The risk-return tradeoff in optimizing regional earthquake mitigation investment

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 133-146

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

^a School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering   (United States)

^b Swiss Reinsurance Company   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Earthquakes; Optimization; Resource allocation; Risk management

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION CHANNELS (INFORMATION THEORY); EARTHQUAKES; ECONOMICS; FINANCE; INSURANCE; INVESTMENTS; OPTIMIZATION; PLANNING; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SEISMOLOGY; STOCHASTIC MODELS; STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION;

CASE STUDIES; DANTZIG-WOLFE DECOMPOSITION; DECISION MAKERS (DM); DISASTER MITIGATION; EARTHQUAKE RISKS; EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO; LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; LOS ANGELES (LA); LOW PROBABILITY; RISK AVERSION; SOLUTION METHODS; SPECIAL STRUCTURE; STOCHASTIC OPTIMIZATION MODEL;

RISKS;

EID: 48249133657     PISSN: 15732479     EISSN: 17448980     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15732470600591083     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alcsch, D. and Pctak, W., Guidance for seismic safety advocates: formulating and evaluating policy alternatives. In Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates. MCEER-04-SP.02, edited by D. Alesch, P. May, R. Olshansky, W. Petak and K. Tierney, 2002 (Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research: Buffalo, NY).
2. Alcsch, D. and Petak, W., Guidance for seismic safety advocates: gaining attention. In Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates, MCEER-04-SP.02, edited by D. Alesch, P. May, R. Olshansky, W. Petak and K. Tierncy, 2002 (Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research: Buffalo, NY).
3. Altay, G., Deodatis, G., Franco, G., Gulkan, P., Kunrcuther, H., Lus, H., Mete, E., Sceber, N., Smyth, A. and Yuzugullu, O., Benefit-cost analysis for earthquake mitigation: evaluating measures for apartment in Turkey, in Proceedings of the Second Annual IIASA-DPRI Meeting, 2002 (International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis: Laxenburg, Austria).
4. Bawa, V., Optimal rules for ordering uncertain prospects. Journal of Financial Economics, 1975, 2, 95-121.
5. Bernknopf, R.L., Dintz, L.B., Rabinovici, S.J.M. and Evans, A.M., A portfolio approach to evaluating natural hazard mitigation policies: an application to lateral-spread ground failure in coastal California. International Geology Review, 2001, 43(5), 424-440.
6. Bertsimas, D. and Tsitsiklis, J.N., Introduction to Linear Optimization, 1997 (Athena Scientific: Belmont, Mass).
7. Carvalho, P.M.S. and Ferreira, L.A.F.M., Planning large-scale distribution network for robust expansion under deregulation, in Proceedings of the 2000 Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, 2000, pp. 1305-1310 (IEEE: Piscataway, NY).
8. Chang, S., Shinozuka, M. and Moore, II, J., Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems. Earthquake Spectra, 2000, 16(3), 557-572.
9. Dodo, A., Xu, N., Davidson, R.A. and Nozick, L.K., Optimizing regional earthquake mitigation investment strategies. Earthquake Spectra, 2005, 21, 305-327.
10. Englehardt, J.D. and Peng, C., A Bayesian benefit-risk model applied to the South Florida Building Code. Risk Analysis, 1996, 16(1), 81-91.
11. Ermolicv, Y.M., Ermolieva, T.Y., MacDonald, G.J., Norkin, V.I. and Amendola, A., A system approach to management of catastrophic risks. European Journal of Operations Research, 2000, 122, 452-460.
12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report No. 227/228, 1992 (FEMA: Washington, DC).
13. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/Cost Model, Report No. 255/256, 1994 (FEMA: Washington, DC).
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. Technical Manual, Service Release 1, 1999 (FEMA: Washington, DC).
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Slate and Local Plan Interim Criteria Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, 2002 (FEMA: Washington, DC).
16. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), State and Local Mitigation Planning How To Guide, Report No. 386-3, 2003 (FEMA: Washington, DC).
17. Fishburn, P.C., Mean-risk analysis with risk associated with below-targct return. American Economic Review, 1977, 67(2), 116-126.
18. Laguna, M., Applying robust optimization to capacity expansion of one location in telecommunications with demand uncertainly. Management Science, 1998, 44(11), S101-S110.
19. List, G., Wood, B., Nozick, L., Turnquist, M., Jones, D., Kjeldgaard, E. and Lawton, C., Robust optimization for fleet planning under uncertainty. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2003, 39(3), 209-227.
20. Los Angeles Department of City Planning Demographics Research Unit (LADRU), Statistical Information, 2004. Available online at: www.cityplanning.lacity.org/dru/HomeC2K.htm
21. Malcolm, S.A. and Zenios, S.A., Robust optimization for power system capacity expansion under uncertainty. Journal Operational Research Society, 1994, 45(9), 1040-1049.
22. Mostafa, E.M. and Grigoriu, M., A methodology for optimizing retrofitting techniques, in Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2002 (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Boston).
23. Mulvey, J. and Ruszczynski. A., A new scenario decomposition method for large-scale stochastic optimization. Operations Research, 1995, 43(3), 477-490.
24. Mulvey, J.M., Vanderbei, R.J. and Zenios, S.A., Robust optimization of large-scale system. Operations Research, 1995, 43(2), 254-281.
25. Paraskevopoulos, D., Karakistos, E. and Rustem, B., Robust capacity planning under uncertainty. Management Science, 1991, 37(7), 787-800.
26. Prater, C. and Lindell, M., Politics of hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards Review, 2000, 1(2), 73-82.
27. Sarin, R.K., A social decision analysis of the earthquake safety problem: the case of existing Los Angeles buildings. Risk Analysis, 1983, 3(1), 35-50.
28. Seligson, H.A., Blais, N.C., Eguchi, R.T., Flores, P.J. and Bortugno, E., Regional benefit-cost analysis for earthquake hazard mitigation: application to the Northridge Earthquake, in Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1998 (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Seattle).
29. Shah, H.C., Bendimerad, M.F. and Stojanovski, P., Resource allocation in seismic risk mitigation, in Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 4, 1991, pp. 6007-6011 (International Association of Earthquake Engineering: Madrid).
30. Taylor, C.E. and Werner, S.D., Proposed acceptable earthquake risk procedures for the Port of Los Angeles 2020 Expansion program, in Proceedings of the 4th Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, 1995, pp. 64-71 (American Society of Civil Engineers: San Francisco).
31. US Small Business Administration (SBA), 2003. Available online at: www.sba.gov
32. Werner, S.D., Taylor, C.E., Dahlgren, T., Lobedan, F., LaBasco, T.R. and Ogunfunmi, K., Seismic risk analysis of Port of Oakland container berths, in Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2002 (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Boston).
33. Werner, S.D., Taylor, C.E. and Ferritto, J.M., Seismic risk reduction planning for ports lifelines, in Proceedings of the 5th Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, 1999, pp. 503-512 (American Society of Civil Engineers: Seattle).