IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v17y2020i3p208-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fire Code Inspection and Compliance: A Game-Theoretic Model Between Fire Inspection Agencies and Building Owners

Author

Listed:
  • Puneet Agarwal

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Kyle Hunt

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Shivasubramanian Srinivasan

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Jun Zhuang

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14260)

Abstract

Fire-code inspection and compliance are among the highest priorities for fire-inspection agencies to reduce the loss of life and property that can result from fire incidents. Requirements for code compliance and inspection vary throughout towns and states within the United States, and building owners who violate these codes can be penalized via fines and mandated compliance measures. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the strategic behavior of players in a fire-code inspection process. This paper fills the gap by presenting the game-theoretic approach to modeling building owners’ behaviors with respect to fire-code compliance and the inspection strategies of fire-inspection agencies. Both a decentralized model (sequential game in which the fire-inspection agency moves first) and a centralized model (simultaneous game controlled by one central decision maker) are developed to identify the best inspection strategies for the agency and the best compliance strategies for the building owner. This study provides prescriptive insights that can enable policymakers to improve fire-code compliance and inspection by identifying the conditions that motivate the players to participate positively in the inspection and compliance processes. Numerical sensitivity analyses of the equilibrium strategies and the expected losses of the players are provided, along with a comparison of the results between the decentralized and centralized models.

Suggested Citation

  • Puneet Agarwal & Kyle Hunt & Shivasubramanian Srinivasan & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Fire Code Inspection and Compliance: A Game-Theoretic Model Between Fire Inspection Agencies and Building Owners," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 208-226, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:208-226
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2020-0410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2020-0410
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2020-0410?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pradiptyo Rimawan, 2007. "Does Punishment Matter? A Refinement of the Inspection Game," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 197-219, August.
    2. Xiaowen Wang & Cen Song & Jun Zhuang, 2015. "Simulating a Multi-Stage Screening Network: A Queueing Theory and Game Theory Application," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, in: Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang (ed.), Game Theoretic Analysis of Congestion, Safety and Security, edition 127, pages 55-80, Springer.
    3. Daniel Rothenstein & Shmuel Zamir, 2002. "Imperfect Inspection Games Over Time," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 175-192, January.
    4. Vicki M. Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat & Jaime Menoyo & Rae Zimmerman & Alison M. Culpen, 2008. "Optimal Resource Allocation for Defense of Targets Based on Differing Measures of Attractiveness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 763-770, June.
    5. Luciano Andreozzi, 2004. "Rewarding Policemen Increases Crime. Another Surprising Result from the Inspection Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 69-82, October.
    6. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Canty, Morton & Marc Kilgour, D. & von Stengel, Bernhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 1996. "Inspection games in arms control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 383-394, May.
    7. Andrew Yim, 2009. "Efficient Committed Budget for Implementing Target Audit Probability for Many Inspectees," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 2000-2018, December.
    8. Rudolf Avenhaus & Morton J. Canty, 2011. "Deterrence, technology, and the sensible distribution of arms control verification resources," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 295-303, April.
    9. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang (ed.), 2015. "Game Theoretic Analysis of Congestion, Safety and Security," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-319-11674-7, January.
    10. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang (ed.), 2015. "Game Theoretic Analysis of Congestion, Safety and Security," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-319-13009-5, January.
    11. Fandel, G. & Trockel, J., 2013. "Avoiding non-optimal management decisions by applying a three-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 85-93.
    12. Luciano Andreozzi, 2002. "Oscilliations in the Enforcement of Law: an Evolutionary Analysis," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 403-428.
    13. Kilgour, D.M. & Brams, S.J., 1992. "Putting the Other Side "On Notice" Can Induce Compliance in Arms Control," Working Papers 92-07, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    14. John Canty, Morton & Rothenstein, Daniel & Avenhaus, Rudolf, 2001. "Timely inspection and deterrence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 208-223, May.
    15. Xiaojun (Gene) Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2014. "Modeling Credible Retaliation Threats in Deterring the Smuggling of Nuclear Weapons Using Partial Inspection---A Three-Stage Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 43-62, March.
    16. Vicki Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat, 2011. "Analytical method to identify the number of containers to inspect at U.S. ports to deter terrorist attacks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 137-158, July.
    17. May Cheung & Jun Zhuang, 2012. "Regulation Games Between Government and Competing Companies: Oil Spills and Other Disasters," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 156-164, June.
    18. Wang, Xiaofang & Zhuang, Jun, 2011. "Balancing congestion and security in the presence of strategic applicants with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 100-111, July.
    19. R Hohzaki & R Masuda, 2012. "A smuggling game with asymmetrical information of players," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 63(10), pages 1434-1446, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agarwal, Puneet & Aziz, Ridwan Al & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "Interplay of rumor propagation and clarification on social media during crisis events - A game-theoretic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 714-733.
    2. Vicki M. Bier, 2020. "From the Editor: Advances in Multi-Agent Decision Making," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 187-188, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agarwal, Puneet & Aziz, Ridwan Al & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "Interplay of rumor propagation and clarification on social media during crisis events - A game-theoretic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 714-733.
    2. Xiaojun (Gene) Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2014. "Modeling Credible Retaliation Threats in Deterring the Smuggling of Nuclear Weapons Using Partial Inspection---A Three-Stage Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 43-62, March.
    3. Vicki Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat, 2011. "Analytical method to identify the number of containers to inspect at U.S. ports to deter terrorist attacks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 187(1), pages 137-158, July.
    4. Stamatios Katsikas & Vassili Kolokoltsov & Wei Yang, 2016. "Evolutionary Inspection and Corruption Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Anthony Rossiter & Susan M Hester, 2017. "Designing Biosecurity Inspection Regimes to Account for Stakeholder Incentives: An Inspection Game Approach," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(301), pages 277-301, June.
    6. Cen Song & Jun Zhuang, 2018. "Modeling Precheck Parallel Screening Process in the Face of Strategic Applicants with Incomplete Information and Screening Errors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 118-133, January.
    7. Naraphorn Haphuriwat & Vicki M. Bier & Henry H. Willis, 2011. "Deterring the Smuggling of Nuclear Weapons in Container Freight Through Detection and Retaliation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 88-102, June.
    8. Fandel, G. & Trockel, J., 2013. "Avoiding non-optimal management decisions by applying a three-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 85-93.
    9. Yang, Zhisen & Yang, Zaili & Yin, Jingbo & Qu, Zhuohua, 2018. "A risk-based game model for rational inspections in port state control," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 477-495.
    10. John Bone & Dominic Spengler, 2014. "Does Reporting Decrease Corruption?," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 26(1-2), pages 161-186, January.
    11. Manfred J. Holler & Barbara Klose-Ullmann, 2008. "Wallenstein’s Power Problem and Its Consequences," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(3), pages 197-218, December.
    12. R. Piccinelli & G. Sansavini & R. Lucchetti & E. Zio, 2017. "A General Framework for the Assessment of Power System Vulnerability to Malicious Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2182-2190, November.
    13. Hansen, Mark & Liu, Yi, 2015. "Airline competition and market frequency: A comparison of the s-curve and schedule delay models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 301-317.
    14. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    15. Manfred J. Holler, 2013. "On Machiavelli’s conspiracy paradoxes," Chapters, in: Francisco Cabrillo & Miguel A. Puchades-Navarro (ed.), Constitutional Economics and Public Institutions, chapter 7, pages 125-145, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Jie Xu & Jun Zhuang & Zigeng Liu, 2016. "Modeling and mitigating the effects of supply chain disruption in a defender–attacker game," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 255-270, January.
    17. Li, Yongli & Gao, Xin & Xu, Zhiwei & Zhou, Xuanrui, 2018. "Network-based queuing model for simulating passenger throughput at an airport security checkpoint," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 13-24.
    18. Dong, Xiaoqing & Li, Chaolin & Li, Ji & Wang, Jia & Huang, Wantao, 2010. "A game-theoretic analysis of implementation of cleaner production policies in the Chinese electroplating industry," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1442-1448.
    19. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    20. Aniruddha Bagchi & Jomon Aliyas Paul, 2014. "Optimal Allocation of Resources in Airport Security: Profiling vs. Screening," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(2), pages 219-233, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:208-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.