Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An automated model for optimizing budget allocation in earthquake mitigation scenarios

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk reduction as an outcome only takes place if results of risk estimation studies are used to develop action plans for risk-management and risk-reduction strategies. This paper describes an automated model that uses the output of existing earthquake loss estimation methodologies to support decision makers in evaluating a set of competing seismic mitigation strategies and exploring their impact in reducing socio-economic losses of urban settlements. The proposed model is structured to quantify the monetary value of earthquake losses and to find an optimal budget allocation assigned to each mitigation strategy based on user input. The optimization method takes into account both pre- and post-earthquake expenditures, such as costs of building upgrades, critical facility enhancement, temporary shelter provisions, debris removal, hospitalization and human casualty. The system consists of five main modules: (1) building damage function; (2) mitigated damage function; (3) cost estimation function; (4) optimization function; and (5) user interface function. Whereas the optimization function provides the optimal values assigned to each mitigation alternative based on the estimated costs and a defined budget, the user interface allows the decision maker to interact with the software in each step and plan mitigation strategies that best suit the user’s socio-economic requirements and limitations. The outputs of the proposed model are presented with respect to an application in a pilot study area within a vulnerable city district of Tehran, Iran.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbasi MR, Shabanian E (1999) Fault map of north Tehran. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Altay G, Deodatis G, Franco G, Gulkan P, Kunreuther H, Lus H, Mete E, Seeber N, Smyth A, Yuzugullu O (2002) Benefit-cost analysis for earthquake mitigation: evaluating measures for apartment in Turkey. In: Proceedings 2nd annual IIASA-DPRI meeting. International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis, Laxenburg

  • Amini-Hosseini K, Jafari MK (2006) Seismic risk assessment for Tehran. J Seismol Earthq Eng 9(1):11–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Amini-Hosseini K, Jafari MK (2007) Development guidelines for disaster management in Tehran. In: Proceeding of 5th international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering. Tehran, Iran

  • Amini-Hosseini K, Hosseini M, Jafari MK, Hosseinioun S (2009) Recognition of vulnerable Urban fabrics in earthquake zones: a case study of Tehran metropolitan area. J Seismol Earthq Eng (JSEE) 10(4):175–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1985) ATC-13 earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  • Askari F, Kasaei M (2003) Evaluation of liquefaction potential in part of South-East Tehran. J Eng Sch Tehran Univ 37(2):257–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Berberian M, Yeats RS (2001) Contribution of archaeological data to studies of earthquake history in the Iranian Plateau. J Struct Geol 23:563–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang SE, Shinozuka M, Moore JE (2000) Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems. Earthq Spectr 16(3):557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodo A, Xu N, Davidson R, Nozick L (2005) Optimizing regional earthquake mitigation investment strategies. Earthq Spectr 21(2):305–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273, prepared by Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356, prepared by American Society of Civil Engineering, Reston

  • Ghafory-Ashtiany M (2001) Tehran earthquake risk reduction plan. I.R. Housing Foundation, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Jafari MK (2003) Tehran geotechnical microzonation, Conference. SEE4, Tehran

  • Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Jafari M K, Shadi Talab J, Eshghi S, Qurashi M (1992) Tehran vulnerability analysis. In: Tenth world conference on earthquake engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam

  • Gholipour Y, Ghorashi M, Talebian M, Nazari H, Berberian M, Bozorgnia Y, Shoja Taheri J, Shafiei A, Rahnama M (2006) Comprehensive seismic hazard analysis of Iran: probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analysis, attenuation study and seismic design spectra—phase 1: Greater Tehran, College of Engineering, University of Tehran

  • HAZUS-FEMA Technical Manual (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, Earthquake model, HAZUS-MH MR1, Washington

  • Hessami K, Jamali F, Tabassi H (2003) Active fault maps of Iran, Seismotectonic Dept., Seismology Research Center. IIEES, Iran

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini M (2006) Protecting Tehran against earthquake: issues and strategies in Urban planning and design. J Seismol Earth Eng (JSEE) 9(4):32–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafari MK, Amini-Hosseini K, Hosseini M, Kamalian M, Askari F, Razmkhah A, Davoodi M, Mahdavifar MR, Sohrabi Bidar A, Keshavarz Bakhshayesh M (2005) Seismic hazard study, final report for Tehran comprehensive plan, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, IIEES, Iran

  • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2000) The study on seismic microzoning of the greater Tehran area in the Islamic Republic of Iran, final report to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tokyo

  • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Center (TDMMC) (2004) The comprehensive master plan on urban seismic disaster management for the greater Tehran area in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tokyo

  • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Tehran Disaster Mitigation and Management Organization (TDMMO) (2010) Establishment of emergency response plan for the 1st 72 h after an earthquake in Tehran. Tehran

  • Kappos AJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2008) Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves. Nat Hazards 45:33–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H, Cyr C, Grossi P, Tao W (2001a) Using cost-benefit analysis to evaluate mitigation for lifeline systems, MCEER Research Progress and Accomplishments 2000–2001, MCEER, Buffalo

  • Kunreuther H, Grossi P, Seeber N, Smyth A (2001b) A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures, joint workshop of Urban Riks Management for Natural Disasters, Bogazici University/Columbia University, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Lupoi G, Franchin P, Lupoi A, Pinto PE, Calvi GM (2008) Probabilistic seismic assessment for hospitals and complex-social Systems. IUSSpress, Pavia

  • Management and Planning Organization (2007) Instruction for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, No. 360, Prepared by the Bureau of technical criteria codification and earthquake risk reduction affairs, Iran

  • Mansouri B, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Amini-Hosseini K, Nourjou R, Mousavi M (2010) Building seismic loss model for Tehran using GIS. Earthq Spectr 26(1):153–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mid-America Earthquake Center (2009) Impact of new Madrid seismic zone earthquake on central USA, vol 1, report no. 09–03. University of Illinois

  • Miller TR (2000) Variation between countries in value of statistical life. J Transp Econ Policy 34(2):169–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutti C, Vanzi I (1998) Assessment of post-earthquake availability of hospital system and upgrading strategies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27:1403–1423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah H, Bendimerad F, Stojanovski P (1992) Resource allocation in seismic risk mitigation. In: Proceedings 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 4. Madrid, pp 6007–6011

  • The Sphere Project (2004) Humanitarian charter and minimum standards for DISASTER response. The Sphere Project, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaziri P, Davidson R, Nozick LK, Hosseini M (2009) Resource allocation for regional earthquake risk mitigation: a case study of Tehran, Iran, Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-009-9446-4

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran

    Hooman Motamed, Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany & Kambod Amini-Hosseini

  2. Centre for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technologies, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Bijan Khazai

Authors
  1. Hooman Motamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bijan Khazai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kambod Amini-Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hooman Motamed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Motamed, H., Khazai, B., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. et al. An automated model for optimizing budget allocation in earthquake mitigation scenarios. Nat Hazards 70, 51–68 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0035-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0035-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation