Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The vulnerability assessment is important for earthquake prevention and mitigation. Since many criteria need to be considered during the evaluation process, it can be modeled as a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. This paper proposes an approach which integrates the results of different MCDM methods to provide regional earthquake vulnerability assessment. The key idea of this approach is to determine the most trustable MCDM method by calculating the weights of several MCDM methods using the Spearman’s ranking correlation coefficients. The most trustable MCDM method is the one with the highest weight, which indicates that it has the strongest agreements with other MCDM methods, and is used to provide a final assessment using the combination of other MCDM methods. The proposed approach is applied to evaluate the earthquake vulnerability of 31 Chinese regions using six MCDM methods and eleven vulnerability evaluation indices. The results indicate that the proposed approach can integrate the inconsistent evaluation results of different MCDM methods and produce a comprehensive assessment of regional earthquake vulnerability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Basöz, N., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1995). Prioritization of bridges for seismic retrofitting. Report 114, John Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford.

  • Brans, J. P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. In J. Figueira, V. Mousseau, & B. Roy (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 163–195). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J. P., Vincke P. h., & Marecha, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L., & Arnoff, E. L. (1957). Introduction to operations research. New York: Wiley. (Chap. 6 Weighting objectives).

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, C., Oliveira, C. S., & Vieira, V. (2008). Prioritization of bridges and tunnels in earthquake risk mitigation using multicriteria decision analysis: application to Lisbon. Omega, 36(3), 442–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, J. (1982). Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters, 1(5), 288–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergu, D., & Kou, G. (2012). Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores estimation for rapid and efficient decision making. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 5–23. doi:10.1007/s10479-011-0922-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2011a). A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 246–259. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergu, D., Kou, G., Shi, Y., & Shi, Y. (2011b). Analytic network process in risk assessment and decision analysis, Computers & Operations Research. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2011.03.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Y. X., Luo, Y., & Chen, Q. S. (2006). Establishment of weight about vulnerability indexes of hazard bearing body. Journal of Catastrophology, 16(1), 85–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and application. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joem, B. (2007). Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards, 7(1), 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kou, G., & Lou, C. (2012). Multiple factor hierarchical clustering algorithm for large scale web page and search engine clickstream data. Annals of Operations Research 197(1), 123–134. doi:10.1007/s10479-010-0704-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, G. W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision making problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55(1), 80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maffei, J. (1995). Management and prioritization of bridge seismic evaluations and upgrading. In: Proceedings of the national seismic conference on bridges and highways, San Diego, CA, December 10–13, 1995. Sect. 3.

  • Menoni, S., Pergalani, F., Boni, M. P., & Petrini, V. (2002). Lifelines earthquake vulnerability assessment: a systemic approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9), 1199–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milani, A. S., Shanian, A., & El-Lahham, C. (2006). Using different ELECTRE methods in strategic planning in the presence of human behavioral resistance. Journal of Applied Mathematics & Decision Sciences, 2006, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Incident Management System (NIMS) (2008). United States, Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/.

  • Nyarko, M. H., Nyarko, E. K., & Morić, D. (2011). A neural network based modelling and sensitivity analysis of damage ratio coefficient. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 13405–13413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. L. (2004). Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40(7), 721–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake, sustainable reconstruction. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3), 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Kou, G., Wang, G., Wu, W., & Shi, Y. (2011a). Ensemble of software defect predictors: an AHP-based evaluation method. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(1), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Kou, G., Wang, G., & Shi, Y. (2011b). FAMCDM: a fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms. Omega, 39(6), 677–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Zhang, Y., Tang, Y., & Li, S. (2011c). An incident information management framework based on data integration, data mining, and multi-criteria decision making. Decision Support Systems, 51(2), 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Y., Kou, G., Shi, Y., & Chen, Z. (2008). A descriptive framework for the field of data mining and knowledge discovery. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 7(4), 639–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashed, T., & Weeks, J. (2003). Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), 547–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide multicritere a la decision: Methodes et cas. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1978). ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classements fonde sur une representation flue des preferences en presence de ctriteres multiples. Cahiers du CERO, 20(1), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şen, Z. (2010). Rapid visual earthquake term hazard evaluation of existing buildings by fuzzy logic modeling. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(8), 5653–5660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tam, C. M., Tong, T. K. L., & Lau, C. T. (2003). ELECTRE_III in evaluating performance of construction plants: case study on concrete vibrators. Construction Innovation, 3(1), 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2), 397–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No. 71173028, No. 70901011, and No. 70921061, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610054, P.R. China

    Yi Peng

Authors
  1. Yi Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi Peng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peng, Y. Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods. Ann Oper Res 234, 95–110 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1253-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1253-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation