Advertisement

Risk-Informed Decision Framework for Built Environment: The Incorporation of Epistemic Uncertainty

Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 19)

Abstract

Managing a risk to a built environment from natural and man-made hazards is an important issue for the prosperity of a nation. Risk assessment forms the basis for the risk management, which often involves uncertainties that arise from our ignorance about the risk, such as lack of data, errors in collected data, and assumptions made in the modeling and analysis. This uncertainty that arises from imprecise information is referred to as epistemic uncertainty, as opposed to the aleatory uncertainty that arises from the variability of possible outcomes. If epistemic uncertainty prevails, assessing and managing a risk rely on risk perception of a decision maker. Studies have suggested that the risk of low-probability high-consequence events tends to be overestimated by the public. Thus, the role of risk perception in risk management of civil infrastructure exposed to natural and man-made hazards becomes significant because of the potential catastrophic consequences of such risks (e.g. casualties, functional and economic losses of the built environment, etc.) to the public. The consideration of epistemic uncertainty and risk perception in risk assessment of a built environment may lead to a risk management solution that is different from what is obtained when it is not incorporated. In this study, we present a risk-informed decision-making framework that can assist decision makers, including governmental agencies that allocate limited resources to enhance the safety and security of the civil infrastructure. In this framework, epistemic uncertainty is incorporated by utilizing generalized interval probability theory and cumulative prospect theory. The framework is illustrated with an example of regional hurricane risk management for residential buildings located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, considering the effect of changing climate.

References

  1. Aon Benfield (2013) Annual global climate and catastrophe report: impact forecasting 2012, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE Standard 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjarnadottir S, Li Y, Stewart MG (2011) A probabilistic-based framework for impact and adaptation assessment of climate change on hurricane damage risks and costs. Struct Saf 33(3):173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake ES, Gibney EJ (2011) The deadliest, costliest, and most intense United States tropical from 1851 to 2010. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake ES, Kimberlain TB, Berg RJ, Cangialosi JP, Beven JL II (2013) Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Sandy. National Hurricane Center, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabantous L, Hilton D, Kunreuther H, Michel-Kerjan E (2011) Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States. J Risk Uncertain 42(3):211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer C, Weber M (1992) Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):325–370MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron TA (2005) Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: an application to climate change. J Risk Uncertain 30(1):63–97MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dempster A (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38(2):325–339MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Possibility theory: an approach to computerized processing of uncertainty. Plenum, New YorkMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellingwood BR, Wen YK (2005) Risk-benefit-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America. Prog Struct Eng Mater 7(2):56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q J Econ 75:643–669MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emanuel K (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436(7051):686–688CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
  14. Etner J, Jeleva M, Tallon JM (2012) Decision theory under ambiguity. J Econ Surv 26(2):234–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferson S, Kreinovich V, Ginzburg L, Myers DS, Sentz K (2003) Constructing probability boxes and Dempster-shafer structures. Sandia National Laboratories Technical report SAND2002-4015, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  16. Fishburn PC (1981) Subjective expected utility: a review of normative theories. Theor Decis 13(2):139–199MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frangopol DM (2011) Life-cycle performance, management, and optimisation of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges. Struct Infrastruct Eng 7(6):389–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilboa I (1987) Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities. J Math Econ 16(1):65–88MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1989) Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. J Math Econ 18(2):141–153MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansson SV (2006) Economic (Ir) rationality in risk analysis. Econ Philos 22(2):231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hendon E, Jacobsen HJ, Sloth B, Tranaes T (1994) Expected utility with lower probabilities. J Risk Uncertain 8(2):197–216MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang Z, Rosowsky DV, Sparks PR (2001) Long-term hurricane risk assessment and expected damage to residential structures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 74(3):239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaffray JY (1989) Linear utility theory for belief functions. Oper Res Lett 8(2):107–112MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaffray JY, Philippe F (1997) On the existence of subjective upper and lower probabilities. Math Oper Res 22(1):165–185MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jain VK, Davidson R (2007) Forecasting changes in the hurricane wind vulnerability of regional inventory of wood-frame houses. J Infrastruct Syst 13(1):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Keren G, Gerritsen LE (1999) On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychol (Amst) 103(1):149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klibanoff P, Marinacci M, Mukerji S (2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73(6):1849–1892MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knabb RD, Rhome JR, Brown DP (2005) Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Katrina. National Hurricane Center, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar R, Gardoni P (2014) Renewal theory-based life-cycle analysis of deteriorating engineering systems. Struct Saf 50:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu S, Huang JC, Brown GL (1998) Information and risk perception: a dynamic adjustment process. Risk Anal 18(6):689–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Luce RD, von Winterfeldt D (1994) What common ground exists for descriptive, prescriptive and normative utility theories. Manage Sci 40(2):263–279MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miami-Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning (2003) Housing in Miami-Dade county 2000. Planning Research Section, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  34. Möller B, Beer M (2004) Fuzzy randomness: uncertainty in civil engineering and computational mechanics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moreno D, Murray N, Lerma V, Gorsky A, Kerr L, Gonzalez D et al (2008) Miami-Dade county workforce housing needs assessment. Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  36. Murphy C, Gardoni P, Harris CE Jr (2011) Classification and moral evaluation of uncertainties in engineering modeling. Sci Eng Ethics 17(3):553–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. NAHB (1993) Assessment of damage to single-family homes caused by hurricane Andrew and Iniki. NAHB Research Center Report, Upper Marlboro, MDGoogle Scholar
  38. Philippe F (2000) Cumulative prospect theory and imprecise risk. Math Soc Sci 40(3):237–263MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pinelli JP, Torkian BB, Gurley K, Subramanian C, Hamid S (2009) Cost effectiveness of hurricane mitigation measures for residential buildings. In: The 11th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering (ACWE), San Juan, PRGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosowsky DV, Sparks PR, Huang Z (2001) Wind field modeling and hurricane hazard analysis. Rep to the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium. Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SCGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmeidler D (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57:571–587MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shafer GA (1990) Mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  43. Slovic P, Fischoff B, Lichtenstein S (1980) Facts and fears – understanding perceived risk. Health Phys 39:1005–1006Google Scholar
  44. Sparks PR, Schiff SD, Reinhold TA (1994) Wind damage to envelopes of houses and consequent insurance losses. J Wind Eng Ind Aero Dyn 53(1):145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. US Census Bureau (2012) Annual estimates of housing units for the United States, regions, divisions, states, and counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012. Available via: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
  47. Vickery PJ, Skerlj PF, Twisdale LA (2000) Simulation of hurricane risk in the US using empirical track model. J Struct Eng 126(10):1222–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Viscusi WK (1985) A Bayesian perspective on biases in risk perception. Econ Lett 17(1):59–62MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Viscusi WK (1989) Prospective reference theory: toward an explanation of the paradoxes. J Risk Uncertain 2(3):235–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Walley P (1991) Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman & Hall, LondonMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang Y (2010) Imprecise probabilities based on generalized intervals for system reliability assessment. Int J Reliab Saf 4(4):319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weichselberger K (2000) The theory of interval-probability as a unifying concept for uncertainty. Int J Approx Reason 24(2–3):149–170MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wen YK, Kang YJ (2001) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria I. Methodology, and II. Applications. J Struct Eng, ASCE 127(3):330–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zigomanis A (2007) Land prices still challenge for new housing market. Property council of Australia. Available via: http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?id=151

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations