Abstract
AbstractTo maximize the potential of earthquake early warning (EEW) as a credible tool for seismic resilience promotion, it should be combined with next‐generation decision‐support tools that use advanced risk‐based predictions and account for unavoidable malfunctions of the system (i.e., false alarms) to determine whether or not alerts/mitigation actions should be triggered. This work contributes to the required effort by developing a novel end‐user‐oriented approach for decision making related to very short‐term earthquake risk management. The proposed methodology unifies earthquake‐engineering‐related performance assessment procedures/metrics (for end‐user‐focused damage and consequence estimation) with multicriteria decision‐making tools (to consider end‐user preferences toward different types of risks). It is demonstrated for EEW in a hypothetical school building, to specifically investigate the optimal decisions (i.e., “trigger”/“do not trigger” alerts) for a range of earthquake scenarios with varying parameter uncertainties. In particular, it is found that the best action for a given ground‐shaking intensity can depend on stakeholder (end‐user) preferences.
Highlights
Earthquake early warning (EEW) is undergoing a growth in popularity worldwide as an attractive tool for enhancing and promoting seismic resilience in urban areas (e.g., Cauzzi et al, 2016; Gasparini et al, 2011)
The developed algorithm could be packaged as a software plug-in to existing operational EEW platforms, transforming these systems into powerful end-user-driven tools that effectively promote and prioritize seismic resilience
This study has developed a novel methodology for riskinformed EEW that uniquely combines multi-criteria decisional and earthquake-engineering-related tools, for informed stakeholder-driven decision making
Summary
Earthquake early warning (EEW) is undergoing a growth in popularity worldwide as an attractive tool for enhancing and promoting seismic resilience in urban areas (e.g., Cauzzi et al, 2016; Gasparini et al, 2011). Cost–benefit analyses require the use of questionable assumptions about the dollar value of nonmonetary losses (such as casualties and functional disruption), which may not be accurate and can lack consistency across different jurisdictions (e.g., Krawinkler et al, 2006; Viscusi & Masterman, 2017) These approaches do not (or do not ) enable different dimensions of risk (e.g., public safety, economic loss, and functionality) to be distinguished in the decision-making process, which is problematic if the stakeholder does not place equal importance on each risk type (May, 2004). This paper proposes an advanced methodology that overcomes all of the previously identified shortcomings in two main ways It implements a general multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) approach, which enables multiple mitigation actions to be evaluated for various dimensions of uncertain risk.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
