Cost‐Benefit Analysis for Optimization of Risk Protection Under Budget Constraints

Abstract

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly applied as a tool for deciding on risk protection. With CBA, one can identify risk mitigation strategies that lead to an optimal tradeoff between the costs of the mitigation measures and the achieved risk reduction. In practical applications of CBA, the strategies are typically evaluated through efficiency indicators such as the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and the marginal cost (MC) criterion. In many of these applications, the BCR is not consistently defined, which, as we demonstrate in this article, can lead to the identification of suboptimal solutions. This is of particular relevance when the overall budget for risk reduction measures is limited and an optimal allocation of resources among different subsystems is necessary. We show that this problem can be formulated as a hierarchical decision problem, where the general rules and decisions on the available budget are made at a central level (e.g., central government agency, top management), whereas the decisions on the specific measures are made at the subsystem level (e.g., local communities, company division). It is shown that the MC criterion provides optimal solutions in such hierarchical optimization. Since most practical applications only include a discrete set of possible risk protection measures, the MC criterion is extended to this situation. The findings are illustrated through a hypothetical numerical example. This study was prepared as part of our work on the optimal management of natural hazard risks, but its conclusions also apply to other fields of risk management.

Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II

“…The two most prominent approaches to the aggregation problem are multicriteria analysis (MCA) and cost‐benefit analysis (CBA). While MCA has advantages when different stakeholders have different views on the desirability of impacts and are thus guided by different interests, CBA has advantages when it comes to assessing long‐term impacts and risks . Therefore, we adopt CBA, in our case a cost‐minimization approach, based on monetary cost estimates.…”

If Mitigation Saves $6 Per Every $1 Spent, Then Why Are We Not Investing More? A Louisiana Perspective on a National Issue

“…Existing research on hazard mitigation focuses on: 1. the value of individual mitigation or preparedness options such as insurance (e.g., Kunreuther 2017), structural (e.g., Li 2012) or nonstructural (e.g., Meyer et al 2012) activities using either actual case studies (e.g., Meo et al 2004;Orooji and Friedland 2017) or what-if (e.g., Remo and Pinter 2012) scenarios; 2. cost efficiency assessments including cost-benefit-analysis (e.g., Špačková and Straub 2015) and other project-level methodologies (e.g., Noori et al 2018); 3. incentives and challenges to implementing mitigation actions, such as organizational capacity (e.g., Brody et al 2010) or household behavior (e.g., Ge et al 2011); 4. risk assessment techniques (e.g., Gallina et al 2016), hazard mitigation planning (e.g., Lyles et al 2014), and policies ); and 5. economic cost accounting of natural hazards including loss estimation (e.g., Rose 2009), and quantification of avoided losses (e.g., MMC 2017).…”

Forecasting rock slope failure: how reliable and effective are warning systems?

“…To compare preventive warning systems with alternative risk mitigation measures and to identify an optimal risk mitigation strategy, the effect on risk reduction and related cost should ultimately be considered in cost-benefit analyses (Penning-Rowsell et al 2005;Safe Land 2012;Špačková and Straub 2015). For warning systems, these evaluation criteria should address specific needs.…”