Decision tools for earthquake risk management, including net present value and expected utility

  • W.D. Smith GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
  • G.A. Vignaux Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract

The results of earthquake risk assessments should be presented in ways that will help facilitate risk management decisions. So the measures of risk that are chosen need to be those that will assist decision-makers. Annualised Loss may not be the best basis on which risk management decisions can be made. The Conditional Expected Value of the loss, defined for a suitable set of probability ranges, is a promising measure of the risk because it is similar to a scenario loss and can be readily comprehended by decision-makers. Utility Theory provides a further measure by taking account of individuals’ perceptions of the severity of losses. It can be combined with the concept of Net Present Value to give an overall measure of the risk in terms of the value judgements of the individual decision-maker. The reduction in risk that would result from proposed mitigation works can be readily assessed, so that the decision-maker who is faced with the costs of mitigation is in a position to assess the benefits.

References

Cao, T., Petersen, M.D., Cramer, C.H., Toppozada, T.R., Reichle, M.S. and Davis, J.F. (1999). “The calculation of expected loss using probabilistic seismic hazard”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89, 867-876.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997). HAZUS. “National Institute of Building Services Documents 5200 to 5203”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2001). HAZUS®99 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States, FEMA 366, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 33 pp.

Friedman, M. & Savage, L.J. (1948). “The utility analysis of choices involving risk”. Journal of Political Economy LVI, No. 4, 279-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/256692

Haimes, Y.Y. (1998). Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Hopkins, David C. & George, Stuart (2003). “Strengthening existing New Zealand buildings for earthquake: analysis of cost benefit using annual probabilities”. Proceedings, 2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 72.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982). “The psychology of preferences”. Scientific American 246, 136-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160

Kaplan, S. & Garrick, J.B. (1981). “On the quantitative definition of risk”. Journal of Risk Analysis 1(1), 11-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x

Keeney, R.L. (1980). Siting Energy Facilities. Academic Press, 413 pp.

Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, 569 pp.

National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

Porter, K.A., Beck, J.L. & Shaikhutdinov, R. (2004). “Simplified estimation of economic seismic risk for buildings”. Earthquake Spectra 20, 1239-1263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1809129

Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis, Addison-Wesley 1970, 309 pp.

Smith, W.D. (2003a). “Earthquake hazard and risk assessment in New Zealand by Monte Carlo methods”. Seismological Research Letters, 74, 298-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.74.3.298

Smith, W.D. (2003b). “Criteria for strengthening buildings: cost-benefit analysis is misleading”. Bulletin of the NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering 36, 260-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.36.4.260-262

Smith, W.D. (2004). “The Decision Support Model for risk management: a conceptual approach”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 37, 149-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.37.4.149-155

Stirling, M.W., McVerry, G.H. & Berryman, K.R. (2002). “A new seismic hazard model for New Zealand”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92, 1878-1903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010156

Wesson, R.L, Perkins, D.M., Leyendecker, E.V., Roth, R.J., & Petersen, M.D. (2004). “Losses to single-family housing from ground motions in the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake”. Earthquake Spectra 20, 1021-1045. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1775238

Winston, W.L. (2004). Operations Research, Applications and Algorithms. Duxbury Press, 4th

Published
2006-09-30
How to Cite
Smith, W., & Vignaux, G. (2006). Decision tools for earthquake risk management, including net present value and expected utility. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 39(3), 170-175. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.39.3.170-175
Section
Articles