Value-at-Risk and Conditional Value-at-Risk Minimization for Hazardous Materials Routing

  • Iakovos Toumazis
  • Changhyun Kwon
  • Rajan Batta
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 193)


This chapter provides fundamentals of value-at-risk and conditional value-at-risk models applied to routing problems in hazardous materials transportation.


Confidence Level Optimal Path Road Segment Optimal Route Route Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abkowitz M, Cheng P (1988) Developing a risk/cost framework for routing truck movements of hazardous materials. Accid Anal Prev 20(1):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abkowitz M, Eiger A, Srinivasan S (1984) Estimating the release rates and costs of transporting hazardous waste. Transport Res Rec 977:22–30Google Scholar
  3. Abkowitz M, Lepofsky M, Cheng P (1992) Selecting criteria for designating hazardous materials highway routes. Transport Res Rec 1333:30–35Google Scholar
  4. Acerbi C (2002) Spectral measures of risk: a coherent representation of subjective risk aversion. J Bank Finance 26:1505–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Acerbi C (2004) Coherent representations of subjective risk-aversion. In: Szeö G (ed) Risk measures for the 21st century. Wiley, New York, pp 147–207Google Scholar
  6. Artzner P, Delbaen F, Eber J, Heath D (1999) Coherent measures of risk. Math Finance 9(3):203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batta R, Chiu S (1988) Optimal obnoxious paths on a network: transportation of hazardous materials. Oper Res 36(1):84–92. Google Scholar
  8. Craft R (2004) Crashes involving trucks carrying hazardous materials. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
  9. Dah-Nein Tzang RML (1990) Hedge ratios under inherent risk reduction in commodity complex. J Futures Markets 10:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dowd K, Blake D (2006) After var: the theory, estimation, and insurance applications of quantile-based risk measures. J Risk Insur 73(2):193–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Einhorn D (2008) Private profits and socialized risk. Global Association of Risk Professionals Risk Review, June/July, No. 42, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  12. Erkut E, Ingolfsson A (2000) Catastrophe avoidance models for hazardous materials route planning. Transport Sci 34(2):165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erkut E, Ingolfsson A (2005) Transport risk models for hazardous materials: revisited. Oper Res Lett 33(1):81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erkut E, Verter V (1998) Modeling of transport risk for hazardous materials. Oper Res 46(5):625–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erkut E, Tjandra S, Verter V (2007) Hazardous materials transportation. In: Barnhart C, Laporte G (eds) Transportation, Handbooks in operations research & management science, vol 14, chap 9, North Holland, pp 539–611.
  16. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2007) Final report: designation of highway routes for hazardous materials shipments: literature review. U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared by BattelleGoogle Scholar
  17. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2008) Guidance document: hazardous materials routing using safety and security criteria. U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared by BattelleGoogle Scholar
  18. Helander M, Melachrinoudis E (1997) Facility location and reliable route planning in hazardous material transportation. Transport Sci 31(3):216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang B, Cheu R, Liew Y (2004) GIS and genetic algorithms for HAZMAT route planning with security considerations. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 18(8):769–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jin H, Batta R (1997) Objectives derived from viewing hazmat shipments as a sequence of independent Bernoulli trials. Transport Sci 31(3):252–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang Y, Batta R, Kwon C (2011) Generalized route planning model for hazardous material transportation with var and equity considerations. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  22. Kang Y, Batta R, Kwon C. Value-at-risk model for hazardous material transportation. Ann Oper Res. doi:  10.1007/s10479-012-1285-0
  23. Kwon C (2011) Conditional value-at-risk model for hazardous materials transportation. In: Jain S, Creasey RR, Himmelspach J, White KP, Fu M (eds) Proceedings of the 2011 winter simulation conference. pp 1708–1714Google Scholar
  24. Pruzzo L, Cantet RJ, Fioretti CC (2003) Risk-adjusted expected return for selection decisions. J Anim Sci 81:2984–2988Google Scholar
  25. List G, Mirchandani P, Turnquist M, Zografos K (1991) Modeling and analysis for hazardous materials transportation: risk analysis, routing/scheduling and facility location. Transport Sci 25(2):100–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manfredo MR, Leuthold RM (1999) Market risk and the cattle feeding margin: an application of value-at-Risk. Agribusiness 17(3):333–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mansini R, Ogryczak W, Speranza M (2007) Conditional value at risk and related linear programming models for portfolio optimization. Ann Oper Res 152(1):227–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nune R, Murray-Tuite P (2007) Comparison of potential paths selected by a malicious entity with hazardous materials: minimization of time vs. minimization of distance. Proceedings of the 2007 winter simulation conference. Washington, DC.
  29. Nembhard D, White C III (1997) Applications of non-order-preserving path selection of hazmat routing. Transport Sci 31(3):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nocera J (2009) Risk mismanagement. The New York Times Magazine. Accessed 4 Jan 2009
  31. Nozick L, List G, Turnquist M (1997) Integrated routing and scheduling in hazardous materials transportation. Transport Sci 31(3):200–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Patel M, Horowitz A (1994) Optimal routing of hazardous materials considering risk of spill. Transport Res A 28(2):119–132Google Scholar
  33. Pflug G (2000) Probabilistic constrained optimization: methodology and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. ReVelle C, Cohon J, Shobrys D (1991) Simultaneous siting and routing in the disposal of hazardous wastes. Transport Sci 25(2):138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robert Dahlgren CCL, Lawarre J (2003) Risk assessment in energy trading. IEEE Trans Power Syst 18(2):503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S (2000) Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J Risk 2(3):21–42. Google Scholar
  37. Rockafellar R, Uryasev S (2002) Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. J Bank Finance 26(7):1443–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saccomanno F, Chan A (1985) Economic evaluation of routing strategies for hazardous road shipments. Transport Res Rec 1020:12–18Google Scholar
  39. Sarykalin S, Serraino G, Uryasev S (2008) Value-at-risk vs. conditional value-at-risk in risk management and optimization. Tutorials Oper Res 270-294.
  40. Sherali H, Brizendine L, Glickman T, Subramanian S (1997) Low probability–high consequence considerations in routing hazardous material shipments. Transport Sci 31(3):237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sivakumar RA, Rajan B, Karwan M (1993) A network-based model for transporting extremely hazardous materials. Oper Res Lett 13(2):85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sodhi MS (2005) Managing demand risk in tactical supply chain planning for a global consumer electronics company. Prod Oper Manag 14:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Toumazis I, Kwon C (2012) Routing hazardous materials on time-dependent networks using conditional value-at-risk. Working paperGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations