| Project
Title/ID Number |
Analytic
Models for PBEE Decisions—1252002 |
| Start/End
Dates |
10/1/02—9/30/03 |
| Project
Leader |
Jacqueline
Meszaros (UW/Faculty) |
| Team
Members |
Ufuk
Ince (UW/Faculty), Sonnier Francisco (UW/Grad Student) |
| Project
goals and objectives |
Translate
our understanding of how mitigation decisions are made into useful analytical
models (including financial and nonfinancial variables) for seismic hazard
mitigation investment decisions. |
| Role
of this project in supporting PEER’s vision |
- Identifying
the Decision Variables (DVs) that matter to decision makers in for-profit
organizations
- Identifying
barriers to and promoters of PBEE use
- Translating
engineering Damage Measure (DM) information into the DVs that matter
to decision makers
- Creating
a decision tool to enable decision makers to compare mitigation alternatives
in terms of the DVs that matter to them, including sensitivity analyses
and distributions of DVs
- Supporting
the Van Nuys testbed
|
| Methodology
employed |
- Survey
research
- Case
study research
- Financial
simulation modeling
|
| Brief
description of past year’s accomplishments and more detail on expected
Year 6 accomplishments |
Year
5:
- Six case
studies of mitigation decisions by large firms
- Review
of financial investment models pertinent to EQ
- Fielded
survey of small businesses following Nisqually EQ
Year 6:
- Constructed
decision-support model that aids decision-makers in comparing mitigation
alternatives
- Applied
model to Van Nuys testbed
- Survey
of engineers’ experiences in using PBEE, lessons for promotes
and hinders PBEE adoption
- Analysis
of Nisqually data: organizational predictors of mitigation
|
| Other
similar work being conducted within and outside PEER and how this project
differs |
| Related
work on losses from the Nisqually earthquake (sponsored by the Economic
Development Administration as well as PEER) was completed in Year 6. |
| Plans
for Year 7 if this project is expected to be continued |
- Add value
at risk and risk of ruin to decision model
- Develop
simulation results for costs (current estimates are not solid enough)
- Develop
simulation results for other decision variables
- Develop
comparison of mitigation vs. insurance vs. other options. Field cross-functional
survey of how practitioners make these tradeoffs
- Cross-functional
survey on risk perceptions, mitigation priorities and responses to ambiguity
- Cross-functional
survey of how practitioners respond to different ways of presenting
decision variables
- Case
study examination of use/non-use of complex analyses for ambiguous,
low-probability decision contexts
- Extend
engineer survey on client priorities and engineer needs to a large sample
of California-based engineers.
|
| Describe
any instances where you are aware that your results have been used in industry |
| Our
results concerning which companies did and did not mitigate against earthquake
following Nisqually were reported by the Seattle Times, Tacoma News Tribune,
local National Public Radio and KOMO News Radio on the second anniversary
of the quake. Their reports emphasized that businesses may not yet be
well prepared for earthquakes. |
| Expected
milestones |
Interactive
software model for PBEE decision makers to use in assessing the desirability
of alternative earthquake mitigation investments. Model includes financial
and non-financial decision variables. |
| Deliverables |
- Interactive
software model (including Van Nuys application)
- Working
paper on predictors of mitigation for small businesses
- Working
paper on communication between engineers and managers, including discussion
of case-study results on how mitigation investment decisions are made
in large firms.
|