IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v3y1983i1p35-50.html

A Social Decision Analysis of the Earthquake Safety Problem: The Case of Existing Los Angeles Buildings

Author

Listed:
  • Rakesh Kumar Sarin

Abstract

In this paper we propose a framework for conducting a decision analysis for a societal problem such as earthquake safety. The application deals with the formulation and evaluation of alternative policies for the seismic safety problem faced by the city of Los Angeles with regard to its old masonry buildings. A social decision analysis compares the costs and benefits of the alternative policies from the viewpoints of the impacted constituents. The emphasis is on identifying acceptable policy that considers the interests of the impacted constituents and provides incentives for their cooperation. Alternatives ranging from strict regulation to free market are examined. In order to evaluate the trade‐offs between additional cost and savings in lives, a direct willingness‐to‐pay and an economic approach, based on property value differential, are used. Recommendations range from strict regulation for the residential and critical buildings (schools, hospitals, fire stations, etc.) to simply informing the occupants (in the case of commercial and industrial buildings) of the risks involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Rakesh Kumar Sarin, 1983. "A Social Decision Analysis of the Earthquake Safety Problem: The Case of Existing Los Angeles Buildings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 35-50, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:3:y:1983:i:1:p:35-50
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1983.tb00104.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1983.tb00104.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1983.tb00104.x?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. Martin J. Bailey, 1980. "Reducing Risks to Life: Measurement of the Benefits," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 51808, September.
    2. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney, 1982. "Feature Article—Decision Analysis: An Overview," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 803-838, October.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney, 1981. "Analysis of Preference Dependencies among Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1105-1120, December.
    5. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    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. Robin C. Van den Honert, 2016. "Improving Decision Making about Natural Disaster Mitigation Funding in Australia—A Framework," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, September.
    2. James J. Buckley, 1986. "Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 35-41, March.
    3. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    4. Lester B. Lave & Joshua Menkes, 1985. "Managing Risk: A Joint U.S.‐German Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 17-23, March.
    5. Chiara D’Alpaos & Paolo Bragolusi, 2020. "The Market Price Premium for Buildings Seismic Retrofitting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.

    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. Rajshekhar G. Javalgi & Hemant K. Jain, 1988. "Integrating multiple criteria decision making models into the decision support system framework for marketing decisions," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 575-596, December.
    2. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    3. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    4. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    5. John Loomis & Bryon Allen, 2008. "Using Non Market Valuation to Inform the Choice Between Permits and Fees in Environmental Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 329-337, July.
    6. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    9. Taillandier, F. & Sauce, G. & Bonetto, R., 2009. "Risk-based investment trade-off related to building facility management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(4), pages 785-795.
    10. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    11. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    12. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & von Oppen, Matthias, 2005. "Private Participation In Agricultural Extension In Nigeria And Benin: Determining The Willingness To Pay For Information," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19401, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Smith, Hilary Herbert, 1982. "The demand for and marginal cost of air pollution abatement: an implicit market analysis," ISU General Staff Papers 198201010800009387, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Robert F. Bordley, 2023. "Lessons for Decision-Analysis Practice from the Automotive Industry," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 240-246, May.
    15. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    16. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    17. Kannika Thampanishvong, 2013. "Determinants of Flash Flood Evacuation Choices and Assessment of Preferences for Flash Flood Warning Channels: The Case of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    18. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    19. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    20. Paul Dolan & Robert Metcalfe, 2008. "Comparing Willingness-to-Pay and Subjective Well-Being in the Context of Non-Market Goods," CEP Discussion Papers dp0890, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:3:y:1983:i:1:p:35-50. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.