Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods
- Yi Peng
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The vulnerability assessment is important for earthquake prevention and mitigation. Since many criteria need to be considered during the evaluation process, it can be modeled as a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. This paper proposes an approach which integrates the results of different MCDM methods to provide regional earthquake vulnerability assessment. The key idea of this approach is to determine the most trustable MCDM method by calculating the weights of several MCDM methods using the Spearman’s ranking correlation coefficients. The most trustable MCDM method is the one with the highest weight, which indicates that it has the strongest agreements with other MCDM methods, and is used to provide a final assessment using the combination of other MCDM methods. The proposed approach is applied to evaluate the earthquake vulnerability of 31 Chinese regions using six MCDM methods and eleven vulnerability evaluation indices. The results indicate that the proposed approach can integrate the inconsistent evaluation results of different MCDM methods and produce a comprehensive assessment of regional earthquake vulnerability.
- Basöz, N., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1995). Prioritization of bridges for seismic retrofitting. Report 114, John Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford.
- Brans, J. P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. In J. Figueira, V. Mousseau, & B. Roy (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 163–195). New York: Springer.
- Brans, J. P., Vincke P. h., & Marecha, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228–238. CrossRef
- Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L., & Arnoff, E. L. (1957). Introduction to operations research. New York: Wiley. (Chap. 6 Weighting objectives).
- Costa, C., Oliveira, C. S., & Vieira, V. (2008). Prioritization of bridges and tunnels in earthquake risk mitigation using multicriteria decision analysis: application to Lisbon. Omega, 36(3), 442–450. CrossRef
- Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261. CrossRef
- Deng, J. (1982). Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters, 1(5), 288–294. CrossRef
- Ergu, D., & Kou, G. (2012). Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores estimation for rapid and efficient decision making. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 5–23. doi:10.1007/s10479-011-0922-3. CrossRef
- Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2011a). A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 246–259. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.014. CrossRef
- Ergu, D., Kou, G., Shi, Y., & Shi, Y. (2011b). Analytic network process in risk assessment and decision analysis, Computers & Operations Research. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2011.03.005.
- Fan, Y. X., Luo, Y., & Chen, Q. S. (2006). Establishment of weight about vulnerability indexes of hazard bearing body. Journal of Catastrophology, 16(1), 85–87.
- Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and application. New York: Springer. CrossRef
- Joem, B. (2007). Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards, 7(1), 20–31. CrossRef
- Kou, G., & Lou, C. (2012). Multiple factor hierarchical clustering algorithm for large scale web page and search engine clickstream data. Annals of Operations Research 197(1), 123–134. doi:10.1007/s10479-010-0704-3. CrossRef
- Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, G. W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision making problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55(1), 80–93. CrossRef
- Maffei, J. (1995). Management and prioritization of bridge seismic evaluations and upgrading. In: Proceedings of the national seismic conference on bridges and highways, San Diego, CA, December 10–13, 1995. Sect. 3.
- Menoni, S., Pergalani, F., Boni, M. P., & Petrini, V. (2002). Lifelines earthquake vulnerability assessment: a systemic approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9), 1199–1208. CrossRef
- Milani, A. S., Shanian, A., & El-Lahham, C. (2006). Using different ELECTRE methods in strategic planning in the presence of human behavioral resistance. Journal of Applied Mathematics & Decision Sciences, 2006, 1–19. CrossRef
- National Incident Management System (NIMS) (2008). United States, Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/.
- Nyarko, M. H., Nyarko, E. K., & Morić, D. (2011). A neural network based modelling and sensitivity analysis of damage ratio coefficient. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 13405–13413. CrossRef
- Olson, D. L. (2004). Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40(7), 721–727. CrossRef
- Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake, sustainable reconstruction. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3), 211–220. CrossRef
- Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. CrossRef
- Peng, Y., Kou, G., Wang, G., Wu, W., & Shi, Y. (2011a). Ensemble of software defect predictors: an AHP-based evaluation method. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(1), 187–206. CrossRef
- Peng, Y., Kou, G., Wang, G., & Shi, Y. (2011b). FAMCDM: a fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms. Omega, 39(6), 677–689. CrossRef
- Peng, Y., Zhang, Y., Tang, Y., & Li, S. (2011c). An incident information management framework based on data integration, data mining, and multi-criteria decision making. Decision Support Systems, 51(2), 316–327. CrossRef
- Peng, Y., Kou, G., Shi, Y., & Chen, Z. (2008). A descriptive framework for the field of data mining and knowledge discovery. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 7(4), 639–682. CrossRef
- Rashed, T., & Weeks, J. (2003). Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), 547–576. CrossRef
- Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide multicritere a la decision: Methodes et cas. Paris: Economica.
- Roy, B. (1978). ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classements fonde sur une representation flue des preferences en presence de ctriteres multiples. Cahiers du CERO, 20(1), 3–24.
- Şen, Z. (2010). Rapid visual earthquake term hazard evaluation of existing buildings by fuzzy logic modeling. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(8), 5653–5660. CrossRef
- Tam, C. M., Tong, T. K. L., & Lau, C. T. (2003). ELECTRE_III in evaluating performance of construction plants: case study on concrete vibrators. Construction Innovation, 3(1), 45–61.
- Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397–427. CrossRef
- Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods
Annals of Operations Research
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Reginal earthquake vulnerability assessment
- Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM)
- Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
- Industry Sectors
- Yi Peng (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610054, P.R. China