A Social Decision Analysis of the Earthquake Safety Problem: The Case of Existing Los Angeles Buildings

  • Rakesh Kumar Sarin
Chapter
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 3)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a framework for conducting a decision analysis for a societal problem such as earthquake safety. The application deals with the formulation and evaluation of alternative policies for the seismic safety problem faced by the city of Los Angeles with regard to its old masonry buildings. A social decision analysis compares the costs and benefits of the alternative policies from the viewpoints of the impacted constituents. The emphasis is on identifying acceptable policy that considers the interests of the impacted constituents and provides incentives for their cooperation. Alternatives ranging from strict regulation to free market are examined. In order to evaluate the trade-offs between additional cost and savings in lives, a direct willingness-to-pay and an economic approach, based on property value differential, are used. Recommendations range from strict regulation for the residential and critical buildings (schools, hospitals, fire stations, etc.) to simply informing the occupants (in the case of commercial and industrial buildings) of the risks involved.

Keywords

Residential Building Alternative Policy Property Damage Masonry Building Federal Emergency Management Agency 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, Martin J. 1980. Reducing Risks to Life: Measurement of the Benefits. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Bolt, Bruce A. 1978. Earthquakes: A Primer. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Bolt, Bruce A. 1978. “Earthquakes hazards.” EOS: Transactions, American Geophysical Union 59(11).Google Scholar
  4. Brookshire, D.S., M. A. Thayer, M. A. Schulze, D. William, and R. C. D’Arge. 1982. “Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches.” The American Economic Review 72(1): 165–177.Google Scholar
  5. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1980. “An Assessment of the Consequences and Preparations for a Catastrophic California Earthquake: Findings and Action Taken.”Google Scholar
  6. Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan. 1978. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5(September): 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keeney, Ralph L. 1981. “Analysis of Preference Dependencies among Objectives.” Operations Research 29(6).Google Scholar
  8. Keeney, Ralph L. 1982. “Decision Analysis: An Overview.” Operations Research 30: 803–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keeney, Ralph L. and Howard Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Kerr, Richard A. “California’s Shaking Next Time.” Science 215(January): 385–387.Google Scholar
  11. Los Angeles Times. November 25, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. Los Angeles Times. July 27, 1980.Google Scholar
  13. Los Angeles Times. January 5, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. Los Angeles City Planning Department. 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Report. EIR No. 583–78 CW (September).Google Scholar
  15. Raiffa, Howard. 1968. Decision Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Sarin, Rakesh K. 1982. “Risk Management Policy for Earthquake Hazard Reduction,” Report prepared under NSF Grant 79-10804, UCLA-ENG-8244. Scott, S. 1979. Policies for Seismic Safety: Elements of a State Governmental Program. University of California, Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies.Google Scholar
  17. Slovic, P., B. Fischoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk.” In Risk, Information and Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, edited by R. Schwing and W. A. Albers, New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  18. Solomon, K.A., D. Okrent, and M. Rubin. 1977. “Earthquake Ordinances for the City of Los Angeles, California: A Brief Case Study.” Report UCLA-Eng.-7765 (October).Google Scholar
  19. Spetzler, C.S. and Christina Staël von HOlstein. 1975. “Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis.” Management Science 22: 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1973. “A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Los Angeles California Area.” Stock No. 0319—00026.Google Scholar
  21. Wheeler and Gray. 1980. “Cost Study Report for Structural Strengthening Using Proposed Division 68 Standards.” Prepared by consulting engineers under a contract awarded by the Department of Building and Safety, City of Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  22. Wood, H.O. and F. Neumann. 1931. “Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 21: 277–283.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rakesh Kumar Sarin
    • 1
  1. 1.The Anderson School at UCLAUSA

Personalised recommendations