A disaster-severity assessment DSS comparative analysis

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a comparative analysis of fuzzy rule-based systems and some standard statistical and other machine learning techniques in the context of the development of a decision support system (DSS) for the assessment of the severity of natural disasters. This DSS, which will be referred to as SEDD, has been proposed by the authors to help decision makers inside those Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) concerned with the design and implementation of international operations of humanitarian response to disasters. SEDD enables a relatively highly accurate and interpretable assessment on the consequences of almost every potential disaster scenario to be obtained through a set of easily accessible information about that disaster scenario and historical data about similar ones. Thus, although SEDD’s methodology is rather sophisticated, its data requirements are small, which, therefore, enables its use in the context of NGOs and countries requiring humanitarian aid. In this sense, SEDD opposes to some current tools which focuses on one phenomena-one place disaster scenarios (earthquakes in California, hurricanes in Florida, etc.) and/or have extensive and/or technologically sophisticated data requirements (real-time remote sensing information, exhaustive building census, etc.). Moreover, although focused on disaster response, SEDD can also be useful in other phases of disaster management, as disaster mitigation or preparedness. Particularly, the predictive accuracy and interpretability of SEDD fuzzy methodology is compared here in a disaster severity assessment context with those of multiple linear regression, linear discriminant analysis, classification trees and support vector machines. After an extensive validation over the EM-DAT disaster database, it is concluded that SEDD outperforms the methods above in the task of simultaneously providing an accurate and interpretable inference tool for the evaluation of the consequences of disasters.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Aleskerov F, Say AI, Toker A, Akin H, Altay G (2005) A cluster-based decision support system for estimating earthquake damage and casualties. Disasters 29: 255–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amo A, Montero J, Molina E (2001) On the representation of recursive rules. Eur J Oper Res 130: 29–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amo A, Garmendia L, Gómez D, Montero J (2007) A spatial classification model for multicriteria analysis. In: Proceedings of IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in mulcticriteria decision making, IEEE Press, Piscataway, pp 348–353

  4. Anderson JA (1995) An introduction to neural networks. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Asghar S, Alahakoon D, Churilov L (2006) A dynamic integrated model for disaster management decision support systems. Int J Simulat 6(10–11): 95–114

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beringer J, Hüllermeier E (2008) Case-based learning in a bipolar possibilistic framework. Int J Intell Syst 23(10): 1119–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Billa L, Shattri M, Mahmud AR, Ghazali AH (2006) Comprehensive planning and the role of SDSS in flood disaster management in Malaysia. Disaster Prev Manage 15(2): 233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cagliardi M, Spera C (1995) Towards a formal theory of model integration. Ann Oper Res 58: 405–440

    Google Scholar 

  9. Casillas J, Cordón O, Herrera F (2002) COR: A methodology to improve ad hoc data-driven linguistic rule learning methods by inducing cooperation among rules. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 32(4): 526–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cherkassky V, Mulier F (1998) Learning from data: concepts, theory and methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20: 273–297

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cutello V, Montero J (1999) Recursive connective rules. Int J Intell Syst 14: 3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dolk D, Kottermann J (1993) Model integration and a theory of models. Decis Support Syst 9: 51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Drabek TE, Hoetmer GJ (1991) Emergency management: principles and practice for local government. International City Management Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dubois D, Hüllermeier E, Prade H (2003) A note on quality measures for fuzzy association rules. In: Proceeding of IFSA-03, 10th Internat Fuzzy Systems Association World Congress, LNAI, vol 2715. Springer, Berlin, pp 677–648

  16. Eguchi RT, Goltz JD, Seligson HA, Flores PJ, Blais NC, Heaton TH, Bortugno E (1997) Real-time loss estimation as an emergency response decision support system: the early post-earthquake damage assessment tool (EPEDAT). Earthq Spectra 13(4): 815–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eom HB, Lee SM, Kim EB, Somarajan C (1998) A survey of decision support system applications (1988–1994). J Oper Res Soc 49: 109–120

    Google Scholar 

  18. Figuera J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gadomski AM, Bologna S, Costanzo GD, Perini A, Schaerf M (2001) Towards intelligent decision support systems for emergency managers: the IDS approach. Int J Risk Assess Manage 2(3/4): 224–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Griekspoor A, Collins S (2001) Raising standards in emergency relief: how useful are Sphere minimum standards for humanitarian assistance. Br Med J 323: 740–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hullermeier E (2005) Fuzzy methods in machine learning and data mining: status and prospects. Fuzzy Sets Syst 156(3): 387–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Iliadis L, Spartalis S (2005) Fundamental fuzzy relation concepts of a D.S.S. for the estimation of natural disasters’ risk (The case of a trapezoidal membership function). Math Comput Model 42: 747–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ishibuchi H, Nakashima T (1999) Voting in fuzzy rule-based systems for pattern classification problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 103: 223–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaburlasos VG (2006) Towards a unified modeling and knowledge-representation based on lattice theory—computational intelligence and soft computing applications. Studies in computational intelligence, vol 27. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kecman V (2001) Learning and soft computing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kecman V, Brooks J-P (2010) Locally linear support vector machines and other local models, WCCI 2010 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence. Barcelona, Spain, pp 2615–2620

  27. Klir GJ, Yuan B (1994) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  28. Matisziwa TC, Murraya AT (2009) Modeling s–t path availability to support disaster vulnerability assessment of network infrastructure. Comput Oper Res 36(1): 16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mendonça D, Beroggi EG, Wallace WA (2001) Decision support for improvisation during emergency response operations. Int J Emerg Manage 1: 30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Milly PC, Wetherald RT, Dunne KA, Delworth TL (2002) Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate. Nature 415: 514–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Montero J, Gómez D, Bustince H (2007) On the relevance of some families of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 158: 2439–2442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Morrow BH (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23(1): 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Olive DJ (2007) Prediction intervals for regression models. Comput Stat Data Anal 51: 3115–3122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Olsen GR, Carstensen N, Hoyen K (2003) Humanitarian crisis: what determines the level of emergency assistance? Media coverage, donor interest and the aid business. Disasters 27(2): 109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ott RL (1993) An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Duxbury Press, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  36. Tsoukiàs M, Tsoukiàs A (2008) Bipolar preference modeling and aggregation in decision support. Int J Intell Syst 23(9): 970–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pei Z, Resconi G, Van Der Wal AJ, Qin K, Xu Y (2006) Interpreting and extracting fuzzy decision rules from fuzzy information systems and their inference. Inform Sci 176(13): 1869–1897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Prins EM, Menzel WP (2004) Geostationary satellite detection of biomass burning in South America. Intl J Remote Sens 13: 49–63

    Google Scholar 

  39. Repoussis PP, Paraskevopoulos DC, Zobolas G, Tarantilis CD, Ioannou G (2009) A web-based decision support system for waste lube oils collection and recycling. Eur J Oper Res 195: 676–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rodriguez JT, Vitoriano B, Montero J, Omaña A et al (2008) A decision support tool for humanitarian organizations in natural disaster relief. In: Ruan D (eds) Computational intelligence in decision and control. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 600–605

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rodriguez JT, Montero J, Vitoriano B, Lopez V (2009) An inductive methodology for data-based rules building. In: Rossi F, Tsoukiàs A (eds) Algorithmic decision theory, LNAI 5783. Springer, Berlin, pp 424–433

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Rodriguez JT, Vitoriano B, Montero J (2010a) A natural-disaster management DSS for Humanitarian Non-Governmental Organisations. Knowledge Based Syst 23(1): 17–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rodriguez JT, Vitoriano B, Montero J (2010b) A general methodology for data-based rule building and its application to natural disaster management. Comput Oper Res. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2009.11.014

  44. Rodriguez JT (2010) Classification of disasters and emergencies using bipolar knowledge representation. PhD thesis, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid

  45. Rokach L, Maimon O (2008) Data mining with decision trees: theory and applications. World Scientific, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ruspini EH (1969) A new approach to clustering. Inform Control 15: 22–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schneider PJ, Schauer BA (2006) Hazus—its development and its future. Natural Hazards Rev 7(2): 40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Schweizer B, Sklar A (1983) Probabilistic metric spaces. North–Holland Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Shima JP, Warkentina M, Courtney JF, Power DJ, Sharda R, Carlsson C (2002) Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis Support Syst 33(2): 111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Stoddard A (2003) Humanitarian NGOs: challenges and trends. In: Macrae J, Harmer A (eds) Humanitarian action and the ‘global war on terror’: a review of trends and issues, ODI, HPG Report 14, London pp 25–36

  51. Todini E (1999) An operational decision support system for flood risk mapping, forecasting and management. Urban Water 1: 131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tufekci S (1995) An integrated emergency management decision support system for hurricane emergencies. Saf Sci 20: 39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Van Wassenhove LN (2006) Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear. J Oper Res Soc 57: 475–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Vitoriano B, Ortuño MT, Tirado G, Montero J (2010) A multi-criteria optimization model for humanitarian aid distribution. J Global Optimi (accepted). doi:10.1007/s10898-010-9603-z

  55. Vogt M, Kecman V (2004) An active-set algorithm for support vector machines in nonlinear system identification. In: Proceedings of the 6th IFAC symposium on nonlinear control systems (NOLCOS 2004). Stuttgart, Germany, pp 495–500

  56. Vogt M, Kecman V (2005) Chapter, Active-set methods for support vector machines. in a Springer-Verlag book, Support vector machines: theory and applications. In: Wang L (ed) Series: studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 177, pp 133–158

  57. Wallace WA, De Balogh F (1985) Decision support systems for disasters management. Public Admin Rev 45: 134–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Begoña Vitoriano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rodríguez, J.T., Vitoriano, B., Montero, J. et al. A disaster-severity assessment DSS comparative analysis. OR Spectrum 33, 451–479 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-011-0252-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Support Vector Machine
  • Membership Function
  • Decision Support System
  • Linear Discriminant Analysis
  • Human Development Index