Decision-making for civil infrastructure exposed to low-probability, high-consequence hazards: The role of risk-aversion

Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering -Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 840-847

  Cha, E J ^a   Ellingwood, B R ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURES; CUMULATIVE PROSPECT THEORY; DAMAGING EVENTS; DECISION MAKERS; INSURANCE INDUSTRY; PROBABILISTIC ASPECTS; RISK ACCEPTANCE; RISK AVERSION; STRUCTURAL SAFETY; TWO-COMPONENT;

CIVIL ENGINEERING; DAMAGE DETECTION;

RISKS;

EID: 84856726760     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Adams, J. & Halchuk, S. 2003. Fourth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada: values for over 650 Canadian localities intended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. Open-File 4459, Ottawa: Geological survey of Canada.
2. Arrow, K.J. 1971. Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
3. Ellingwood, B.R. 2000. LRFD: implementing structural reliability in professional practice. Engrg. Struct. 22(2):106-115.
4. Ellingwood, B.R. & Wen Y.K. 2005. Risk-benefit-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America. Prog. Struct. Engng. Mater. 7:56-70.
5. Goda, K. & Hong, H.P. 2006a. Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with detailed seismic hazard information. Structural Safety 28:247-260.
6. Goda, K. & Hong, H.P. 2006b. Optimal seismic design considering risk attitude, societal tolerable risk level, and life quality criterion. Journl. of Str. Eng. 132(12):2027-2035.
7. Goda, K. & Hong, H.P. 2008a. Application of cumulative prospect theory: implied seismic design preference. Structural Safety 30(6):506-516.
8. Goda, K. & Hong, H.P. 2008b. Implied preference for seismic design level and earthquake insurance. Risk Analysis 28(2):523-537.
9. Hong, H.P. & Hong, P. 2007. Assessment of ductility demand and reliability of bilinear single-degree-of-freedom systems under earthquake loading. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34:1606-1615.
10. Kaufmann, R. & Gadmer, A., & Klett, R. 2001. Introduction to dynamic financial analysis. Astin Bulletin. 31(1):213-249.
11. Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
12. Menezes, C.F. & Hanson, D.L. 1970. On the theory of risk aversion. International Economic Review 11(3): 481-487.
13. Murphy, C. & Gardoni, P. 2008. Gauging the societal impacts of natural disasters using a capabilities-based approach. Disasters (Submitted).
14. Nathwani, J.S. & Lind, N.C. & Pandey, M.D. 1997. Affordable safety by choice: the Life Quality Method. IRR, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo.
15. Pratt, J.W. 1964. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32(1-2):122-136.
16. Prelec, D. 1998. The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497-527.
17. Quiggin, J. 1982. A theory of anticipated utility. Journl. of economic behavior and organization 3:323-343.
18. Sunstein, C.R. 2003. Terrorism and Probability Neglect. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26:2/3:121-136.
19. Swiss Re. 2003. Natural Catastrophes and Man-Made Disasters in 2002. Sigma, No.2/2003, Zurich.
20. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. 1992. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297-323.
21. Walker, G.R. 2003. Pricing catastrophe risk. In, Britton, N.R. (Ed.), Catastrophic Risks and Insurability:73-86. Sydney: Aon Re Australia.
22. Walker, G.R. 2008. Earthquake Insurance: An Australian Perspective. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 8(1):39-48.
23. Wen, Y.K. & Kang, Y.J. 2001. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria I. Methodology, and II. Applications. J.Struct. Engrg. ASCE 127(3):330-346.