Türkiye İç Hat Havayolu Ağının Operasyonel Dayanıklılığının Edge Betweenness Centrality ve Network Efficiency Loss Yaklaşımları ile Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye iç hat havayolu ağında kritik uçuş rotalarını ve rota kesintilerinin ağ verimliliği üzerindeki etkisini yönlü ve ağırlıklı bir ağ modeliyle incelemektedir. Araştırmada 13 havalimanı ve 147 yönlü rota içeren, Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü'nün 2024 yılı havalimanı yolcu istatistikleri temelinde araştırmacılar tarafından oluşturulan rota-talep matrisi kullanılmıştır. Ağustos ve şubat dönemleri yıllık rota talebinin sırasıyla %12 ve %6'sı olarak tanımlanan yüksek ve düşük talep senaryolarıdır. Yolcu hacmi bağlantı gücünü temsil ettiğinden, en kısa yol hesaplamalarında kenar maliyeti yolcu hacminin tersi olarak tanımlanmıştır. Kritik rotalar normalize Edge Betweenness Centrality (EBC) ile belirlenmiş, her rotanın tekil çıkarılması sonucunda yüzde Network Efficiency Loss (NEL) hesaplanmış ve kümülatif EBC-hedefli kesintiler 1.000 tekrarlı rastgele rota çıkarma simülasyonlarıyla karşılaştırılmıştır. Ağ yoğunluğu 0,9423, karşılıklılık 0,9932 ve en büyük güçlü bağlı bileşen oranı 1,000 olarak bulunmuştur. Ankara–Sabiha Gökçen ve Sabiha Gökçen–Ankara rotaları en yüksek EBC değerlerine sahip olmuş; tekil çıkarılmaları ağ verimliliğinde sırasıyla %3,755 ve %3,761 kayıp oluşturmuştur. İlk 5, 10 ve 20 kritik rotanın hedefli çıkarılması sırasıyla %9,224, %13,746 ve %26,918 kayıp üretirken rastgele çıkarma ortalamaları %1,293, %2,730 ve %5,886 olmuştur. EBC ile NEL arasında güçlü pozitif ilişki bulunmuştur (Spearman ρ=0,983; p<0,001). Ağustos ve şubat senaryoları aynı rota seti ve oransal ağırlık yapısına sahip olduğundan yapısal kritiklik değişmemiş; dönem farkı yapısal dayanıklılıktan çok yolcu maruziyetinde ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkiye iç hat havayolu ağı
• Edge Betweenness Centrality
• karmaşık ağ analizi.
• OPERASYONEL DAYANIKLILIK

Structural Centrality and Network Resilience Analysis of the Turkish Domestic Airline Network Using Edge Betweenness Centrality and Network Efficiency Loss

Öz

This study examines critical flight routes and the effects of route disruptions on network efficiency in the Turkish domestic airline network using a directed and weighted graph. The analysis uses a researcher-constructed route-demand matrix comprising 13 airports and 147 directed routes, based on 2024 airport passenger statistics published by the General Directorate of State Airports Authority. August and February are defined as high- and low-demand scenarios representing 12% and 6% of annual route demand, respectively. Because passenger volume represents connection strength, edge cost is defined as the inverse of passenger volume. Critical routes are identified using normalized Edge Betweenness Centrality (EBC); percentage Network Efficiency Loss (NEL) is calculated after individual route removal; and cumulative EBC-targeted disruptions are compared with 1,000-replication random route-removal simulations. Network density, reciprocity, and the share of the largest strongly connected component are 0.9423, 0.9932, and 1.000. The Ankara–Sabiha Gökçen and Sabiha Gökçen–Ankara routes have the highest EBC values; their individual removal reduces network efficiency by 3.755% and 3.761%. Removing the first 5, 10, and 20 critical routes produces losses of 9.224%, 13.746%, and 26.918%, compared with random-removal means of 1.293%, 2.730%, and 5.886%. EBC and NEL are strongly correlated (Spearman's ρ=0.983, p<0.001). Since August and February have identical route sets and proportional edge weights, structural criticality remains unchanged; the seasonal difference concerns passenger exposure rather than structural resilience.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Edge Betweenness Centrality
• Turkish Domestic Air Transport Network
• operational resilience
• complex network analysis

Kaynakça

1. Albert, R., Jeong, H., ve Barabási, A.-L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406(6794), 378-382. https://doi.org/10.1038/35019019
2. Arıkan, M. O., Gürel, S., ve Pankuş, M. S. (2015). Türkiye iç hat havayolu ağının yapısal analizi ve merkezilik ölçütleri. Havacılık ve Uzay Teknolojileri Dergisi, 8(2), 45-58.
3. Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network science. Cambridge University Press.
4. Bryan, D. L., ve O'Kelly, M. E. (1999). Hub-and-spoke networks in air transportation: An analytical review. Journal of Regional Science, 39(2), 275-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4146.00134
5. Burghouwt, G., ve Redondi, R. (2013). Connectivity in air transport networks: An assessment of models and applications. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 47(1), 35-53. Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü. (2024). 2024 yılı hava yolu istatistikleri. https://www.dhmi.gov.tr
6. Esri. (2024). ArcGIS Pro [Computer software]. https://www.esri.com
7. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543
8. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

9. Girvan, M., ve Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the
10. National Academy of Sciences, 99(12), 7821-7826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799
11. Guida, M., ve Maria, F. (2007). Topology of the Italian airport network: A scale-free small-world network with a fractal structure? Chaos, Solitons ve Fractals, 31(3), 527-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2006.02.007
12. Guimerà, R., Mossa, S., Turtschi, A., ve Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). The worldwide air transportation network: Anomalous centrality, community structure, and cities' global roles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(22), 7794-7799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407994102
13. Latora, V., ve Marchiori, M. (2001). Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Physical Review Letters, 87(19), 198701. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.198701
14. Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., ve Rhind, D. W. (2015). Geographic information science and systems (4th ed.). Wiley.
15. Lordan, O., Sallan, J. M., Simo, P., ve Gonzalez-Prieto, D. (2014). Robustness of the air transport network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 68, 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.05.011
16. Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford University Press.
17. O'Kelly, M. E. (1998). A geographer's analysis of hub-and-spoke networks. Journal of Transport Geography, 6(3), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(98)00010-6
18. Sun, X., Wandelt, S., ve Zhang, A. (2021). How did COVID-19 impact air transportation? A first peek through the lens of complex networks. Journal of Air Transport Management, 89, 101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101928
19. Voltes-Dorta, A., Rodríguez-Déniz, H., ve Suau-Sanchez, P. (2017). Vulnerability of the European air transport network to major airport closures from the perspective of passenger delays: Ranking the most critical airports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 102, 50-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.12.009
20. Zanin, M., Lillo, F. Modelling the air transport with complex networks: A short review. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 215, 5–21 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2013-01711-9
21. Başpınar, B., Gopalakrishnan, K., Koyuncu, E., ve Balakrishnan, H. (2023). An empirical study of the resilience of the U.S. and European air transportation networks. Journal of Air Transport Management, 106, 102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102303
22. Güner, S., Antunes, J. J. M., Seçkin Codal, K., ve Wanke, P. (2024). Network centrality driven airport efficiency: A weight-restricted network DEA. Journal of Air Transport Management, 116, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2024.102551
23. Matsuo, Y., Yamaguchi, H., ve Miwa, T. (2022). Comparison between algebraic connectivity-based and global efficiency-based vulnerability for railway topology analysis: A case study of Kyushu, Japan. Asian Transport Studies, 8, 100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eastsj.2022.100074
24. NetworkX Developers. (2024). NetworkX documentation. https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/
25. Sun, X., ve Wandelt, S. (2021). Robustness of air transportation as complex networks: Systematic review of 15 years of research and outlook into the future. Sustainability, 13(11), 6446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116446
26. Yang, H., Sun, X., Le, T., ve Zhang, A. (2023). The Chinese aviation network: An empirical temporal analysis on its structural properties and robustness. Applied Sciences, 13(21), 11627. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111627