A Portfolio Approach to Evaluating Natural Hazard Mitigation Policies: An Application to Lateral-Spread Ground Failure in Coastal California

Bernknopf, Richard; Dinitz, Laura B.; Rabinovici, Sharyl J. M.; Evans, Alexander M.

doi:10.1080/00206810109465024

Cited by 17 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include residents and business owners affected by the hurricane; state and local government agencies that must administer the building code or provide low-interest loans and/or grants; federal agencies that deal with the consequences and losses following a disaster; and the general taxpayer who will bear some of the costs of administering the code, the low-interest loans and/or grants, and the disaster assistance provided by the public sector following a disaster. Depending on the stringency and geographic coverage of mitigation policies and standards for communities, CBA analysis has shown that the spatial heterogeneity of the hazard in a region affects the extent of the regulatory burden and the efficiency of its implementation (Bernknopf et al 2001).…”

Section: Step 2 Determine Direct Costs Of Mitigation Alternativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disaster Mitigation and Insurance: Learning from Katrina

Kunreuther

2006

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

210

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

March 604 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY DISASTER MITIGATION AND INSURANCE Hurricane Katrina illustrates the natural disaster syndrome. Prior to a disaster, individuals in hazard-prone regions do not voluntarily adopt cost-effective loss reduction measures. The federal government then comes to the rescue with disaster assistance even if it claimed it had no intention of doing so prior to the event.There are a number of reasons why individuals do not protect themselves prior to a disaster. They underestimate the likelihood of a future disaster, often believing that it will not happen to them; have budget constraints; are myopic in their behavior; and/or do not want to be the only one on the block modifying their structure. Given this lack of interest in voluntary protection, benefit-cost analysis can determine when a well-enforced building code would be appropriate. The article concludes by highlighting the importance of public-private partnerships as a way of reducing future disaster losses and aiding the recovery process.

show abstract

Section: Step 2 Determine Direct Costs Of Mitigation Alternativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disaster Mitigation and Insurance: Learning from Katrina

Kunreuther

2006

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

210

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples include Kappos and Dimitrakopoulos (2008), Altay et al (2002), and Kuwata and Takada (2003). Stochastic NPV is similar, except instead of a single point estimate, a probability density function of the benefits of each mitigation alternative is estimated, where the uncertainty is due to uncertainty in earthquake occurrence (e.g., Englehardt and Peng 1996;Bernknopf et al 2001;Mostafa and Grigoriu 2002). A few studies have used multiattribute utility theory, such as Nuti and Vanzi (1998) and Opricovic and Tzeng (2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Resource allocation for regional earthquake risk mitigation: a case study of Tehran, Iran

Vaziri¹,

Davidson

Nozick

et al. 2009

Nat Hazards

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a new optimization model to help cities in seismically active developing countries decide (1) How much to spend on pre-earthquake mitigation versus waiting until after an event and paying for reconstruction or simply not rebuilding damaged buildings? (2) Which buildings to mitigate and how? and (3) Which buildings to reconstruct and how? It extends previously developed optimization models to consider the particular issues that arise in such countries. First, the model allows for the possibility that some damaged buildings will not be reconstructed immediately and keeps track of any lost building inventory. Second, buildings can be mitigated to, or when damaged, reconstructed to, any appropriate structural type and seismic design level. Finally, the model objectives include minimizing the chance of an extremely high death toll in any one earthquake and minimizing the average annual death toll across earthquakes. The model is illustrated through a case study analysis for Tehran, Iran.

show abstract

“…A couple of examples from the literature where estimates of losses were made for possible future disasters are Ellson et al (1984) who estimate the impacts of an earthquake in the Charleston, SC area, and Rose et al (1997) who estimate indirect losses in Memphis, TN due to electrical outages caused by an earthquake along the New Madrid fault system. Bernknopf et al (2001) proposed a simplified approach to damage estimation for certain types of earthquake damage. They demonstrate their technique by performing an assessment of the risks of earthquake-induced lateral-spread ground failure in Watsonville, CA.…”

Section: Hazard Models and Damage Predictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disaster resilience :

Gilbert¹

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there is a great deal of high-quality information available on resilience-related topics-hazard assessment, vulnerability assessment, risk assessment, risk management, and loss estimation-as well as disaster resilience itself, there is no central source of data and tools to which the owners and managers of constructed facilities, community planners, policy makers, and other decision makers can turn for help in defining and measuring the resilience of their structures and communities. The purpose of this document is to provide a survey of the literature and an annotated bibliography of printed and electronic resources that serves as that central source of data and tools to help readers develop methodologies for defining and measuring the disaster resilience of their structures and communities.The report covers resilience-related topics at two different levels: (1) individual constructed facilities and correlated collections of constructed facilities that form a network (e.g., hospitals) and (2) community/regional scale frameworks (e.g., physical infrastructure, business and economic relationships, population and employment demographics). Thus, the first level focuses on physical infrastructure, whereas the second takes a broader look at how the physical infrastructure interacts with other activities that collectively define modern communities. The reason for taking this approach is to establish a foundation for developing methodologies for defining and measuring the disaster resilience of structures. This step is especially important because physical infrastructure enables the community to function as a place of employment, a window to the regional and national economy, and a home for individuals. Developing better metrics and tools for defining and measuring the resilience of structures is an important step in meeting the challenge of measuring disaster resilience at the community scale.

show abstract

A Portfolio Approach to Evaluating Natural Hazard Mitigation Policies: An Application to Lateral-Spread Ground Failure in Coastal California

Cited by 17 publications

References 4 publications

Disaster Mitigation and Insurance: Learning from Katrina

Disaster Mitigation and Insurance: Learning from Katrina

Resource allocation for regional earthquake risk mitigation: a case study of Tehran, Iran

Disaster resilience :

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About