Advertisement

Classification of Disasters and Emergencies under Bipolar Knowledge Representation

Chapter
  • 2.2k Downloads
Part of the Atlantis Computational Intelligence Systems book series (ATLANTISCIS, volume 7)

Abstract

A fully precise numerical evaluation of disasters’ effects is unrealistic in the time-pressured, highly uncertain decision context taking place just after a disaster strike. This is mainly due to some features of the available information in such a context, but also because of the imprecise nature of some of the relevant categories (think about the number of affected people, for instance). Instead of a numerical evaluation, in this work is considered that it is rather more plausible and realistic to classify the severity of the consequences of a disaster in terms of the relevant scenarios for the NGO’s decision makers. Therefore, the abovementioned practical problem of evaluation of disaster consequences leads to a classification problem in which the classes are identified with the linguistic terms that describe those relevant scenarios. In order to carry out this classification and ensure the linguistic adaptation and the understandability of the proposed solution, the methodology of the descriptive fuzzy rulebased classification systems has been adopted in this work. Nevertheless, some features of that context, as the ordering and gradation of the consequences or the need of avoiding the risk of underestimation of the effects of disasters, entail the necessity of considering and assuming an structure over the set of classes or linguistic labels, somehow modeling those features inside of the classification model. Such an structure is introduced here by means of the notion of dissimilarity between classes, leading to a bipolar knowledge representation framework which allows to adequate the classification models to the constraints and requirements of the NGO context.

Keywords

Human Development Index Disaster Management Disaster Consequence Homeless People Dissimilarity Matrix 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by grant TIN2009-07190.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, R., Imielinski, T., Swami, A. (1993) Mining Association Rules Between Sets of Items in Large Databases, SIGMOD Conference, 207–216.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleskerov, F., Iseri Say, A., Toker, A., Akin, H.L., Altay, G. (2005) A cluster-based decision support system for estimating earthquake damage and casualties, Disasters, 29 (3) 255–276.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atanassov, K.T. (1986) Intuitionistic Fuzzy-Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20 (1) 87–96.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billa, L., Shattri, M., Mahmud, A.R., and Ghazali, A.H. (2006). Comprehensive planning and the role of SDSS in flood disaster management in Malaysia. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15 (2), 233–240.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part B: Cybernetics, 32 (4) 526–537.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cordón, O., del Jesús, M.J., Herrera, F. (1999) A proposal on reasoning methods in fuzzy rulebased classification systems, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 20 (1) 21–45.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drabek, T.E., Hoetmer, G.J. (1991) Emergency management: principles and practice for local government, International City Management Association, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H. (2008) An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23 (8) 866–877.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hullermeier, E. (2005) Fuzzy methods in machine learning and data mining: Status and prospects, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 156 (3) 387–406.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishibuchi, H., Nakashima, T. (2001) Effect of rule weights in fuzzy rule-based classification systems, Ieee Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 9 (4) 506–515.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ishibuchi, H., Yamamoto, T. (2005) Rule weight specification in fuzzy rule-based classification systems, Ieee Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 13 (4) 428–435.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuncheva, L.I. (2000) Fuzzy classifier design, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendonça, D., Beroggi, E.G.,Wallace,W.A. (2001) Decision support for improvisation during emergency response operations, International Journal of Emergency Management, 1 30–38.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montero, J., Gomez, D., Bustince, H. (2007) On the relevance of some families of fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 158 (22) 2429–2442.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morrow, B.H. (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability, Disasters, 23 (1) 1–18.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nauck, D., Kruse, R. (1999) Obtaining interpretable fuzzy classification rules from medical data, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 16 (2) 149–169.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olsen, G.R., Carstensen, N., Hoyen, K. (2003) Humanitarian crises: What determines the level of emergency assistance? Media coverage, donor interests and the aid business, Disasters, 27 (2) 109–126.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prins, E.M. and Menzel, W.P. (2004) “Geostationary satellite detection of biomass burning in South America,” Intl. J. Remote Sensing, 13: 49–63.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodríguez, J.T. (2010) Clasificación de desastres y emergencias con representación bipolar del conocimiento, Ph.D. Thesis, Complutense University of Madrid.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rodriguez J.T., Franco C.A., Vitoriano B., Montero J. (2011) An axiomatic approach to the notion of semantic antagonism, Procs IFSA-AFSS’11 FT104-1/6.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodríguez, J.T., Vitoriano, B., Montero, J. (2010) A natural-disaster management DSS for Humanitarian Non-Governmental Organisations, Knowledge-Based Systems, 23 (1) 17–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodríguez, J.T., Vitoriano, B.,Montero, J. (2011) Rule-based classification by means of bipolar criteria. 2011 IEEE Symposium on Multicriteria Decision Making (SSCI-MCDM) 197–204.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodríguez, J.T., Vitoriano, B., Montero, J. (2012) A general methodology for data-based rule building and its application to natural disaster management, Computers & Operations Research, 39 (4) 863–873.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodríguez, J.T., Vitoriano, B., Montero, J., Omaña, A. (2008) A decision support tool for humanitarian operations in natural disaster relief, Computational Intelligence in Decision and Control, 1 805–810.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodríguez, J.T., Vitoriano, B., Montero, J., Kecman V. (2011) A disaster-severity assessment DSS comparative analysis. OR Spectrum, 33 (3) 451–479.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schneider P.J., Schauer B.A. (2006) Hazus - its development and its future. Natural Hazards Review, 7 (2) 40–44.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schweizer B., Sklar A. (1983) Probabilistic Metric Spaces. North–Holland/Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stoddard, A. (2003) Humanitarian NGOs: Challenges and Trends. In: J. Macrae and A. Harmer (eds.), Humanitarian Action and the ‘Global War on Terror’: A Review of Trends and Issues HPG Report 14, ODI, London.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2006) Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear, J. Oper. Res. Soc, 57 (5) 475–489.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vitoriano, B., Ortuño, M.T., Tirado, G.,Montero, J. (2010) A multi-criteria optimization model for humanitarian aid distribution, Journal of Global Optimization (JOGO), 51 189–208.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wallace, W. A., De Balogh, F. (1985) Decision Support Systems for Disaster Management, Public Administration Review, 45 134–146.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zadeh, L.A. (1965) Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, 8 (3) 338–353.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zadeh, L.A. (1975) Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning 1., Information Sciences, 8 (3) 199–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Atlantis Press 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MathematicsComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations