Risk acceptability and cost-effectiveness of protective measures against terrorist threats to built infrastructure considering multiple threat scenarios

Mark G. Stewart

doi:10.1007/s12209-008-0053-3

Transactions of Tianjin University ›› 2008, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (5) : 313 -317. DOI: 10.1007/s12209-008-0053-3

Article

Risk acceptability and cost-effectiveness of protective measures against terrorist threats to built infrastructure considering multiple threat scenarios

Mark G. Stewart ¹^,^a

Author information +

History +

PDF

Abstract

Decisions are often needed about the need and/or extent of protective measures against explosive blast loads on built infrastructure. A decision support analysis considers fatality risks and cost-effectiveness of protective measures expressed in terms of expected cost spent on risk reduction per life saved for terrorist threats to infrastructure. The analysis is applicable to any item of infrastructure, but in this paper is applied to casualties arising from building facade glazing damage. Risks may be compared with risk acceptance criteria in the form of quantitative safety goals. The risk acceptability and cost-effectiveness of protective measures includes cost of the protective measures, attack probability, reduction in risk due to protective measures, probability of fatality conditional on successful terrorist attack and number of exposed individuals.

Keywords

risk / terrorism / cost-benefit analysis / infrastructure / decision analysis

Cite this article

Download citation ▾

Mark G. Stewart. Risk acceptability and cost-effectiveness of protective measures against terrorist threats to built infrastructure considering multiple threat scenarios. Transactions of Tianjin University, 2008, 14(5): 313-317 DOI:10.1007/s12209-008-0053-3

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]

Stewart M G. Life safety risks and optimisation of protective measures for terrorist threats to built infrastructure [C]. In: International Forum on Engineering Decision Making: Optimal Strategies for Disaster and Hazard Mitigation. Reid S and Stewart M (eds). Sydney University Press, 2007. 19–30.

[2]	Stewart M. G.. Cost-effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for protection of buildings against terrorist attack[J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 2008, 22(2): 115-120.

[3]	Stewart M. G., Mueller J.. A risk and cost-benefit and assessment of US aviation security measures[J]. Journal of Transportation Security, 2008, 1(3): 143-159.

[4]	Stewart M. G., Melchers R. E.. Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Engineering Systems[M]. 1997, London: Chapman & Hall.

[5]	Paté-Cornell M. E.. Quantitative safety goals for risk management of industrial facilities[J]. Structural Safety, 1994, 13 145-157.

[6]	Viscusi W. K.. The value of life in legal contexts: Survey and critique[J]. American Law and Economic Review, 2000, 2(1): 195-222.

[7]	RS Means Building Construction Cost Data [M]. RS Means Co, Kingston, MA, 2007.

[8]	Lin L. H., Hinman E., Stone H. F., et al. Survey of window retrofit solutions for blast mitigation[J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 2004, 18(2): 86-94.

[9]	Building Security: Strategies and Costs [M]. Reed Construction Data, Kingston, MA, 2003.

[10]	Stewart M. G., Netherton M. D.. Security risks and probabilistic risk assessment of glazing subject to explosive blast loading[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2008, 93(4): 627-638.

[11]	Netherton M D, Stewart M G. Security risks and safety hazards for building facades [C]. In: 4th International ASRANet Colloquium. Athens, 2008.

[12]	Smyth M J. Injuries from flying glass [J]. British Medical Journal, Dec.16, 1944: 799.

[13]	Ellingwood B. R.. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse[J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 2006, 20(4): 315-323.