IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v107y2021i3d10.1007_s11069-021-04612-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A regional Natech risk assessment based on a Natech-prone facility network for dependent events

Author

Listed:
  • Mei Cai

    (Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology
    Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Ministry of Education and Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters (CIC-FEMD))

  • Stephen M. Marson

    (The University of North Carolina at Pembroke)

Abstract

Because of the recent frequency of climatic hazards and extreme weather events, disasters caused by natural hazards are attracting increased attention from the governments, communities, and the public. Synergistic effects between natural and technological hazards have a significant role in risk assessment. To address these effects, a Natech risk assessment model based on a natural-technological-prone (Natech-prone) facility network is developed to clarify specific scenarios and assess Natech risk. A weighted and directed graph is employed to map out the industrial facilities and other necessary information emerging from the display. It is assumed that the final risk triggered by a natural event is the result of disasters caused by Natech-prone facilities. The decision weights of Natech-prone facilities are heavily dependent on the recognition of the interacting components. A subjective probability is applied to the expected risk utility function to overcome the disadvantage of objective probability, which fails to address the uncertainty found in irrational human factors. Fuzzy measures are used to describe the positive and negative synergistic effects caused by the interaction between Natech-prone facilities. In addition, a Choquet integral is incorporated into the method to deduce the positive and negative synergistic effects in risk assessment. A numerical example is given to illustrate the model, and comparisons and analyses are provided. This paper conceptualizes a specific scenario of a Natech accident. The use of an expected risk utility function for dependent disaster events is a new idea in the field of Natech risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei Cai & Stephen M. Marson, 2021. "A regional Natech risk assessment based on a Natech-prone facility network for dependent events," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(3), pages 2155-2174, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:107:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04612-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-021-04612-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-021-04612-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-021-04612-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonioni, Giacomo & Bonvicini, Sarah & Spadoni, Gigliola & Cozzani, Valerio, 2009. "Development of a framework for the risk assessment of Na-Tech accidental events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(9), pages 1442-1450.
    2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    3. Joshi, Deepa & Kumar, Sanjay, 2016. "Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 183-191.
    4. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    5. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-35, April.
    6. Mei Cai & Guo Wei, 2020. "A fuzzy social vulnerability evaluation from the perception of disaster bearers against meteorological disasters," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 2355-2370, September.
    7. Marichal, Jean-Luc, 2002. "Entropy of discrete Choquet capacities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(3), pages 612-624, March.
    8. Khakzad, Nima & Van Gelder, Pieter, 2018. "Vulnerability of industrial plants to flood-induced natechs: A Bayesian network approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 403-411.
    9. Elisabeth Krausmann & Daniele Baranzini, 2012. "Natech risk reduction in the European Union," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(8), pages 1027-1047, September.
    10. Jiajun Wang & Zhichao He & Wenguo Weng, 2020. "A review of the research into the relations between hazards in multi-hazard risk analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(3), pages 2003-2026, December.
    11. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    12. Baoyin Liu & Yim Siu & Gordon Mitchell & Wei Xu, 2013. "Exceedance probability of multiple natural hazards: risk assessment in China’s Yangtze River Delta," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(3), pages 2039-2055, December.
    13. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    14. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    15. Grabisch, Michel, 1996. "The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 445-456, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mei Cai & Wenfei Xiu & Guo Wei, 2021. "Expected loss utility for natural hazards and its application in pricing property insurance products," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 377-391, September.
    2. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    3. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    4. Mei Cai & Li Yan & Zaiwu Gong & Guo Wei, 2021. "A Voting Mechanism Designed for Talent Shows in Mass Media: Weighted Preference of Group Decision Makers in Social Networks Using Fuzzy Measures and Choquet Integral," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 1261-1284, December.
    5. Driouchi, Tarik & So, Raymond H.Y. & Trigeorgis, Lenos, 2020. "Investor ambiguity, systemic banking risk and economic activity: The case of too-big-to-fail," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    6. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    7. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2020. "Optimal Insurance under Maxmin Expected Utility," Papers 2010.07383, arXiv.org.
    8. Amarante, Massimiliano & Ghossoub, Mario & Phelps, Edmund, 2015. "Ambiguity on the insurer’s side: The demand for insurance," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 61-78.
    9. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    10. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    11. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    12. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    13. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    14. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    15. Leitner, Johannes, 2005. "Dilatation monotonous Choquet integrals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 994-1006, December.
    16. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    17. Kozhan, Roman & Salmon, Mark, 2009. "Uncertainty aversion in a heterogeneous agent model of foreign exchange rate formation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1106-1122, May.
    18. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    19. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 2022. "A lot of ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    20. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.

    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:spr:nathaz:v:107:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04612-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.