An Assessment of the Impact of Natural and Technological Disasters Using a DEA Approach

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 185)


We consider a model of regions’ ranking in terms of their vulnerability to natural and technological disasters. Regions are different in terms of their resistance to different disasters, by their population, by the distribution of the sources of potential disasters, etc. We consider different models of a data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach taking into account the risks of the implementation of different measures, their cost as well as the heterogeneity of regions. The numerical examples demonstrate the application of the constructed model for the regions of Russian Federation.


Technological and natural disasters DEA Ranking of regions 



The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project “5-100”.

We express our appreciation for help in collecting data for the research to Mr. Nikita Kolesnikov.

We are grateful for the comments and suggests of the anonymous reviewers.


  1. Abankina, I.V., Aleskerov, F.T., Belousova, V.Yu., Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A., Petruschenko, V.V., Ogorodniychuk, D., Yakuba, V., Zin’kovsky, K.V.: University efficiency evaluation with using its reputational component. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Applied Operational Research, pp. 244–253. Tadbir Operational Research Group, Bangkok (2012)Google Scholar
  2. Akimov, V.A., Lesnyh, V.V., Radaev, N.N.: Basics of Risk Analysis and Risk Management in Natural and Technological Spheres (in Russian). Delovoy Express, Russia (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Aleskerov, F.T., Petrushchenko, V.V.: An approach to DEA for heterogeneous samples. In: Le Thi, H.A., et al. (eds.) Modelling, Computation and Optimization in Information Systems and Management Sciences, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 360, pp. 15–21. Springer, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  4. Aleskerov, F.T., Vil’ner, M.Ya., Vol’skiy, V.I., Litvakov, B.M., Novikov, S.G.: Man-machine system for a rational choice of nature conversation strategy of a region. In: Proceedings of III IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Conference on Man–Machine Systems, Oulu, Finland, pp. 145–150 (1988)Google Scholar
  5. Aleskerov, F.: Taxation for improving regional ecological situation. In: Ecological Economics of Sustainability Conference, World Bank, Washington, DC, May 1990, 12 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Aleskerov, F.T., Say, A.I., Toker, A., Akin, H.L., Altay, G.: A cluster-based decision support system for estimating earthquake damage and casualties. Disasters 29(3), 255–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andries, A.M.: The Determinants of Bank Efficiency and Productivity Growth in the Central and Eastern European Banking Systems. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Loan Cuza University of Lasi, Romania, Draft (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.: Programming with linear fractional functional. Nav. Res. Logist. Q. 9, 181–186 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2, 429–444 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Coldewey, W.G.: Emergency Planning For Tailings Dams, Optimisation of Disaster Forecasting and Prevention Measures in the Context of Human and Social Dynamics, pp. 115–121. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  11. Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J.T., Scott, M.S.: Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown county, South Carolina, USA. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geograph. 90(4), 713–737 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Almada Garcia Adriano, P., Curty Leal Junior, I., Alvarenga, O.M.: A weight restricted DEA model for FMEA risk prioritization, Producao 23(3), 500–507 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutta, S.: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy. ICFAI Center for Management Research, Hyderabad (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Golan, B., Roll, Y.: An application procedure for DEA. OMEGA 17(3), 237–250 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guha-Sapir, D., Hoyols, P.: Measuring the Human and Economic Impact of Disasters. CRED, Government Office for Science, Brussels (2012)Google Scholar
  16. Huang, J., Liu, Y., Ma, L.: Assessment of regional vulnerability to natural hazards in China using a DEA model. Beijing, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2(2), 41–48 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M.: Sustainability science. Science 292(5517), 641–642 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotsemir, M.N.: Measuring National Innovation Systems Efficiency – A Review of DEA Approach. Science, Technology and Innovation, WP BRP, The Higher School of Economics, No. 16, Moscow (2013)Google Scholar
  19. Li, C.-H., Li, N., Wu, L.-C., Hu, A.-J.: A relative vulnerability estimation of flood disaster using data envelopment analysis in the Dongting Lake region of Hunan. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 1723–1734 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lipscy, P.Y., Kushida, K.E., Incerti, T.: The Fukushima disaster and Japan’s nuclear plant vulnerability in comparative perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 6082–6088 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. Makhutov, N.A.: Methodology for Assessing the Risks of Terrorism, Countering Urban Terrorism in Russia and the United States, pp. 207–222. The National Academic Press (NAP), Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  22. Modoi, O-C., Stefanescu, L., Marginean, S., Arghius, C., Ozunu, A.: Management of Risks Associated with Mining Wasted (Tailing Dams and Waste Heaps), Optimisation of Disaster Forecasting and Prevention Measures in the Context of Human and Social Dynamics, pp. 130–143. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  23. Saein, A.F., Saen, R.F.: Assessment of the site effect vulnerability within urban regions by data envelopment analysis: a case study in Iran. Comput. Geosci. 48, 280–288 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saen, R.F.: A decision model for selecting the best entry modes via data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci. 4(3), 213–229 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. Shao, B.B.M., Lin, W.T.: Technical efficiency analysis of information technology investments: a two-stage empirical investigation. Inf. Manage. 39, 391–401 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. The World Bank: Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention (2010)Google Scholar
  27. Wang, L.-C., Tsai, H.-Y.: Evaluation of highway maintenance performance using data envelopment analysis (DEA) in Taiwan, Taiwan. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 17(2), 145–155 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. Wang, F., Cao, Y., Liu, M.: Risk early-warning method for natural disasters based on integration of entropy and DEA model, USA. Appl. Math. 2, 23–32 (2011a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, Y., Li, Z., Tang, Z., Zeng, G.: A GIS-based spatial multi-criteria approach for flood risk assessment in the Dongting Lake region, Hunan, Central China. Water Resour. Manage. 25, 3465–3484 (2011b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yanenko, V.M., Rykhtovsky, V.O., Yanenko, N.V.: Environmental, medical, technogenic and computer technology: modeling, risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis of the accidents. Environ. Technol. New Dev. 15, 245–264 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. Zhang, J., Fu, S.: An effective DEA-AHP algorithm for evaluation of emergency logistics performance. AISS 4(12), 1–8 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of Economics, Institute of Control Sciences of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations