Zhao, T and Fu, C C (2006) Infrastructure development and expansion under uncertainty: A risk-preference-based lattice approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(6), pp. 620-625. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Optimal infrastructure development and expansion decision making requires taking into account contingent expansion decisions and underlying uncertainty, such as demand, during the planning period. Recent publications on life cycle management have used lattice models and Markov decision models to evaluate infrastructure development and management policies. In this paper, a risk-preference based lattice model is presented, and it provides the optimal contingent decisions in terms of a risk preference that can be other than risk neutrality. The proposed methodology is demonstrated in an example involving constructing and expanding a parking garage.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision making; facility expansion; infrastructure; lattices; optimization; risks; uncertainty principles |
| Index terms: | publication, preference, methodology, decision-making, infrastructure development, life cycle management, neutrality |
| Subjects: | value management, research dissemination and communication, ethical practice, infrastructure engineering, research methods, decision-making and reasoning, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here