Meacham, B J (2000) A process for identifying, characterizing, and incorporating risk concepts into performance-based building and fire regulation development. PhD thesis, Clark University, USA.
Abstract
To effectively manage risks to people and property through building and fire codes, code developers need a thorough understanding of the hazards impacting on buildings, of the risks to people and property, of available risk mitigation measures, and of the social, technical, and economic impact of their decisions. This is especially important for the development of performance-based building and fire codes, where the focus is on providing broad statements of acceptable performance, safety and/or risk instead of on providing detailed construction specifications. However, the current understanding and acceptance of risk concepts varies widely within the building and fire safety communities. There are many reasons for this, including a lack of consensus on risk characterization, an incomplete understanding of risk acceptability issues, an incomplete understanding of uncertainty, variability and unknowns, and regulatory process differences between key organizations. As a means to begin addressing these issues, a process for identifying, characterizing, and incorporating risk concepts into building and fire regulation development has been outlined. The resultant process is an analytic-deliberative one, requiring and utilizing scientific, engineering and actuarial data, as well as input from a broad cross-section of interested and affected stakeholders. For this effort, relevant scientific, engineering and actuarial data were obtained from published literature and from a custom analysis provided by the National Fire Protection Association. Input from various stakeholders was obtained through review of published materials, personal discussions and surveys. The Analytical Hierarchy Process was used as a tool for ranking the relative importance of various criteria that are fundamental to building and fire regulations and for assisting in decision choices between various regulatory options. The resultant process and use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process as a decision support tool for building code development have been tested in practice by working closely with a building code development committee. Outcomes of this effort have been included in the first edition of a draft performance-based building code for the United States.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Kasperson, R E |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision support; economic impact; hazards; uncertainty; fire safety; safety; analytical hierarchy process; specification; regulation; developer; stakeholder |
| Index terms: | relative importance, United States, decision support, specification, survey, regulation, economic impact, building code, risk mitigation, performance-based, unknowns, analytical hierarchy process, fire safety, variability, option |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, performance measurement, theoretical framing, contractual condition, Geography, health safety and environment, financial risk, decision analysis, regulatory law, decision-making and optimization, financial analysis, political science, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Quality Management, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Contract Administration, Cost Management, Research Practice, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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