1. Home
  2. TRID
  3. View Record
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/27432/critical-issues-in-transportation-for-2024-and-beyond

CBA-BASED ANTI-DISASTER DESIGN OF TRANSPORT NETWORK AND FACILITIES CONSIDERING RISK COGNITION BIASES

After the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, many improvements and investments have been made in Japan for mitigating damages due to earthquakes. For example, the Japanese structural design code for elevated roads against earthquakes has been improved by the Japan Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE). This standard defines two levels of earthquakes according to their magnitude. The first is level 1-type earthquakes that on average occur more than once during the entire service life of the structure (usually 50 to 100 years). The standard indicates that structures should be designed so that this type of earthquakes would not affect users. The second is level 2-type earthquakes that on average occur less than once during the entire service life of the structure but with very serious damage. The standard prepares two design levels against this type of earthquakes due to the importance of the structure; it requires that the structure should keep the functionality for especially important structures and that it should not be structurally broken for others. However, there still remain three questions; why they are divided into "two" design levels, why these design levels are indicated at such structural strength, and how do we decide on each structure's importance? Therefore, a reasonable methodology is required so that we can decide the level of structural strength of elevated roads under level 2-type of earthquakes' exposure. Similar problems can be easily seen when we invest in mitigating damages caused by various disasters or accidents, especially when such events occur with a very low probability but with catastrophic losses. How should we decide investment levels for disaster mitigation? The methodology for evaluating investment in disaster mitigation would be normally the cost-benefit analysis (CBA). However, the optimal investment levels calculated by "traditional" CBA could not often explain actual investment levels, as the probability of catastrophic events is very low leading to very low expected damage (i.e. the product of probability and loss) which is usually much smaller than the investment cost, while in reality a lot of investments have already been made. Why does this investment gap exist? Of course, we can assume that actual investments for disaster mitigation are not always optimal. However, when recalling that many investments have been conducted according to social requirements, it may be better to think that calculation by "traditional" CBA is not sufficient to explain the actual decision-making process. This paper proposes a new CBA method for the design of disaster mitigation investment, termed as the cognitive cost-benefit analysis (CCBA). In CCBA, we assume that investment levels are designed based on the subjective judgment of both probability and amount of loss filtered through human cognitive processes, instead of on the objectively expected monetary value. We call these components as cognitive probability and cognitive loss.

Language

  • English

Media Info

  • Features: Figures; References; Tables;
  • Pagination: 20p

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00970721
  • Record Type: Publication
  • ISBN: 0080442749
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Mar 12 2004 12:00AM