is as follows

U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)

which includes first-level indexes where n represents thenumber of first-level indexes in set U Each first-level indexincludes several second-level indexes as follows

Uk Uk1Uk2 Uki Uknk1113966 1113967 i 1 2 nk (7)

which is a second-level indexes set where nk represents thenumber of second-level indexes in set Uk Each second-levelindex includes several third-level indexes as follows

Uki Uki1Uki2 Ukij Ukin1113966 1113967 j 1 2 nki

(8)

which is the third-level indexes set where nki represents thenumber of third-level indexes in set Uki

According to the above method the assessment indexsystem of urban infrastructure SR-GPA is divided into first-level indexes second-level indexes and third-level indexese ANP structure model of urban infrastructure SR-GPA isconstructed through interaction between indexes as shownin Figure 5

Figure 5 shows that the ANP structure model of urbaninfrastructure SR-GPA contains the control layer and net-work layer e control layer includes goal and decisioncriteria Urban infrastructure SR-GPA is the goal of thecontrol layer and the five dimensions and indexes arethe decision criteria of the control layer e network layer isthe influence relationship between five dimensions andindexes e ANP structure model of urban infrastructureSR-GPA considers the interaction between indexes andallocates weight to each index Based on the quantification ofindexes the weighted synthesis model is used to calculate thecomprehensive score which describes urban infrastructurersquos

sustainability and resilience e basic equation of theweighted synthesis model is as follows

y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)

where wi is the weight of the index xi is the quantitativescore and y is the final score

4 Case Study

41 Case Background Harbin subway is an urban transportsystem located in Harbin Heilongjiang Province It is thefirst subway system in the alpine region of China egeneral plan of the Harbin subway has a total operationmileage of 340 km which includes twelve main lines onecircle line and two branch lines e total investment willreach 30 billion dollars and the construction of the entireproject will last for 20 years Currently line 1 of the Harbinsubway which includes 25 stations with a length of 273 kmhas been operated since September 26 2013 [83]

is paper takes the Harbin subway as the researchobject (case study) because it is a typical urban infrastructurewhich possesses the following characteristics high in-vestment long construction period and remarkable socialand economic impacts e sustainability and resilience ofthe Harbin subway determine whether such mega urbaninfrastructure will meet the current and future needs of thecity An empirical research on the sustainability and resil-ience of the Harbin subway was performed by using theproposed urban infrastructure SR-GPA assessment methodWe analyzed whether current sustainability and resiliencestatus of the Harbin subway project can meet the needs ofcity development Finally problems of Harbin subwayrsquossustainability and resilience were found which could guideits future construction and operation

42DataCollection e assessment indexes in Table 6 can bedivided into three parts according to index properties eassessment indexes of influence resource and measure di-mensions reflect the sustainability and resilience of the Harbinsubway from technical perspective It is suitable that thequantitative score of these technical assessment indexes areobtained from related professional staff such as designers


constructors and operators [25 84] e quantitative as-sessment indexes of public satisfaction in status dimensionreect the service level of the Harbin subway from the per-spective of social sustainability us the quantitative score ofassessment indexes in public satisfaction mainly depends onthe subjective assessment of urban infrastructure users eassessment indexes of demand dimension and supply capacityin status dimension objectively reect the sustainability of theHarbin subwayese objective assessment indexes are closelyrelated to the level of urban infrastructure demands [85]usthe quantitative score of these objective assessment indexes aremainly obtained by comparing related indexes of cities withsimilar urban infrastructure demands in previous studies[25 86] rough the above analysis on data collection thedata sources of the case study are summarized in Figure 6

According to the assessment indexes of inuence re-source and measure dimensions we select designers

constructors and operators of the Harbin subway as re-spondents and collect data of qualitative indexes throughquestionnaires A total of 100 questionnaires were sent out byEmail with 53 valid questionnaires retrieved Table 7 is thecategory distribution of respondents according to the type ofwork work experience and the number of involving projects

According to the quantitative assessment indexes ofpublic satisfaction in status dimension we take passengers ofthe Harbin subway as respondents A total of 400 ques-tionnaires were sent out at stations of Harbin subway line 1with 236 valid questionnaires retrieved Figure 7 shows theage distribution of respondents

According to other quantitative assessment indexes weselect fteen major cities as samples that is HarbinHangzhou Suzhou Xirsquoan Zhengzhou Qingdao Chang-chun Kunming Dalian Changsha Taiyuan Jinan HefeiFoshan and Urumqi e urban resident population of the

U11

city

size

Urban infrastructure SR-GPA

U1 demand U2 status U3 influence U4 resource U5 measure

U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412

Figure 5 ANP structure model of urban infrastructure SR-GPA


above fteen cities is between one million and ve millionwhich means that these cities have similar urban in-frastructure demandse ebrvbarcacy coebrvbarcient method is usedto calculate the quantitative scores of quantitative indexes indemand and status dimensions

43 Result Analysis

431 Index Score Analysis In the Section 333 the assess-ment indexes of urban infrastructure SR-GPA are quantiedby the 5-point expert grading method us the score of eachindex is between 0 and 5 rough comparing existing GPAstandards [87] the judgment criterion of urban infrastructureSR-GPA is summarized in Figure 8

e horizontal axis represents the score of urban in-frastructure SR-GPA and the vertical axis represents the level

Assessment indexsystem

Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users

Assessment index category Assessment index dimension Data source

Figure 6 Data sources of the case study

Table 7 Category distribution of respondents

Basis of classication Classication criterion Frequency Percentage ()

Type of workDesign 11 208

Construct 25 472Operation 17 321

Work experience

Below 5 years 7 1326ndash10 years 11 20811ndash15 years 14 264

Above 16 years 21 396

Number of involving projects

Below 2 5 943ndash5 11 2086ndash10 13 245

Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27

Below 16 17ndash26 27ndash50 Above 500

20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age

Figure 7 Age distribution of respondents

0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad

Figure 8 Judgment criterion of urban infrastructure SR-GPA


of urban infrastructure SR-GPAe urban infrastructure SR-GPA is divided into five levels excellent good relatively lowlow and bad Different color bars represent different scorelevels of assessment indexes e above five levels correspondto five score intervals of urban infrastructure SR-GPA whichare 4 to 5 3 to 4 2 to 3 1 to 2 and 0 to 1

According to the quantitative methods of urban in-frastructure SR-GPA we quantitate the data of assessmentindexes and calculate the quantitative scores of indexes in theHarbin subway SR-GPA assessment index system equantitative scores of assessment indexes are shown in Table 8

Table 8 summarizes the score level of each index fromfive dimensions and the analysis results are as follows

(1) Demand Dimension e score of index D11 is 5 whichmeans that the level of D1 city size is excellent e score ofindex D11 also reflects that the Harbin subway can satisfythe growth demand of city resident population e level ofthe score of most indexes in D2 economic development andD3 social level is low ese reflect that Harbin has a dis-advantage on sustainable development level compared withcities of similar scale e low-speed urban expansion ofHarbin results in less pressure on the investment of Harbinsubway

(2) Status Dimension e supply capacity of the Harbinsubway is low which is reflected by the low score of handling

Table 8 e quantitative score of assessment index

Dimension Category Index Score

Demand (D)

D1 city size D11 growth rate of city resident population 500

D2 economic developmentD21 per capita GDP 100

D22 proportion of tertiary industry in GDP 416D23 per capita disposable income 187

D3 social levelD31 per financial income 113

D32 per capital expenditure 139D33 growth rate of infrastructure investment 190

Status (S)

S1 supply capacityS11 handling capacity 133

S12 infrastructure density 102S13 proportion of built-up area in total area 147


S21 service quality 426S22 service price 479

S23 failure frequency 484S24 facility maintenance timeliness 466S25 facility maintenance quality 481

Influence (I)

I1 goalI11 improve community life quality 340

I12 stimulate sustainable development 341I13 develop local technology 261

I2 healthI21 improve public health and safety 301

I22 reduce noise and vibration 302I23 reduce light pollution 315

I3 social environmentI31 protect historical and cultural resources 432

I32 protect local characteristics 453I33 protect the environment 273

Resource (R)

R1 save material

R11 reduce material usage 103R12 support sustainable procurement practices 175

R13 use renewable materials 185R14 use local materials 245

R15 dispose and recycle waste 403

R2 save energyR21 reduce energy consumption 202

R22 use renewable energy 163R23 monitor the energy system 125

R3 save waterR31 reduce water consumption 322R32 reduce domestic water 289

R33 monitor the water system 105

Measure (M)

M1 technology innovationM11 new materials technology and equipment 426

M12 intelligent monitoring system 358M13 collaborative innovation 026

M2 economic supportM21 innovation investment 092

M22 investment on maintenance 290M23 effective management capital 204

M3 management measureM31 evaluate climate change risks 102M32 enhance long-term adaptation 062

M33 improve withstanding ability to extreme events 237


capacity infrastructure density and proportion of built-uparea in total area while the score of index of public satisfactionis good which reflects the public is satisfied with the service ofHarbin subway e results meet the real situation thatHarbin subway is just put into use and only operates line 1currently

(3) Influence Dimension From the perspective of I1 goal theHarbin subway plays a positive role in improving peoplersquosquality of life and promoting sustainable economic and socialdevelopment e Harbin subway takes measures to reducethe light pollution noise and vibration and other negativeeffects in the construction process and the scores of indexesin I2 health are good e construction of the Harbin subwayhas realized the organic combination with the social envi-ronment and historical development Harbinrsquos humanisticenvironment is consciously protected which strengthencultural heritage and public identity It is particularlyprominent that the Harbin subway can protect historical andcultural resources e average score of indexes in I3 socialenvironment is excellent In general the Harbin subway haspositive influence on the sustainable development of Harbin

(4) Resource Dimension e scores of most indexes in R1save material are low which indicates that the Harbinsubway lacks the assessment of total materials energyconsumption in the process of construction and operationfrom the perspective of life cycleeHarbin subway is moreinclined to use local materials and focuses on waste disposaland recycling e score of support sustainable procurementpractices and use renewable materials are low e Harbinsubway has poor performance of saving energy which isreflected by the low or relatively low score of reducing energyconsumption using renewable energy and energy monitorsysteme construction of the Harbin subway has involvedgreat efforts in water saving which is reflected by the goodscore of R31 reduce water consumption

(5) Measure Dimension e Harbin subway focuses on theapplication of new materials technologies and equipmentin the process of construction and operation e intelligentdetection system is used to monitor the operation situationof Harbin subway us the scores of indexes in M11 newmaterials technology and equipment and M12 intelligentmonitoring system are excellent and good e bad score ofM13 collaborative innovation reflects that new technologiesshould be implicated by innovation investment and col-laborative innovation among enterprises universities andresearch institutions e scores of indexes in M2 economicsupport and M3 management measure are below good levelwhich means that the Harbin subway should take economicand management measures to enhance long-term resilienceand emphasize on monitoring responding to extreme eventsin the operational phase

432 Measuring Result Analysis According to the ANPstructure model of urban infrastructure SR-GPA the cal-culation result of weight is summarized in Table 9

Table 9 shows that the weights of different indexes havegreat differences e weights of influence and measuredimension are relatively large which indicates that theseindexes are crucial in improving urban infrastructure SR-GPAe weights of demand dimension are relatively smallwhich indicates that urban development level has smallimpacts on urban infrastructure SR-GPA Combined withquantitative scores and ultimate limit weight the final scoresof indexes are summarized from five dimensions andfourteen categories (Table 10)

Table 10 shows final score levels of indexes from differentdimensions and categories According to the judgment cri-terion of urban infrastructure SR-GPA the score of City sizeis excellent which means that the Harbin subway can satisfythe growth demand of city resident population and theconstruction of the Harbin subway does not exert excessivepressure Considering long-term development of Harbin thescores of Economic development and Social level are low andHarbin subway cannot meet the long-term demands of urbansustainable development From the perspectives of status andinfluence dimensions the scores of these two dimensions aregood e Harbin subway improves peoplersquos living standardsand promotes economic and social development of the cityFrom the perspective of resource dimension the Harbinsubway lacks practical measures on saving material energyand waterus the score of resource dimension is low Fromthe perspective of measure dimension the Harbin subwaydoes not consider technical economic and managementmeasures systematically and its resilience is not considered inthe whole life cycle

Overall the Harbin subway SR-GPA is 26277 which isa relatively low level e Harbin subway SR-GPA can beupgraded by improving assessment indexes which have rel-atively low low and bad level scores According to Table 10these assessment indexes are focus on demand dimensionsupply capacity in status dimension resource dimension andmeasure dimension e Harbin subway SR-GPA should beenhanced using the following three aspects

(1) e supply capacity of the Harbin subway should beimproved by increasing the construction investmentcities have different demands for infrastructure andthe size of cities should be matched with the de-mands of infrastructure Harbinrsquos economic andsocial development indexes are in low levels Moreinfrastructures are required to ensure the expansionof urban scale economic development and socialprogress To promote sustainable development Har-bin should increase the investment in subway con-struction and ensure the effective use of constructionfunds A complete network of the Harbin subwayenhances the supply capacity of the Harbin subwaywhich can meet the needs of sustainable development

(2) In the process of construction and operation theHarbin subway should efficiently allocate resourcesand implement sustainable development practicesthe scores of assessment indexes in resource di-mension are all below good level e constructionand operation of infrastructure cannot avoid the


consumption of resources the efficiency of resourcesutilization has direct impacts on the sustainability ofinfrastructure e construction of the Harbinsubway lacks clear advantages in resources utiliza-tion and shows disadvantages in using renewablematerials and energy To improve the sustainabilityof the Harbin subway it is necessary to allocateresources rationally and comprehensively from theaspects of saving material energy and water

(3) e consumption of materials energy and watershould be assessed from the perspective of whole lifecycle and the construction of the Harbin subwayshould find ways to reduce resource consumptione

Harbin subway should choose suppliers who considereconomic social and environmental impacts in theprocess of production and select suppliers with goodreputation and ethical responsibility In addition tothese measures the monitoring system should be usedto monitor material consumption energy use andwater consumption All the above measures can im-prove the scores of assessment indexes in resourcedimension

(4) e resilience of the Harbin subway should be im-proved by economic support and management mea-sure the resilience of infrastructure reflects its adaptiveability to changing conditions in the long term as well

Table 9 e ultimate limit weight of assessment index

Dimension Category Index Weight

Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)








as its rapid recovery capabilities in emergency situa-tions e resilience of infrastructure should be con-sidered in whole life cycle including the optimizationof structural design and the use of new materialstechnologies and equipment e risks should becomprehensively assessed to enhance infrastructurersquoslong-term adaptive capacity and quick response ca-pacity in case of unexpected conditions e Harbinsubway applied the advancedmonitoring system in theoperation process and shows good response ability tounexpected situations

(5) e score of the Harbin subway economic supportindex is low and the score of Harbin subway man-agement measure index is even bad us the resil-ience of the Harbin subway should also be improvedby strengthening management in design and con-struction phases During the design phase cooperationbetween enterprises universities research institutionsand other organizations should be strengthened topromote technological innovation and design opti-mization therefore improving the resilience of theHarbin subway e Harbin subway should sustaina series of changes in natural conditions such astemperature changes precipitation and seasonal hy-drological conditionse decentralized system shouldbe designed to make the Harbin subway maintaina certain function even if some components aredamaged During the construction phase the Harbinsubway should monitor climate changes the emer-gence of extreme weather and other natural disastersEmergency plan should be developed in advance toimprove the response and recovery speed of theHarbin subway to extreme events

5 Discussion

Sustainability and resilience have different origins and evolveseparately in theory and practice Due to the different originsthe definitions of sustainability and resilience present signif-icant differences [41] e sustainability assessment of urbaninfrastructure mostly depends on different quantitative and

qualitative indicators while the resilience assessment of urbaninfrastructure usually focuses on quantified equation [42 43]Urban infrastructure sustainability and resilience are separatedin most previous studies

Urban infrastructure sustainability assessment onlyanalyzes the regular performances of urban infrastructurefrom different sustainable perspectives in normal status [57]ese assessment methods of urban infrastructure sus-tainability are ineffective to improve urban infrastructureperformance under extreme events [25] Urban in-frastructure resilience assessment mainly analyzes the re-sponses of urban infrastructure due to extreme events andthe ability of recovery under these circumstances [58] estatus of urban infrastructure is designed at a high level tosatisfy the needs of urban infrastructure resilience which hasnegative impacts on urban infrastructure sustainable de-velopment in normal status [59 60] us the sustainabilityand resilience of urban infrastructure should be consideredand assessed together [56]

Previous studies have attempted to combine these twoconcepts for assessment [47] Some conceptual descriptionsare used to combine some specific properties of resilienceinto urban infrastructure sustainability [12 49 50] Moreand more urban infrastructure sustainability assessmentapproaches cover risk-associated climate change eventhough no further hazard-related consequences areaddressed [53 54] Previous studies also incorporated theproperties of sustainability in infrastructure resilienceanalysis [55] Urban infrastructure resilience is mainlyassessed from the environment and economic perspectivesof sustainability [47] us previous studies did not reallycombine urban infrastructure sustainability and resilienceUrban infrastructure resilience is considered as the branchof urban infrastructure sustainability under extreme eventsUrban infrastructure sustainability is selected as the goals ofurban infrastructure resilience Urban infrastructure sus-tainability and resilience are essentially two separate con-cepts on previous studies

is study proposed a new unified assessment approachfor urban infrastructure sustainability and resilience usingthe concept of urban infrastructure SR-GPA e GPA of

Table 10 e quantitative score of SR-GPA

Goal Dimension Category Score

Harbin subway SR-GPA (26277)

Demand (19212)City size 5

Economic development 18366Social level 16191

Status (35618) Supply capacity 12704Public satisfaction 45522

Influence (31222)Goal 31512Health 24212

Social environment 38035

Resource (20928)Save material 20684Save energy 16735Save water 25846

Measure (15612)Technology innovation 32343Economic support 14683

Management measure 04748


urban infrastructurersquos sustainability and resilience (urbaninfrastructure SR-GPA) is proposed as a unified concepte assessment index system of urban infrastructure SR-GPA is constructed from five dimensions including demandstatus influence resource and measure e analytic net-work process (ANP) is used to assess urban infrastructureSR-GPA considering the interaction between the indexese ANP structure model of urban infrastructure SR-GPA isestablished based on the assessment method and indexsystem is new assessment approach bridged the abovegaps that the sustainability and resilience of urban in-frastructure were separated on existing researches isstudy provided strong supports for academic and industrialfields to assess analyze enhance and optimize the sus-tainability and resilience of urban infrastructure together

6 Conclusions

is paper systematically reviewed previous studies of urbaninfrastructurersquos sustainability and resilience Tomutually assessthe sustainability and resilience of urban infrastructure thepaper proposed the concept of urban infrastructure SR-GPAand constructed the urban infrastructure SR-GPA assessmentindex system and ANP structure model Taking the Harbinsubway as the research object the Harbin subway SR-GPAwasassessed and analyzed with promotion strategies proposed toimprove Harbin subwayrsquos sustainability and resilience

e main achievements of this study are as follows (1)proposing the concept of urban infrastructure SR-GPA an-alyzed the research status of urban infrastructure sustainabilityand resilience integrated the concepts of sustainability andresilience into urban infrastructure GPA assessment anddefined the concept of urban infrastructure SR-GPA (2)constructing the urban infrastructure SR-GPA assessment indexsystem and ANP structure model from demand status in-fluence resources and measures dimensions the built urbaninfrastructure SR-GPA assessment index system calculated thequantitative scores of qualitative and quantitative indexesrespectively through questionnaires and the efficiency co-efficient method and formed the ANP structure model toassess urban infrastructure SR-GPA and (3) assessing theHarbin subway SR-GPA calculated quantitative scores andultimate limit weight of indexes in theHarbin subway SR-GPAassessment index system analyzed the Harbin subway SR-GPA status and proposed promotion strategies to improve thesustainability and resilience of Harbin subway

Further conclusions can be drawn as follows (1) sus-tainability and resilience are two important properties ofurban infrastructure Although these two concepts havedifferent origins and independent developing routes inurban infrastructure they share common connotations thatare mainly reflected through research perspective di-mensions methods and goalse concepts of sustainabilityand resilience should be integrated to provide a comprehen-sive assessment of urban infrastructurersquos property (2) ebiggest challenge for assessing properties of urban in-frastructurersquos sustainability and resilience is how to combinethe two concepts Urban infrastructure SR-GPA is a newconceptual attempt to provide a unified perspective of urban

infrastructurersquos sustainability and resilience Urban in-frastructure SR-GPA can be divided into basic quality andexpanding quality which reflect urban infrastructurersquos sus-tainability and resilience respectively (3) e assessment ofurban infrastructure SR-GPA involves multiple dimensionsand indexes which constitute the assessment index system ofurban infrastructure SR-GPA e interactions of differentdimensions and indexes should be considered in the assess-ment process and ANP is a reasonable choice which can solvethe above problem through the construction of the ANPstructure model (4)e empirical study of the Harbin subwayshows that the proposed method can locate dimensions thatare important for improving urban infrastructure SR-GPAe weights of influence and measure dimension are relativelylarge ese indexes should be focused in the process ofimproving urban infrastructure SR-GPA e weights of de-mand dimension are relatively small which reflects that urbandevelopment level has small impacts on urban infrastructureSR-GPA (5)e Harbin subway SR-GPA is in a relatively lowlevel and needs to be upgraded through increasing con-struction investment allocating resources efficiently andconsidering resilience in whole life cycle e assessmentresults of the Harbin subway SR-GPA can be used to guide thefuture construction and operation of the Harbin subway

Future works can be done to improve the assessmentindex system of urban infrastructure SR-GPA More indexesshould be selected and added to reflect the resilience ofurban infrastructure e automatic assessment system ofurban infrastructure SR-GPA can be developed to providethe real-time data of urban infrastructure SR-GPA

Data Availability

e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

is research was supported by the National Natural ScienceFoundation of China (NSFC) (nos 71390522 7167105371271065 and 71771067) e work described in this paperwas also funded by the National Key RampD Program of China(nos 2016YFC0701800 and 2016YFC0701808)

References

[1] L M A Bettencourt J Lobo D Helbing C Kuhnert andG B West ldquoGrowth innovation scaling and the pace of lifein citiesrdquo Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesvol 104 no 17 pp 7301ndash7306 2007

[2] P Crane and A Kinzig ldquoNature in the metropolisrdquo Sciencevol 308 no 5726 p 1225 2005

[3] M Gandy ldquoCyborg urbanization complexity and mon-strosity in the contemporary cityrdquo International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research vol 29 no 1 pp 26ndash49 2005


[4] J Atack F Bateman M Haines and R A Margo ldquoDidrailroads induce or follow economic growthrdquo Social ScienceHistory vol 34 no 2 pp 171ndash197 2010

[5] B Liddle ldquoImpact of population age structure and urbani-zation on carbon emissionsenergy consumption evidencefrom macro-level cross-country analysesrdquo Population andEnvironment vol 35 no 3 pp 286ndash304 2014

[6] L Seeliger and I Turok ldquoTowards sustainable cities extendingresilience with insights from vulnerability and transitiontheoryrdquo Sustainability vol 5 no 5 pp 2108ndash2128 2013

[7] M Acuto S Parnell and K Seto ldquoBuilding a global urbansciencerdquo Nature Sustainability vol 1 no 1 pp 2ndash4 2018

[8] N O Attoh-Okine A T Cooper and S A Mensah ldquoFor-mulation of resilience index of urban infrastructure usingbelief functionsrdquo IEEE Systems Journal vol 3 no 2pp 147ndash153 2009

[9] U Berardi ldquoSustainability assessment in the constructionsector rating systems and rated buildingsrdquo Sustainable De-velopment vol 20 no 6 pp 411ndash424 2012

[10] W L Lee ldquoBenchmarking energy use of building environ-mental assessment schemesrdquo Energy and Buildings vol 45pp 326ndash334 2012

[11] H Yao L Shen Y Tan and J Hao ldquoSimulating the impacts ofpolicy scenarios on the sustainability performance of in-frastructure projectsrdquo Automation in Construction vol 20no 8 pp 1060ndash1069 2011

[12] P Bocchini D M Frangopol T Ummenhofer and T ZinkeldquoResilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure towarda unified approachrdquo Journal of Infrastructure Systems vol 20no 2 article 04014004 2013

[13] H Zhou J Wan and H Jia ldquoResilience to natural hazardsa geographic perspectiverdquo Natural Hazards vol 53 no 1pp 21ndash41 2010

[14] M Bruneau S E Chang R T Eguchi et al ldquoA framework toquantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience ofcommunitiesrdquo Earthquake Spectra vol 19 no 4 pp 733ndash7522003

[15] P Glavic and R Lukman ldquoReview of sustainability terms andtheir definitionsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Production vol 15no 18 pp 1875ndash1885 2007

[16] T McDaniels S Chang D Cole et al ldquoFostering resilience toextreme events within infrastructure systems characterizingdecision contexts for mitigation and adaptationrdquo GlobalEnvironmental Change vol 18 no 2 pp 310ndash318 2008

[17] S Lele and R B Norgaard ldquoSustainability and the scientistrsquosburdenrdquoConservation Biology vol 10 no 2 pp 354ndash365 1996

[18] E Ostrom J Burger C B Field R B Norgaard andD Policansky ldquoRevisiting the commons local lessons globalchallengesrdquo Science vol 284 no 5412 pp 278ndash282 1999

[19] P Marcuse ldquoSustainability is not enoughrdquo Environment andUrbanization vol 10 no 2 pp 103ndash112 1998

[20] Y Kajikawa ldquoResearch core and framework of sustainabilitysciencerdquo Sustainability Science vol 3 no 2 pp 215ndash2392008

[21] B J Brown M E Hanson D M Liverman andR W Merideth ldquoGlobal sustainability toward definitionrdquoEnvironmental Management vol 11 no 6 pp 713ndash719 1987

[22] G John D Clements-Croome and G Jeronimidis ldquoSus-tainable building solutions a review of lessons from thenatural worldrdquo Building and Environment vol 40 no 3pp 319ndash328 2005

[23] A Haapio and P Viitaniemi ldquoA critical review of buildingenvironmental assessment toolsrdquo Environmental Impact As-sessment Review vol 28 no 7 pp 469ndash482 2008

[24] T Litman and D Burwell ldquoIssues in sustainable trans-portationrdquo International Journal of Global EnvironmentalIssues vol 6 no 4 pp 331ndash347 2006

[25] H R Sahely C A Kennedy and B J Adams ldquoDevelopingsustainability criteria for urban infrastructure systemsrdquo Cana-dian Journal of Civil Engineering vol 32 no 1 pp 72ndash85 2005

[26] S Dasgupta and E K L Tam ldquoIndicators and framework forassessing sustainable infrastructurerdquo Canadian Journal ofCivil Engineering vol 32 no 1 pp 30ndash44 2005

[27] G Schiller ldquoUrban infrastructure challenges for resourceefficiency in the building stockrdquo Building Research and In-formation vol 35 no 4 pp 399ndash411 2007

[28] T Yigitcanlar and F Dur ldquoDeveloping a sustainability as-sessment model the sustainable infrastructure land-useenvironment and transport modelrdquo Sustainability vol 2no 1 pp 321ndash340 2010

[29] M A Rijsberman and F H M Van De Ven ldquoDifferentapproaches to assessment of design and management ofsustainable urban water systemsrdquo Environmental ImpactAssessment Review vol 20 no 3 pp 333ndash345 2000

[30] A J Balkema H A Preisig R Otterpohl andF J D Lambert ldquoIndicators for the sustainability assessmentof wastewater treatment systemsrdquo Urban Water vol 4 no 2pp 153ndash161 2002

[31] N H Afgan andM G Carvalho ldquoSustainability assessment ofhydrogen energy systemsrdquo International Journal of HydrogenEnergy vol 29 no 13 pp 1327ndash1342 2004

[32] C Mihyeon Jeon and A Amekudzi ldquoAddressing sustain-ability in transportation systems definitions indicators andmetricsrdquo Journal of Infrastructure Systems vol 11 no 1pp 31ndash50 2005

[33] C S Holling ldquoResilience and stability of ecological systemsrdquoAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics vol 4 no 1pp 1ndash23 1973

[34] A Rose ldquoEconomic resilience to natural and man-made di-sasters multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensionsrdquoEnvironmental Hazards vol 7 no 4 pp 383ndash398 2007

[35] S E Chang ldquoEvaluating disaster mitigations methodologyfor urban infrastructure systemsrdquo Natural Hazards Reviewvol 4 no 4 pp 186ndash196 2003

[36] M Bruneau and A Reinhorn ldquoExploring the concept ofseismic resilience for acute care facilitiesrdquo Earthquake Spectravol 23 no 1 pp 41ndash62 2007

[37] S E Chang and M Shinozuka ldquoMeasuring improvements inthe disaster resilience of communitiesrdquo Earthquake Spectravol 20 no 3 pp 739ndash755 2004

[38] D A Reed K C Kapur and R D Christie ldquoMethodology forassessing the resilience of networked infrastructurerdquo IEEESystems Journal vol 3 no 2 pp 174ndash180 2009

[39] E D Vugrin D E Warren and M A Ehlen ldquoA resilienceassessment framework for infrastructure and economic sys-tems quantitative and qualitative resilience analysis of pet-rochemical supply chains to a hurricanerdquo Process SafetyProgress vol 30 no 3 pp 280ndash290 2011

[40] C W Zobel ldquoRepresenting perceived tradeoffs in definingdisaster resiliencerdquo Decision Support Systems vol 50 no 2pp 394ndash403 2011

[41] R E Ulanowicz S J Goerner B Lietaer and R GomezldquoQuantifying sustainability resilience efficiency and thereturn of information theoryrdquo Ecological Complexity vol 6no 1 pp 27ndash36 2009

[42] R K Singh H R Murty S K Gupta and A K Dikshit ldquoAnoverview of sustainability assessment methodologiesrdquo Eco-logical Indicators vol 9 no 2 pp 189ndash212 2009


[43] S Hosseini K Barker and J E Ramirez-Marquez ldquoA reviewof definitions and measures of system resiliencerdquo ReliabilityEngineering and System Safety vol 145 pp 47ndash61 2016

[44] W N Adger ldquoSocial and ecological resilience are they re-latedrdquo Progress in Human Geography vol 24 no 3pp 347ndash364 2000

[45] K Magis ldquoCommunity resilience an indicator of socialsustainabilityrdquo Society and Natural Resources vol 23 no 5pp 401ndash416 2010

[46] J Anderies C Folke BWalker and E Ostrom ldquoAligning keyconcepts for global change policy robustness resilience andsustainabilityrdquo Ecology and Society vol 18 no 2 p 8 2013

[47] A Rose ldquoResilience and sustainability in the face of disastersrdquoEnvironmental Innovation and Societal Transitions vol 1no 1 pp 96ndash100 2011

[48] T Zinke P Bocchini D M Frangopol and T UmmenhoferldquoCombining resilience and sustainability in infrastructureprojectsrdquo in Proceedings of theltird International Symposiumon Life-Cycle Civil Engineering pp 3ndash6 Vienna AustriaOctober 2012

[49] B L Turner ldquoVulnerability and resilience coalescing orparalleling approaches for sustainability sciencerdquo GlobalEnvironmental Change vol 20 no 4 pp 570ndash576 2010

[50] A Amantini M Choras S DrsquoAntonio E EgozcueD Germanus and R Hutter ldquoe human role in tools forimproving robustness and resilience of critical in-frastructuresrdquo Cognition Technology and Work vol 14 no 2pp 143ndash155 2012

[51] CEEQUAL Scheme Description and Assessment ProcessHandbook Version 5 February 2018 httpwwwceequalcomdownloads

[52] Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) Draft of theEnvision Assessment System Version 30 February 2018httpwwwsustainableinfrastructureorg

[53] L Larsen L Nicholas C Leighton et al Green Building andClimate Resilience Understanding Impacts and Preparing forChanging Conditions University ofMichigan AnnArbor MIUSA 2011

[54] National Research Council (NRC) Sustainable Critical In-frastructure Systems-A Framework for Meeting 21st-CenturyImperatives National Research Council National AcademiesPress Washington DC USA 2009

[55] J Ghosh C Tapia and J E Padgett ldquoLife-cycle analysis ofembodied energy for aging bridges subject to seismic haz-ardsrdquo in Applications of Statistics and Probability in CivilEngineering M Faber J Kohler and K Nishijima Eds CRCPress Boca Raton FL USA 2008

[56] A Milman and A Short ldquoIncorporating resilience intosustainability indicators an example for the urban watersectorrdquo Global Environmental Change vol 18 no 4pp 758ndash767 2008

[57] C Nelms A D Russell and B J Lence ldquoAssessing theperformance of sustainable technologies for building pro-jectsrdquo Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering vol 32 no 1pp 114ndash128 2005

[58] R Francis and B Bekera ldquoA metric and frameworks forresilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systemsrdquoReliability Engineering and System Safety vol 121 pp 90ndash1032014

[59] J A Wardekker A de Jong J M Knoop andJ P van der Sluijs ldquoOperationalising a resilience approach toadapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changesrdquoTechnological Forecasting and Social Change vol 77 no 6pp 987ndash998 2010

[60] P Bolund and S Hunhammar ldquoEcosystem services in urbanareasrdquo Ecological Economics vol 29 no 2 pp 293ndash301 1999

[61] M Cavallaro D Asprone V Latora G Manfredi andV Nicosia ldquoAssessment of urban ecosystem resiliencethrough hybrid socialndashphysical complex networksrdquoComputer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering vol 29pp 608ndash625 2014

[62] J R Pack and A Altshuler ldquoFragile foundations a report onAmericarsquos public works national council on public worksimprovementrdquo Journal of Policy Analysis and Managementvol 8 pp 505ndash508 1989

[63] L M Meade and J Sarkis ldquoAnalyzing organizational projectalternatives for agile manufacturing processes an analyticalnetwork approachrdquo International Journal of Production Re-search vol 37 no 2 pp 241ndash261 1999

[64] C N Huang J H Liou and Y C Chuang ldquoA method forexploring the interdependencies and importance of criticalinfrastructuresrdquo Knowledge-Based Systems vol 55 pp 66ndash742014

[65] T L Saaty ldquoPriority setting in complex problemsrdquo IEEETransactions on Engineering Management vol 209 no 3pp 140ndash155 1983

[66] L M Meade and A Presley ldquoRampD project selection using theanalytic network processrdquo IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement vol 49 no 1 pp 59ndash66 2002

[67] Z Ayag and R G Ozdemir ldquoA hybrid approach to conceptselection through fuzzy analytic network processrdquo Computersand Industrial Engineering vol 56 no 1 pp 368ndash379 2009

[68] M Ouyang L Duentildeas-Osorio and X Min ldquoA three-stageresilience analysis framework for urban infrastructure sys-temsrdquo Structural Safety vol 36 pp 23ndash31 2012

[69] M Sohail S Cavill and A P Cotton ldquoSustainable operationand maintenance of urban infrastructure myth or realityrdquoJournal of urban planning and development vol 131 no 1pp 39ndash49 2005

[70] L F Gay and S K Sinha ldquoResilience of civil infrastructuresystems literature review for improved asset managementrdquoInternational Journal of Critical Infrastructures vol 9 no 4pp 330ndash350 2013

[71] O Ugwu and T C Haupt ldquoKey performance indicators andassessment methods for infrastructure sustainabilitymdasha SouthAfrican construction industry perspectiverdquo Building andEnvironment vol 42 no 2 pp 665ndash680 2007

[72] Department of Urban Surveys National Bureau of Statistics ofChina China City Statistical Yearbookmdash2014 China StatisticsPress Beijing China 2014 in Chinese

[73] Department of Urban Surveys National Bureau of Statistics ofChina China Environment Statistical Yearbookmdash2014 ChinaStatistics Press Beijing China 2014 in Chinese

[74] S Cloutier J Jambeck and N Scott ldquoe sustainableneighborhoods for happiness index (SNHI) a metric forassessing a communityrsquos sustainability and potential influenceon happinessrdquo Ecological Indicators vol 40 pp 147ndash1522014

[75] J M Fischer and A Amekudzi ldquoQuality of life sustainablecivil infrastructure and sustainable development strategicallyexpanding choicerdquo Journal of Urban Planning and Develop-ment vol 137 no 1 pp 39ndash48 2011

[76] M Jovanovic N Afgan and V Bakic ldquoAn analytical methodfor the measurement of energy system sustainability in urbanareasrdquo Energy vol 35 no 9 pp 3909ndash3920 2010

[77] B V Reddy and K S Jagadish ldquoEmbodied energy of commonand alternative building materials and technologiesrdquo Energyand Buildings vol 35 no 2 pp 129ndash137 2003


[78] M Calkins Materials for Sustainable Sites A Complete Guideto the Evaluation Selection and Use of Sustainable Con-struction Materials John Wiley amp Sons New York NY USA2008

[79] F Martin-Carrasco L Garrote A Iglesias and L MedieroldquoDiagnosing causes of water scarcity in complex water re-sources systems and identifying risk management actionsrdquoWater Resources Management vol 27 no 6 pp 1693ndash17052013

[80] B Cohen ldquoUrbanization in developing countries currenttrends future projections and key challenges for sustain-abilityrdquo Technology in Society vol 28 no 1-2 pp 63ndash80 2006

[81] S Demurger ldquoInfrastructure development and economicgrowth an explanation for regional disparities in ChinardquoJournal of Comparative Economics vol 29 no 1 pp 95ndash1172001

[82] M F Dulaimi Y F Y Ling G Ofori et al ldquoEnhancingintegration and innovation in constructionrdquo Building Re-search and Information vol 30 no 4 pp 237ndash247 2002

[83] X Xue R Zhang X Zhang R J Yang and H Li ldquoEnvi-ronmental and social challenges for urban subway con-struction an empirical study in Chinardquo International Journalof Project Management vol 33 no 3 pp 576ndash588 2015

[84] S L Cutter C G Burton and C T Emrich ldquoDisasterresilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditionsrdquoJournal of Homeland Security and Emergency Managementvol 7 no 1 p 51 2010

[85] H Chen B Jia and S S Y Lau ldquoSustainable urban form forChinese compact cities challenges of a rapid urbanizedeconomyrdquo Habitat International vol 32 no 1 pp 28ndash402008

[86] L Y Shen J J Ochoa M N Shah and X Zhang ldquoeapplication of urban sustainability indicatorsndashA comparisonbetween various practicesrdquo Habitat International vol 35no 1 pp 17ndash29 2011

[87] R T Warne C Nagaishi M K Slade P Hermesmeyer andE K Peck ldquoComparing weighted and unweighted grade pointaverages in predicting college success of diverse and low-income college studentsrdquo NASSP Bulletin vol 98 no 4pp 261ndash279 2014


International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018


Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration


Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in



Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of



Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery


Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018


Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation




Navigation and Observation


Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

e researches of urban infrastructure sustainability andresilience are inefficient in previous studies Moreover thereare few efforts to combine urban infrastructure sustainabilityand resilience into a unified concept

e main cause of the above issue probably dues to thedifferent historical origins of urban infrastructure sustain-ability and resilience e theoretical and practical de-velopments of resilience and sustainability are separate andwithout a mutual consideration of the findings in mostdomains [12] Sustainability focuses on the influence ofcurrent behavior upon future development and resilienceemphasizes the response capability to abnormal impact[15 16] e concepts of sustainability and resilience havedifferent historical roots develop independently in boththeoretical and practical field but generate more and morecommon connotations as human society develops Urbaninfrastructure should have properties of sustainability andresilience simultaneously during the construction and op-eration process to enhance its capabilities [9] is studypresents an effort to develop a unified concept for bothurban infrastructure sustainability and infrastructure eoriginal contribution of this study consists of a unified as-sessment approach in order to address the sustainability andresilience of urban infrastructure simultaneously andquantitatively

e paper is structured as follows First previous researchon urban infrastructure sustainability and resilience arereviewed and summarized to explain the research motivationen the concept of urban infrastructure SR-GPA is proposedfor integrating the concepts of urban infrastructure sustain-ability and resilience Afterward the assessment index systemand ANP structure model are constructed to design a unifiedassessment approach for urban infrastructure SR-GPA Fi-nally Harbin subway is selected as an empirical study to testthe applicability of the unified assessment approach

2 Literature Review

21 Sustainability of Urban Infrastructure Sustainabilityreflects the ability to sustain which means the goal ofsustainability is maintaining a state at a certain level [17ndash20]e connotation of sustainability varies in different domains[21] In the field of civil engineering sustainability mainlyrefers to sustainable building which devotes to improvingthe environmental performance of buildings throughtechnical innovations [22] Assessment standards enhancethe sustainability of buildings which can be reflected in theimproved environmental performance [23] Further re-searches have extended sustainability to other dimensionsrelated to human development and emphasize the balance ofenvironment economy and society [20 24]

Current studies of urban infrastructurersquos sustainabilitymainly focus on the construction of the assessment indexsystem and the selection of assessment methodology Fromthe view of whole life cycle the urban infrastructure systemgenerates interactions and feedback mechanisms witheconomic and social systems thus the assessment standardsshould be constructed from environmental economic so-cial and engineering dimensions [25] From the perspective

of improving urban infrastructurersquos environmental perfor-mance the assessment indexes of sustainability can be di-vided into mandatory screening indexes and judgmentindexes which can be used to improve resource utilizationefficiency [26 27] In theoretical and practical level theassessment indexes of urban infrastructurersquos sustainabilityshould include all dimensions of sustainability and ap-propriate index parameters should be selected [28] Somescholars have specifically studied different urban in-frastructuresrsquo sustainability such as lifelines distributedinfrastructure systems and transportation systems [29ndash32]

Sustainability of urban infrastructure can be concludedas the unity of environmental economic and social di-mension e interactions of these three dimensions forma sustainable urban infrastructure that meets the needs ofpresent and future generations for specific functions andservices and ensures the balanced development of economysociety and environment

22 Resilience of Urban Infrastructure Resilience is theability that a system restores to its original status after beingdisturbed [33]e concept has been widely used in differentdomains (eg ecology and environment) [34] In the field ofcivil engineering engineers improve infrastructurersquos resil-ience to resist adverse impacts of extreme disasters such asearthquake and hurricane [35] Bruneau et al conceptualizeresilience from four interrelated dimensions technical or-ganizational social and economic [14] ese four di-mensions of resilience are described as the TOSEmodeleTOSE model quantifies resilience from four propertiesrobustness rapidity redundancy and resourcefulness [16]Above four dimensions and four properties form conceptualframework for analyzing resilience Under this conceptualframework a resilient system is more reliable and can re-cover quickly which ensure low socioeconomic conse-quences during a disaster [36] Bocchini et al systematicallysummarize the above eleven aspects of resilience for generalcivil infrastructure [12]

Urban infrastructurersquos resilience represents the abilitythat urban infrastructure can recover to its initial statusthrough combinations of technical economic and man-agement measures when facing unexpected situations orextreme disasters Scholars have done research on the cal-culation and assessment methods of urban infrastructurersquosresilience from different perspectives which reflect the aboveeleven aspects of resilience Various methods such assimulation [37] mathematical calculation and quantifica-tion method [38] have been used to calculate urban in-frastructurersquos resilience In addition the priority of assessmentstandards should be considered for assessing urban in-frastructure resilience and policymakersrsquo preferences play animportant role in determining the assessment standards ofresilience [39 40]

Concluded from above studies the assessment of urbaninfrastructure resilience should include three dimensions[12] (1) technical dimension comprising all technical ele-ments in urban infrastructure life cycle (2) economic di-mension involving economic factors in the restore processes
















Urbaninfrastructure

SR-GPA





Economy

Technology


Goal


Element group C1

Element group Cn


Element group C4

Element A

Control layer

Network layer

Element B

helliphellip

Element group C















Sustainability

Resilience

Normal status



Resilient ability

Basic quality

Expandingquality

SR-GPACombination

Foun

datio

n

Impr

ovem

ent
















Demand dimension

Status dimension

Influence dimension

Resource dimension

Measure dimension




Demand (D)








Status (S)













Influence (I)









Resource (R)

R1 material











Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)









Measure (M)











(4)


(5)



U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)





(8)





y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)


4 Case Study










U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia
















Urbaninfrastructure

SR-GPA





Economy

Technology


Goal


Element group C1

Element group Cn


Element group C4

Element A

Control layer

Network layer

Element B

helliphellip

Element group C















Sustainability

Resilience

Normal status



Resilient ability

Basic quality

Expandingquality

SR-GPACombination

Foun

datio

n

Impr

ovem

ent
















Demand dimension

Status dimension

Influence dimension

Resource dimension

Measure dimension




Demand (D)








Status (S)













Influence (I)









Resource (R)

R1 material











Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)









Measure (M)











(4)


(5)



U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)





(8)





y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)


4 Case Study










U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia












Sustainability

Resilience

Normal status



Resilient ability

Basic quality

Expandingquality

SR-GPACombination

Foun

datio

n

Impr

ovem

ent
















Demand dimension

Status dimension

Influence dimension

Resource dimension

Measure dimension




Demand (D)








Status (S)













Influence (I)









Resource (R)

R1 material











Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)









Measure (M)











(4)


(5)



U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)





(8)





y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)


4 Case Study










U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia















Demand dimension

Status dimension

Influence dimension

Resource dimension

Measure dimension




Demand (D)








Status (S)













Influence (I)









Resource (R)

R1 material











Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)









Measure (M)











(4)


(5)



U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)





(8)





y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)


4 Case Study










U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia








Influence (I)









Resource (R)

R1 material











Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)









Measure (M)











(4)


(5)



U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)





(8)





y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)


4 Case Study










U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia




Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)









Measure (M)











(4)


(5)



U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)





(8)





y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)


4 Case Study










U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia





(4)


(5)



U U1U2 Uk Un1113864 1113865 k 1 2 n (6)





(8)





y 1113944m

i1wixi (9)


4 Case Study










U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia







U11

city

size



U12

econ

omic

dev

elopm

ent

U13

soci

al le

vel

U21

supp

ly ca

paci

ty

U22

pub

lic sa

tisfa

ctio

n

U31

goa

l

U32

hea

lth

U33

soci

al en

viro

nmen

t

U41

save

mat

eria

l

U42

save

ener

gy

U43

save

wat

er

U51

tech

nolo

gica

l inn

ovat

ion

U52

econ

omic

supp

ort

U53

man

agem

ent m

easu

re

Con

trol l

ayer

Net

wor

k la

yer

U211 U221U224

U212 U222U225

U213 U223 U311 U321 U331

U312 U322 U332

U313 U323 U333

U121 U131

U111 U122 U132

U123 U133

U511 U521 U531

U512 U522 U532

U513 U523 U533

U413 U421 U431

U414 U422 U432

U415 U423 U433

U411

U412




43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia



43 Result Analysis




Technicalindexes

Objectiveindexes

Subjectiveindexes

Influencedimension

Resourcedimension

Measuredimension

Publicsatisfaction

Supplycapacity

Demanddimension

Professionalstaff

Similarcities

Users







Work experience





Above 11 24 453

42

78

89

27


20

40

60

80

100

Num

ber

Age


0 1 2 3 4 5

Good

Excellent

Relatively low

Low

Bad










Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia









Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)

























Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia



















Demand (D)






Status (S)






Influence (I)







Resource (R)

R1 save material








Measure (M)










5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia




5 Discussion



















6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia



6 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References






























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia



























































































RoboticsJournal of




VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2018



Volume 2018


Journal of




SensorsJournal of



RotatingMachinery





Propagation






Hindawi


Advances in

Multimedia


AUnifiedAssessmentApproachforUrbanInfrastructure...

Documents

Transcript of AUnifiedAssessmentApproachforUrbanInfrastructure...