Natural Hazards

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 1055–1063 | Cite as

Natural disaster management mechanisms for probabilistic earthquake loss

Original Paper


High rates of urbanization, environmental degradation, and industrial development have affected all nations worldwide, but in disaster-prone areas, the impact is even greater serving to increase the extent of damage from natural catastrophes. As a result of the global nature of environmental change, modern economies have had to adapt, and sustainability is an extremely important issue. Clearly, natural disasters will affect the competitiveness of an enterprise. This study focuses on natural disaster management in an area in which the direct risks are posed by the physical effects of natural disasters such as floods, droughts, tsunamis, and rising sea levels. On a local level, the potential impact of a disaster on a company and how much damage (loss) it causes to facilities and future business are of concern. Each company must make plans to mitigate predictable risk. Risk assessments must be completed in a timely manner. Disaster management is also very important to national policy. Natural disaster management mechanisms can include strategies for disaster prevention, early warning (prediction) systems, disaster mitigation, preparedness and response, and human resource development. Both governmental administration (public) and private organizations should participate in these programs. Participation of the local community is especially important for successful disaster mitigation, preparation for, and the implementations of such measures. Our focus in this study is a preliminary proposal for developing an efficient probabilistic approach to facilitate design optimization that involves probabilistic constraints.


Hazard analysis Dynamic financial analysis Risk control Computer-aided assessment 


  1. Bar-Hillel M (1980) The base rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychol 44:211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Haque CE, Etkin D (2007) People and community as constituent parts of hazards: the significance of societal dimensions in hazards analysis. Nat Hazards 41(2):271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hsu WK, Huang PC, Chen CW, Chang CC, Hung DM, Chiang WL (2011) An integrated flood risk assessment model for property insurance industry in Taiwan. Natural Hazards, doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9732-9
  4. Katayama H, Bennett D (1999) Agility, adaptability and leanness: a comparison of concepts and a study of practice. Int J Prod Econ 60–61:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Power DJ, Sohal AS, Rahman S (2001) Critical success factors in agile natural disaster risk management: an empirical study. Int J Phys Distrib Logist 31(4):247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Prater E, Biehl M, Smith MA (2001) International natural disaster risk control tradeoffs between flexibility and uncertainty. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(5/6):823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Raaijmakers R, Krywkow J, van der Veen A (2008) Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 46(3):307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sage AP (1977) Interpretive structural modeling: methodology for largescale systems. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Saxena JP, Sushil Vrat P (1990) The impact of indirect relationships in classification of variables—A MICMAC analysis for energy conservation. System Research 7(4):245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Singh MD, Shankar R, Narain R, Agarwal A (2003) Knowledge management in engineering industries—an interpretive structural modeling. J Adv Manag Res 1(1):27–39Google Scholar
  11. Tsai CH, Chen CW (2010) An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment information for the tourism industry—a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tour Manag 31(4):470–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tsai CH, Chen CW (2011) The establishment of a rapid natural disaster risk assessment model for the tourism industry. Tour Manag 32(1):158–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tseng CP, Chen CW (2011) A new viewpoint on risk control decision models for natural disasters, Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9861-1
  14. Tseng CP, Chen CW, Liu FR (2011) Risk control allocation model for pressure vessels and piping project. J Vib Control. doi: 10.1177/1077546311403182
  15. UN/ISDR (2002) Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives, preliminary version prepared as an interagency effort coordinated by the ISDR Secretariat, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. Waddell D, Sohal AS (1998) Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Manag Decis 36(8):543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Warfield JW (1974) Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transcr Syst Men and Cybern 4(1):51–81Google Scholar
  18. Yi CS, Lee JH, Shim MP (2010) GIS-based distributed technique for assessing economic loss from flood damage: pre-feasibility study for the Anyang stream Basin in Korea. Nat Hazards 55(2):251–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yusuf YY, Gunasekaran A, Adeleye EO, Sivayoganathan K (2004) Agile natural disaster risk capabilities: determinants of competitive objectives. Eur J Oper Res 159:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhou HJ, Wang JA, Wan JH et al (2010) Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective. Nat Hazards 53(1):21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chung Shan Institute of Science and TechnologyArmaments BureauTaoyuanTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of Maritime Information and TechnologyNational Kaohsiung Marine UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  3. 3.Global Earth Observation and Data Analysis CenterNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanR.O.C. Taiwan

Personalised recommendations