Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 1603–1623 | Cite as

Evaluating İstanbul’s disaster resilience capacity by data envelopment analysis

  • Abdullah Korkut ÜstünEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

İstanbul is one of the most important commercial, cultural, industrial, and educational centers in the world. However, İstanbul is also an earthquake-prone city, and it has experienced many of them throughout history. It is likely to be threatened by a huge, destructive earthquake in the next few years. In this study, the earthquake resilience capacity of İstanbul and her districts is evaluated by data envelopment analysis (DEA) models and returns to scale analysis. The efficient and inefficient districts are determined and discussed, for possible improvements of inefficient units in input and output values. The classification of İstanbul’s districts is applied according to vulnerabilities representing the potential losses from casualties, damage, destruction, and/or business interruption in a possible earthquake by DEA and returns to scale analysis.

Keywords

Disaster resilience capacity İstanbul Data envelopment analysis Returns to scale analysis Slack-based model 

References

  1. Al-Shammari M (1999) A multi-criteria data envelopment analysis model for measuring the productive efficiency of hospitals. Int J Oper Prod Manag 19(9):879–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambraseys NN, Finkel CF (1991) Long-term Seismicity of İstanbul and of the Marmara Sea Region. Terra Nova 3(1991):527–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azadeh A, Armin R-G, Mohsen M (2014) Location optimization of wind power generation–transmission systems under uncertainty using hierarchical fuzzy DEA: a case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 30:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balamir M (1999) Reproducing the fatalist society: an evaluation of the ‘disasters’ and ‘development’ laws and regulations in Turkey. In: Urban settlements and natural disasters. Proceedings of UIA region II workshop, Chamber of Architects of TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  5. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30:1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr RS, Siems TF (1997) Bank failure prediction using DEA to measure management quality. Interfaces in computer science and operations research. Springer, New York, pp 341–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castelli L, Pesenti R (2014) Network, shared flow and multi-level DEA models: a critical review. Data envelopment analysis. Springer, New York, pp 329–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang YC, Yu MM (2014) Measuring production and consumption efficiencies using the slack-based measure network data envelopment analysis approach: the case of low-cost carriers. J Adv Transp 48(1):15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Golany B, Seiford LM, Stutz J (1985) Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. J Econom 30:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Huang ZM, Sun DB (1990) Polyhedral cone-ratio DEA models with an illustrative application to large commercial banks. J Econ 30:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook WD, Zhu J (2006) Modeling performance measurement: applications and implementation issues in DEA, vol 566. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2000) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2006) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. Kluwer Academic Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2011) Handbook on data envelopment analysis, vol 164. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Dash U, Vaishnavi SD, Muraleedharan VR, Acharya D (2007) Benchmarking the performance of public hospitals in Tamil Nadu: an application of data envelopment analysis. J Health Manag 9:59. doi: 10.1177/097206340700900104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dyckhoff H, Mbock E, Gutgesell S (2014) Distance‐based measures of specialization and balance in multi‐criteria: a DEA‐integrated method. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal. doi: 10.1002/mcda.1532 Google Scholar
  18. Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E (1988) Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 39:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Efficiency Measurement System (EMS). http://www.microtheory.unijena.de/download/ems.pdf
  20. Erdik M, Aydinoglu N, Fahjan K, Demircioglu M, Siyahi B, Durukal E, Ozbey C, Biro Y, Akman H, Yuzugulu O (2003) Earthquake risk assessment for İstanbul metropolitan area. Earth Eng Vib 2(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ergunay O (1999) A perspective of disaster in Turkey: issues and prospects. In: Urban settlements and natural disasters. Proceedings of UIA region II workshop, Chamber of Architects of TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  22. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Logan J, Lovell CK (1985) Measuring efficiency in production: with an application to electric utilities. Managerial Issues in Productivity Analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gulkan P (2000) Code enforcement at municipal level in Turkey: failure of public policy for effective building hazard mitigation. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on seismic zoning, no. 21. Earthquake Engineering Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  24. ISMEP (2014) İstanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project (ISMEP) conducted by Governorship of İstanbul, İstanbul Project Coordination Unit (IPCU) ISMEP Guide Books, Beyaz Gemi Social Project AgencyGoogle Scholar
  25. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2002) The study on a disaster prevention/mitigation basic plan in İstanbul including Seismic Microzonation in the Republic of TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  26. Jin J, Zhou D, Zhou P (2014) Measuring environmental performance with stochastic environmental DEA: the case of APEC economies. Econ Model 38:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kacak H, Ozcan YA, Kavuncubasi S (2014) A new examination of hospital performance after healthcare reform in Turkey: sensitivity and quality comparisons. Int J Public Policy 10(4):178–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khodabakhshi M, Asgharian M, Gregoriou GN (2010) An input-oriented super-efficiency measure in stochastic data envelopment analysis: evaluating chief executive officers of US public banks and thrifts. Expert Syst Appl 37(3):2092–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Köksalan M, Tuncer C (2009) A DEA-based approach to ranking multi-criteria alternatives. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 8(01):29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korkmaz KA (2010) Integrated seismic hazard evaluation and disaster management approach for Turkey. Environ Earth Sci 61(3):467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis HF (2014) Performance measurement of major league baseball teams using network DEA. Data envelopment analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 475–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li S, Gholam RJ, Khodabakhshi M (2007) A super-efficiency model for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Appl Math Comput 184(2):638–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Montoneri B, Lin TT, Lee CC, Huang SL (2012) Application of data envelopment analysis on the indicators contributing to learning and teaching performance. Teach Teach Educ 28(3):382–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ouenniche J, Xu B, Tone K (2014) Relative performance evaluation of competing crude oil prices’ volatility forecasting models: a slacks-based super-efficiency DEA model. Am J Oper Res. doi: 10.4236/ajor.2014.44023 Google Scholar
  35. Özerdem A, Barakat S (2000) After the Marmara earthquake: lessons for avoiding short cuts to disasters. Third World Q 21(3):425–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ozgen H, Şahin İ (2010) Measurement of efficiency of the dialysis sector in Turkey using data envelopment analysis. Health Policy 95(2–3):185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parsons T, Toda S, Stein RS, Barka A, Dietrich JH (2000) Heightened odds of a large earthquake near İstanbul: an interaction-based probability calculation. Science 288(5466):661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Puri J, Yadav SP (2014) A fuzzy DEA model with undesirable fuzzy outputs and its application to the banking sector in India. Expert Syst Appl 41(14):6419–6432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saein AF, Saen RF (2012) Assessment of the site effect vulnerability within urban regions by data envelopment analysis: a case study in Iran. Comput Geosci 48:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharma G, Kataria A (2014) Efficiency of software development projects: a case study on an information technology company in India. Managing service productivity. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–285Google Scholar
  41. Sherman HD, Zhu J (2006) Service productivity management: improving service performance using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. Staub RB, Souza G, Tabak BM (2010) Evolution of bank efficiency in Brazil: a DEA approach. Eur J Oper Res 202:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson RG, Langemeier LN, Lee CT, Thrall R (1990) The role of multiplier bounds efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. J Econ 46:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ural A, Firat FK (2015) Evaluation of masonry minarets collapsed by a strong wind under uncertainty. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1531-7 Google Scholar
  45. Üstün AK, Barbarosoğlu G (2015) Performance evaluation of Turkish disaster relief management system in 1999 earthquakes using data envelopment analysis. Nat Hazards 75(2):1977–1996. doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1407-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vijayakumar A (2012) Evaluating performance of banks through camel model: a case study of State Bank of India and its associates. Online Int Interdiscip Res J 2(4):104–124Google Scholar
  47. Wang W-K, Wen-Min L, Pei-Yi L (2014) A fuzzy multi-objective two-stage DEA model for evaluating the performance of US bank holding companies. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4290–4297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wei YM, Fan Y, Lu C, Tsai HT (2004) The assessment of vulnerability to natural disasters in China by using the DEA method. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(4):427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wei G, Chen J, Wang J (2014) Stochastic efficiency analysis with a reliability consideration. Omega 48:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wong Y, Beasley JE (1990) Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 41:829–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhao M, Wu WB (2014) Study on the evaluation of rural logistics service providers’ performance based on DEA model. In: 2014 international conference on management science and engineering (ICMSE). IEEE, pp 387–394Google Scholar
  52. Zhu J (1996) DEA/AR analysis of the 1988–1989 performance of the Nanjing Textiles Corporation. Ann Oper Res 66(5):311–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhu J (2003) Quantitative models for performance evaluation and benchmarking: data envelopment analysis with spreadsheets and DEA excel solver, vol 51. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering, Engineering FacultyAksaray UniversityAksarayTurkey

Personalised recommendations