4.4 Article

Computational Framework to Support Government Policy-Making for Hurricane Risk Management

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000348

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce [60NANB10D016]
  2. National Science Foundation [1435298, 1433622, 1434716]
  3. US Department of Homeland Security [2015-ST-061-ND0001-01]
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1433622, 1435298] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  7. Directorate For Engineering [1434716] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a computational framework that can be used to identify hurricane risk management solutions based on the operation of the system as a whole. The framework represents interactions among multiple types of stakeholders (homeowners, insurers, government, reinsurers) and several strategies (insurance, retrofit, property acquisition). It supports the following government decisions: (1) how much to spend on mitigation; (2) how to regulate the price of extreme event insurance; (3) how to allocate spending between homeowner retrofit grants and property acquisition; and (4) how to design retrofit grant and acquisition programs. The framework includes four interacting mathematical models-stochastic programming optimization models to represent: (1) government; (2) insurer decisions; (3) empirical discrete choice models of individual homeowner decisions; and (4) a regional loss estimation. It includes a description of how insurers and homeowners are predicted to respond to government policies and what the outcomes will be for each. A full-scale application for Eastern North Carolina suggests it is possible to identify system-wide win-win solutions that are better both for stakeholders individually and for society as a whole.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据