Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2017

Session Schedule & Abstracts


* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.

Common abbreviations

M3-F
Symposium: The Interface Between Infrastructure and Societal Resilience

Room: Salon FG   1:30 pm–3:10 pm

Chair(s): Allison Reilly   areilly2@umd.edu

Sponsored by Engineering and Infrastructure Specialty Group

The speed by which infrastructure returns to a functional state following disasters directly affects community recovery. This session will explore the intersection between infrastructure and societal resilience through presentations covering topics including quantitative methods for measuring community vulnerability, behavioral responses to repeated hazards, and implications of hazard-reduction policies and interventions.



M3-F.1  1:30 pm  Modeling Dynamic Vulnerability and Risk at the Community Level with Agent-Based Modeling. Zhai C*, Guikema SD, Reilly AC; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor   cwzhai@umich.edu

Abstract: Understanding human behavior under repeated hazards is essential in reducing damage from hazards, promoting wise decisions, and providing insights into how community resilience evolves. This talk summarizes an Agent Based Model that can be applied to analyze how decision makers adapt to repeated hazards and different policies and how this influences the evolution of regional vulnerability over time. It introduces modeling different hazard scenarios, agent learning and decision making processes, collective action, and government policies. A case study using open-source data in Maryland is presented to show how this region’s vulnerability evolves under repeated hazards.

M3-F.2  1:50 pm  Strengthening Infrastructure Resilience through Insurance and Economic Incentives. Tonn GL*, Czajkowski JR, Kunreuther HC; Wharton Risk Management Center   gtonn@wharton.upenn.edu

Abstract: In the US, infrastructure is generally becoming less resilient due to insufficient investment in maintenance and replacement. A gap exists between the preparedness of critical infrastructure and the actual risk. A large proportion of federal disaster funding is spent on repair of public infrastructure, and disruptions to infrastructure systems cause significant economic losses and increase recovery time. Through interviews with insurers and infrastructure managers, we identify barriers and opportunities for strengthening infrastructure resilience to natural and man-made disasters. We evaluate how disaster insurance and other financial tools can enhance resilience and recovery and we present recommendations on ways to incentivize resilience. Our focus is on critical transportation infrastructure, but the findings are applicable to a wide range of infrastructure systems.

M3-F.3  2:10 pm  Seismic Changes for Financing the FEMA Public Assistance Program but Seismic Changes for Regional Risk? . Reilly AR*, Tonn G, Ghaedi H, Guikema SD; University of Maryland   areilly2@umd.edu

Abstract: FEMA recently proposed deductible-based approach for its Public Assistance (PA) Program, which could produce a seismic shift in how disaster recovery is financed and in the risk landscape for many communities. The PA Program is responsible for financing debris removal and repair of critical public infrastructure following presidentially-declared disasters. The new rule would shift away from a 25% cost-share for states to a system whereby states must first contribute a level of funding equal to that of their deductible. States would be encouraged to engage in pre-disaster planning and mitigation by targeted deductible reductions. This talk will review the proposed rule, and its implications for FEMA, states, and the hazard environment.

M3-F.4  2:30 pm  Converting Vulnerable Landscapes to Resilient Community Assets. Nelson KS, Camp JS*; Vanderbilt University   janey.camp@vanderbilt.edu

Abstract: Following the 2010 flood in Nashville, Tennessee, the City of Nashville implemented several recovery, mitigation, and adaptation strategies that propelled the community and economy to a speedy recovery. However, Nashville didn’t just return to its former pre-disaster state. Instead, it took measures to ensure that it would be less vulnerable to flood events by reducing exposures through purchase of flood-damaged properties in high-risk flood areas and conversion of these developed urban landscapes to greenspace. These activities were undertaken in the hopes of making Nashville more resilient by simultaneously adding shared community value while decreasing future flood losses. This strategic land-use conversion from high-loss and liability, individually owned properties to enhanced value, public spaces can be seen as a resilience-building model for urban centers. While the community may recognize the inherent benefit of these activities, quantification of their benefits has not yet been fully realized. In this presentation we outline a proposed method for evaluation of the relationships between the provision of green spaces in flood-prone areas and community well-being outcomes and present preliminary results of an assessment of the value of avoided damage and losses and potential secondary benefits resulting from this strategic land-use conversion for the Nashville case study. In addition, methodological challenges and opportunities for further application of the method for cost-benefit analyses of similar resilience-building strategies in other communities will be discussed.

M3-F.5  2:50 pm  Community Resilience: Establishment of Foundational Indicators and Variables for Use in an Integrated Dynamic Assessment Framework. Gillespie-Marthaler L*, Nelson KS, Baroud H, Abkowitz M; Vanderbilt University   leslie.gillespie-marthaler@vanderbilt.ed

Abstract: Communities are complex systems that are subject to a variety of hazards, often resulting in partial or total disruption to critical functions. The concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and sustainability are increasingly applied to community assessment as a means to better evaluate abilities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruption. Linkages identified between concepts resulted in development of an integrated dynamic assessment framework to evaluate complex systems' ability to resist systemic disruption, recover, adapt, and/or transform given adverse situations in order to maintain desired performance while simultaneously considering intra-system and inter-generational distribution of impacts and sustainability capital, defined by authors as complex system resilience. Literature on community resilience and resilience assessment provides a large pool of indicators and measures to choose from when conducting resilience assessment. Variations in definition, categorization, and use can lead to challenges in operationalizing assessments. This work provides a review of current literature on community resilience indicators and a synthesis of associated indicators sets in order to operationalize complex system resilience assessment for the above-mentioned framework. Efforts resulted in consolidation of over five hundred separate indicators into a set of foundational indicators with associated qualitative and quantitative measures. Indicators and measures are classified according to: 1) association with various community sub-systems; 2) alignment with attributes of complex system resilience, and 3) resilience priority. These results are intended to improve communities’ ability to consistently measure resilience by providing a starting point for resilience indicator selection that can be tailored to specific communities, and by identifying indicators that align with fundamental aspects of complex system resilience in order to ensure assessments are balanced.



[back to schedule]