China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Risk Assessment
Published in Thomas P. Fuller, Global Occupational Safety and Health Management Handbook, 2019
The standard approach to CBA of risks to life is to convert them into equivalent costs. The monetary valuation of risks to life is often described as a “value of life.” This phrase is convenient but inaccurate and also evokes a strong emotional response. CBA evaluates small changes in risks for many people and does not attempt to value individual lives. The accumulation of risk to many people, which can be expected on average to result in the saving of one fatality, is better described as a “statistical fatality.” For example, a reduction in risk of 10−3per year for each of 100 individuals over a period of 10 years would amount to a saving of one statistical fatality. This distinction is important because it is much more reasonable to place a value on small changes in statistical risk than on individually identifiable lives. Presentation of this difficult and often emotive concept can be improved by using the term value of preventing a statistical fatality (VPF). This emphasizes that what is being valued is the reduction in risk to many lives, rather than the actual lives that are at risk of being lost.
Cost—Benefit and Trade-Off Analyses
Published in Raymond S. Nickerson, Psychology and Environmental Change, 2002
The assignment of monetary values to such factors as human life and health is a delicate matter that often evokes strong objections. As MacLean (1990) put it, “People…feel uncomfortable with even rationally defensible procedures for making difficult decisions if those procedures make finding an exchange rate for life a prominent feature” (p. 102). Regarding the implicitness of value-of-life quantification in policy decisions, the value given (implicitly) to life can be calculated by computing the ratio of the cost of an intervention to the estimated number of lives saved (premature deaths prevented) by it. One survey yielded $2 million as the average implicit per-life-saved value of several federal cancer risk management programs (Travis, Richter, Crouch, Wilson, & Klema, 1987).
Application of HEC-RAS and HEC-LifeSim models for flood risk assessment
Published in Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research, 2021
Ali El Bilali, Abdeslam Taleb, Imane Boutahri
Besides, the efficiency of the evacuation process can be assessed by comparing the evacuation outflow that represents the cumulative flow of people that mobilise and reach safety over time. An example related to the average value of life loss is presented in Figure 12. In this example, the safety curve that deviates from the mobilised curve for the A1 alternative indicates that traffic congestion can occur during the evacuation while these curves coincide for with A2 alternative in the first 200 min. This is an indication that the A2 alternative reduces traffic congestion. However, the efficiency of the evacuation process in reducing the life loss does not only depend on the warning process and traffic management, but it also depends on the capacity of road networks to evacuate such a number of people. Accordingly, increasing the road network capacity improves the evacuation flow in the time before arrival time flood and can reduce life loss. Importantly, the simulation shows that even if the NSMs (early warning) were carried out and the traffic congestion is reduced by the A2 alternative, the life loss is still significant. This is due to that the connection between the zone at risk and the safe areas is only 5 bridges of which 2 can be blocked after 3 h from the dam rupture Figure 6(a). However, the congestion problem is daily observed in the city during critical periods. Such a result shows that Mohammedia is a vulnerable area exposed to flood disasters associated with the Malleh dam rupture in terms of road network capacity which could not allow evacuating 65000 in time to avoid life loss.
Life-cycle cost analysis of pile-supported wharves under multi-hazard condition: aging and shaking
Published in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2023
Hamid Mirzaeefard, Masoud Mirtaheri, Mohammad Amin Hariri-Ardebili
In this paper, the effect of corrosion on seismic response and LCC analysis of a typical pile-supported wharf in the port of Los Angeles is investigated. A detailed finite element model is developed considering the soil-pile interaction. It is simulated by p–y springs in the horizontal direction, and t–z and Q–z springs for the vertical direction. A precise model is used to estimate the corrosion initiation time. Various deterioration sources such as reduction in the ultimate strength and strain of prestressed strands and concrete compressive strength are accounted for. Aging-dependent fragility curves with updating limit states for the pile-supported wharf are computed, followed by a detailed LCC analysis of the structure itself and the crane. The major observations related to the case study are as follows:The normalized total failure costs of the corroded pile-supported wharf, during the life-cycle for all LSs are 0.417, 0.362, and 0.313 for high, medium, and low seismic hazard levels, respectively. The normalized total failure costs of non-corroded pile-supported wharf are 0.345, 0.296, and 0.253 for three above-mentioned seismic hazard levels. This means that corrosion increases 21%, 22%, and 24% the failure cost.The normalized life-cycle cost of pile-supported wharf, LCCw, in high, medium and low seismic hazard is 1.687, 1.632, 1.583 for corroded and 1.477, 1.428, 1.385 for non-corroded structure. This means the average current value of life-cycle of pile-supported wharf is 63% and 43% higher than initial cost for the corroded and non-corroded cases, respectively.The normalized total failure costs of cranes, during the life-cycle for all LSs are 0.228, 0.193, and 0.161 for high, medium, and low seismic hazard levels, respectively.The normalized life-cycle cost of cranes, LCCc, in high, medium and low seismic hazard levels are 1.498, 1.463, and 1.431, respectively. This means the average current value of life-cycle of cranes is 46% higher than its initial cost, for all seismic hazard levels.The normalized total life-cycle cost LCCt, in high, medium and low seismic hazard levels are 1.602, 1.556, 1.515 for corroded system, and 1.487, 1.444, 1.406 for the non-corroded system. This means that the average current value of system life-cycle is 55% and 44% higher than initial cost for the corroded and non-corroded cases, respectively.