进行成本效益分析,以评估地震液化灾害事件的技术缓解方案

N. Wanigarathna, Keith A. Jones, Federica Pascale, M. Morga, A. Meslem
{"title":"进行成本效益分析,以评估地震液化灾害事件的技术缓解方案","authors":"N. Wanigarathna, Keith A. Jones, Federica Pascale, M. Morga, A. Meslem","doi":"10.1108/jfmpc-12-2021-0073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nRecent earthquake-induced liquefaction events and associated losses have increased researchers’ interest into liquefaction risk reduction interventions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there was no scholarly literature related to an economic appraisal of these risk reduction interventions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the issues in applying cost–benefit analysis (CBA) principles to the evaluation of technical mitigations to reduce earthquake-induced liquefaction risk.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nCBA has been substantially used for risk mitigation option appraisal for a number of hazard threats. Previous literature in the form of systematic reviews, individual research and case studies, together with liquefaction risk and loss modelling literature, was used to develop a theoretical model of CBA for earthquake-induced liquefaction mitigation interventions. The model was tested using a scenario in a two-day workshop.\n\n\nFindings\nBecause liquefaction risk reduction techniques are relatively new, there is limited damage modelling and cost data available for use within CBAs. As such end users need to make significant assumptions when linking the results of technical investigations of damage to built-asset performance and probabilistic loss modelling resulting in many potential interventions being not cost-effective for low-impact disasters. This study questions whether a probabilistic approach should really be applied to localised rapid onset events like liquefaction, arguing that a deterministic approach for localised knowledge and context would be a better base for the cost-effectiveness mitigation interventions.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper makes an original contribution to literature through a critical review of CBA approaches applied to disaster mitigation interventions. Further, this paper identifies challenges and limitations of applying probabilistic based CBA models to localised rapid onset disaster events where human losses are minimal and historic data is sparse; challenging researchers to develop new deterministic based approaches that use localised knowledge and context to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mitigation interventions.\n","PeriodicalId":45720,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost–benefit analysis to appraise technical mitigation options for earthquake-induced liquefaction disaster events\",\"authors\":\"N. Wanigarathna, Keith A. Jones, Federica Pascale, M. Morga, A. Meslem\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jfmpc-12-2021-0073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nRecent earthquake-induced liquefaction events and associated losses have increased researchers’ interest into liquefaction risk reduction interventions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there was no scholarly literature related to an economic appraisal of these risk reduction interventions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the issues in applying cost–benefit analysis (CBA) principles to the evaluation of technical mitigations to reduce earthquake-induced liquefaction risk.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nCBA has been substantially used for risk mitigation option appraisal for a number of hazard threats. Previous literature in the form of systematic reviews, individual research and case studies, together with liquefaction risk and loss modelling literature, was used to develop a theoretical model of CBA for earthquake-induced liquefaction mitigation interventions. The model was tested using a scenario in a two-day workshop.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nBecause liquefaction risk reduction techniques are relatively new, there is limited damage modelling and cost data available for use within CBAs. As such end users need to make significant assumptions when linking the results of technical investigations of damage to built-asset performance and probabilistic loss modelling resulting in many potential interventions being not cost-effective for low-impact disasters. This study questions whether a probabilistic approach should really be applied to localised rapid onset events like liquefaction, arguing that a deterministic approach for localised knowledge and context would be a better base for the cost-effectiveness mitigation interventions.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper makes an original contribution to literature through a critical review of CBA approaches applied to disaster mitigation interventions. Further, this paper identifies challenges and limitations of applying probabilistic based CBA models to localised rapid onset disaster events where human losses are minimal and historic data is sparse; challenging researchers to develop new deterministic based approaches that use localised knowledge and context to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mitigation interventions.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmpc-12-2021-0073\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmpc-12-2021-0073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的最近的地震液化事件和相关损失增加了研究人员对液化风险降低干预措施的兴趣。据作者所知,没有任何学术文献与这些降低风险干预措施的经济评估有关。本文的目的是研究将成本效益分析(CBA)原理应用于降低地震液化风险的技术缓解措施评估中的问题。设计/方法/方法CBA已被大量用于许多危险威胁的风险缓解方案评估。以前的文献以系统综述、个体研究和案例研究的形式,以及液化风险和损失建模文献,被用于开发地震液化缓解干预措施的CBA理论模型。该模型在为期两天的研讨会上使用场景进行了测试。发现由于液化风险降低技术相对较新,可用于CBA的损伤建模和成本数据有限。因此,最终用户在将建造资产性能损坏的技术调查结果与概率损失建模联系起来时,需要做出重大假设,这导致许多潜在的干预措施对低影响灾害不具有成本效益。这项研究质疑是否真的应该将概率方法应用于液化等局部快速发作事件,认为局部知识和背景的确定性方法将是成本效益缓解干预措施的更好基础。独创性/价值本文通过对应用于减灾干预的CBA方法的批判性回顾,对文献做出了独创性贡献。此外,本文确定了将基于概率的CBA模型应用于局部快速发生的灾害事件的挑战和局限性,在这些事件中,人员损失最小,历史数据稀少;挑战研究人员开发新的基于确定性的方法,利用本地化的知识和背景来评估缓解干预措施的成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cost–benefit analysis to appraise technical mitigation options for earthquake-induced liquefaction disaster events
Purpose Recent earthquake-induced liquefaction events and associated losses have increased researchers’ interest into liquefaction risk reduction interventions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there was no scholarly literature related to an economic appraisal of these risk reduction interventions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the issues in applying cost–benefit analysis (CBA) principles to the evaluation of technical mitigations to reduce earthquake-induced liquefaction risk. Design/methodology/approach CBA has been substantially used for risk mitigation option appraisal for a number of hazard threats. Previous literature in the form of systematic reviews, individual research and case studies, together with liquefaction risk and loss modelling literature, was used to develop a theoretical model of CBA for earthquake-induced liquefaction mitigation interventions. The model was tested using a scenario in a two-day workshop. Findings Because liquefaction risk reduction techniques are relatively new, there is limited damage modelling and cost data available for use within CBAs. As such end users need to make significant assumptions when linking the results of technical investigations of damage to built-asset performance and probabilistic loss modelling resulting in many potential interventions being not cost-effective for low-impact disasters. This study questions whether a probabilistic approach should really be applied to localised rapid onset events like liquefaction, arguing that a deterministic approach for localised knowledge and context would be a better base for the cost-effectiveness mitigation interventions. Originality/value This paper makes an original contribution to literature through a critical review of CBA approaches applied to disaster mitigation interventions. Further, this paper identifies challenges and limitations of applying probabilistic based CBA models to localised rapid onset disaster events where human losses are minimal and historic data is sparse; challenging researchers to develop new deterministic based approaches that use localised knowledge and context to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mitigation interventions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Managing supply chain disruptions in the construction industry: an institutional approach Assessing risk allocation preferences of partners in international construction joint venture projects in Ghana Impact of time-based delay on public-private partnership (PPP) construction project delivery: construction stakeholders’ perspective Drivers for the adoption of building information modelling (BIM) for post-construction management in the Nigerian AECO industry Risk assessment for 3D printing in construction projects
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1