Optimizing regional earthquake mitigation investment strategies

Earthquake Spectra

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 305-327

  Dodo, Atsuhiro ^a   Xu, Ningxiong ^a   Davidson, Rachel A ^a   Nozick, Linda K ^a  

^a School of Chemical and Molecular Engineering   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; INVESTMENTS; LINEAR PROGRAMMING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; OPTIMIZATION; RECONSTRUCTION (STRUCTURAL); RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RISK MANAGEMENT; STRUCTURES (BUILT OBJECTS);

REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE MITIGATION ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL UPGRADING;

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DYNAMIC RESPONSE; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; LINEAR PROGRAMING; MITIGATION; STRATEGIC APPROACH; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

CALIFORNIA; LOS ANGELES COUNTY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 20544444756     PISSN: 87552930     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1193/1.1896959     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Altay, G. Deodatis, G., Franco, G., Gulkan, P., Kunreuther, H., Lus, H., Mete, E., Seeber, N., Smyth, A., and Yuzugullu, O., 2002. Benefit-cost analysis for earthquake mitigation: Evaluating measures for apartment in Turkey, Proceedings of 2nd Annual IIASA-DPRI Meeting, International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
2. Amendola, A., Ermoliev, Y., and Ermolieva, T. Y., 2000a. Earthquake risk management: A case study for an Italian region, Proceedings of EuroConference on Global Change and Catastrophic Risk Management: Earthquake Risks in Europe, International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
3. Amendola, A., Ermoliev, Y., Ermolieva, T. Y., Gitis, V., Koff, G., and Linnerooth-Bayer, J., 2000b. A systems approach to modeling catastrophic risk and insurability, Natural Hazards 21, 381-393.
4. Augusti, G., Borri, A., and Ciampoli, M., 1994. Optimal allocation of resources in reduction of the seismic risk of highway networks, Eng. Struct. 16 (7), 485-497.
5. Bernknopf, R. L., Dintz, L. B., Rabinovici, S. J. M., and Evans, A. M., 2001. A portfolio approach to evaluating natural hazard mitigation policies: An application to lateral-spread ground failure in coastal California, International Geology Review 43 (5), 424-440.
6. Chang, S. E., 2002. Probabilistic assessment of economic impacts of earthquakes: Memphis water system case study, Proceedings of 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Mass.
7. Chang, S., Shinozuka, M., and Moore, II, J., 2000. Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: Extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems, Earthquake Spectra 16 (3), 557-572.
8. Englehardt, J. D., and Peng, C., 1996. A Bayesian benefit-risk model applied to the South Florida Building Code, Recent Dev. Alcohol 16 (1), 81-91.
9. Ermoliev, Y. M., Ermolieva, T. Y., MacDonald, G. J., Norkin, V. I., and Amendola, A., 2000. A system approach to management of catastrophic risks, European Journal of Operations Research 122, 452-460.
10. Ermolieva, T. Y., Fischer, G., and Obersteiner, M., 2003. Integrated Modeling of Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneities and Decisions Induced by Catastrophic Events, IIASA Interim Report IR-03-023, International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1990. Loss-Reduction Provisions of a Federal Earthquake Insurance Program, FEMA-200, Washington, D.C.
12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1992. A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-227/228, Washington, D.C.
13. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1994a. Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings: Volume 1: Summary, 2nd ed., FEMA-156, prepared by the Hart Consulting Group, Inc., Santa Monica, CA.
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1994b. Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/Cost Model, FEMA-255/ 256, Washington, D.C.
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1995. Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings: Volume 2: Supporting Documentation, 2nd ed., FEMA-157, prepared by the Hart Consulting Group, Inc., Santa Monica, CA.
16. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1999. HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. Technical Manual, Service Release 1, Washington, D.C.
17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2002a. State and Local Plan Interim Criteria under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Washington, D.C.
18. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2002b. Guide to Using HAZUS for Mitigation, Washington, D.C.
19. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003. State and Local Mitigation Planning How to Guide, Report No. 386-3, Washington, D.C.
20. Isoyama, R., Katayama, T., and Shah, H., 1983. "Seismic risk-investment analysis for water supply systems," Seismic Risk and Its Use in Code Formulation: Proceedings of a Review Meeting of U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research in Generalized Seismic Risk Analysis.
21. Kappos, A., Pitilakis, K., Stylianidis, K., Morfidis, K., and Asimakopoulos, N., 1996. Cost-benefit analysis for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Thessaloniki, based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment, Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice, France, Vol. 1, pp. 406-413.
22. Kunreuther, H., Cyr, C., Grossi, P., and Tao, W., 2001. Using cost-benefit analysis to evaluate mitigation for lifeline systems, MCEER Research Progress and Accomplishments 2000-2001, MCEER, Buffalo, NY.
23. Kuwata, Y., and Takada, S., 2003. Seismic risk assessment and upgrade strategy of hospital-lifeline performance, Proceedings of Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Long Beach, Calif, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 82-91.
24. Litan, R., Krimgold, F., Clark, K., and Khadilkar, J., 1993. Physical damage and human loss: The economic impact of earthquake mitigation measures in Memphis, Tennessee, in Proceedings, 1993 National Earthquake Conference: Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United States: A Time for Examination and Action, Memphis, Tenn., Vol. 1, pp. 571-579.
25. Mileti, D., 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.
26. Mostafa, E. M., and Grigoriu, M., 2002. A methodology for optimizing retrofitting techniques, Proceedings of 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Mass., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
27. National Research Council (NRC), 2003. Preventing Earthquake Disasters: The Grand Challenge in Earthquake Engineering, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
28. Nuti, C., and Vanzi, I., 1998. Assessment of post-earthquake availability of hospital system and upgrading strategies, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 27, 1403-1423.
29. Opricovic, S., and Tzeng, G.-H., 2002. Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 17, 211-220.
30. RSMeans, 2003. Square Foot Costs, RSMeans Inc., Kingston, MA.
31. Sarin, R. K., 1983. A social decision analysis of the earthquake safety problem: The case of existing Los Angeles buildings, Risk Anal. 3 (1), 35-50.
32. Seligson, H. A., Blais, N. C., Eguchi, R. T., Flores, P. J., and Bortugno, E., 1998. Regional benefit-cost analysis for earthquake hazard mitigation: Application to the Northridge Earthquake, Proceedings of 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Wash., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
33. Shah, H. C., Bendimerad, M. F., and Stojanovski, P., 1992. Resource allocation in seismic risk mitigation, Proceedings of 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, Vol. 4, pp. 6007-6011.
34. Shumuta, Y., 1998. A seismic retrofit planning method for substation components on the basis of the cost-benefit analysis, Proceedings of 11th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France.
35. Taylor, C. E., and Werner, S. D., 1995. Proposed acceptable earthquake risk procedures for the Port of Los Angeles 2020 Expansion program, Proceedings of 4th Technical Council on Life-line Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Calif., American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 64-71.
36. Taylor, C. E., and Werner, S. D., 2001. Walkthrough method for catastrophe decision making, Nat. Hazards Rev. 2 (4), 193-202.
37. U.S. Small Business Administration (U.S. SBA), (2003). (http://www.sba.gov/) (November 2003).
38. Warszawski, A., Gluck, J., and Segal, D., 1996. Economic evaluation of design codes: Case of seismic design, J. Struct. Eng. 122 (12), 1400-1408.
39. Werner, S. D., Taylor, C. E., Dahlgren, T., Lobedan, F., LaBasco, T. R., and Ogunfunmi, K., 2002. Seismic risk analysis of Port of Oakland container berths, Proceedings of 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Mass., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
40. Werner S. D. Taylor, C. E., and Ferritto, J. M., 1999. Seismic risk reduction planning for ports lifelines, Proceedings of 5th Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Wash., American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 503-512.