The consideration of environmental losses in seismic design is discussed within the framework of cost optimization analysis. Within this context, the equivalent carbon emissions (CO2-e) are used as a proxy for the environmental cost related to seismic damage, and a model to assess the environmental cost in seismic loss estimation is introduced. The use of the model is illustrated through its application to the analysis of simple earthquake-resistant structural systems. It is concluded that under certain circumstances, the consideration of environmental issues in seismic design may be important, especially as the planning time horizon of the facility increases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramowitzM.and StegunI.1970. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
2.
AngA. H.-S.and De LeonD.1996. Determination of optimal target reliabilities for design and upgrading structures, in Proceedings, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1054.
3.
AnthoffD.TolR. S. J.and YoheG. W.2008. Risk Aversion, Time Preference, and the Social Cost of Carbon, Working Paper 252, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin.
4.
AsifM.MuneerT.and KelleyR.2007. Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland, Building and Environment42, 1391–1394.
5.
AzarC.and SternerT.1996. Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming, Ecological Economics19, 169–184.
6.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2004. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, 2003 Edition. Part 1—Provisions, Part 2 Commentary, Technical Report FEMA 450, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
7.
ChenT. Y.BurnettJ.and ChauC. K.2001. Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong, Energy26, 323–340.
8.
ClarksonR.and DeyesK.2002. Estimating the Social Cost of Carbon Emissions, The Public Enquiry Unit, HM Treasury London, Working Paper 140.
9.
CoburnA.and SpenceR.2002. Earthquake Protection, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 402 pp.
10.
ColeR. J.and KernanP. C1996. Life-cycle energy use in office buildings, Building and Environment31, 307–317.
11.
CornellC. A.JalayerF.HamburgerR. O.and FoutchD. A.2002. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines, Journal of Structural Engineering128, 526–533.
12.
DimoudiA.and TompaC.2008. Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of office buildings, Resources, Conservation and Recycling53, 86–95.
13.
DrapperN. R.and SmithH.1981. Applied Regression Analysis, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 709 pp.
14.
EstevaL.1968. Bases para la formulación de decisiones en diseño sísmico, Reporte 182, Instituto de Ingeniería UNAM, Mexico (in spanish).
15.
EstevaL.and RuizS. E.1989. Seismic failure rates of multistory frames, Journal of Structural Engineering115, 268–284.
16.
FlowerD.and SanjayanJ. G.2007. Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture, Int J LCA12, 282–288.
17.
FrankhauserS.1994. The social cost of greenhouse emissions: an expected value approach, The Energy Journal15, 157–184.
18.
GodaK.and HongH. P.2006. Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with detailed seismic hazard information, Structural Safety28, 247–260.
19.
GonzalezM. J.and GarcíaJ.2006. Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact, Building and Environment41, 902–909.
20.
GuoJ.HepburnC. J.TolR.and AnthoffD.2006. Discounting and the social cost of carbon: a closer look at uncertainty, Environmental Science & Policy9, 205–216.
21.
GustavssonL.and SathreR.2006. Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials, Building and Environment41, 940–951.
22.
HackerJ. N.De SaullesT. P.MinsonA. J.and HolmesM. J. P.2008. Embodied and operational carbon dioxide emissions from housing: A case study on the effects of thermal mass and climate change, Energy and Buildings40, 375–384.
23.
HaradenJ.1993. An updated shadow price for CO2, Energy18, 303–307.
HeltonJ. C.2004. Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty, Reliability Engineering and System Safety85, 1–10.
26.
HopeC.2006. The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC's five reasons for concern, The Integrated Assessment Journal6, 19–56.
27.
HopeC.2008. Optimal carbon emissions and the social cost of carbon over time under uncertainty, The Integrated Assessment Journal8, 107–122.
28.
JaraJ. M.and RosenbluethE.1988. Probability distribution of times between characteristic subduction earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra4, 499–529.
29.
JönssonA.BjörklundT.and TillmanA. M.1998. LCA of concrete and steel building frames, Int. J. LCA3, 216–224.
30.
LinkP. M.and TolR.2004. Possible Economic Impacts of a Shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation: an Application of FUND, Portuguese Economic Journal3, 99–114.
31.
LiuM.and NeghabatF.1972. A cost optimization model for seismic design of structures, The Bell System Technical Journal51, 2209–2225.
32.
LiuM.BurnsS. A.and WenY. K.2003. Optimal seismic design of steel frame buildings based on life cycle cost considerations, Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn32, 1313–1332 (doi:10.1002/eqe.273).
33.
MaddisonD.1995. A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change, Energy Policy23, 337–346.
34.
MonahanJ.and PowellJ. C.2011. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment framework, Building and Environment43, 179–188.
35.
NewmarkN. M.and RosenbluehtE.1971. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 660 pp.
36.
NordhausW. D.1991. A sketch of the economics of the greenhouse effect, The American Economic Review81, 146–150.
37.
NordhausW. D.1992. An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, Science258, 1315–1319.
38.
NordhausW. D.1993. Rolling the “DICE”: An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, Resource and Energy Economics15, 27–50.
39.
NordhausW. D.and YangZ.1996. A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies, The American Economic Review86, 741–765.
40.
OrdazM.and ReyesC.1999. Earthquake hazard in Mexico City: observations versus computations, Bull Seism Soc Am89, 1379–1383.
41.
OrdazM.JaraJ. M.and SinghS. K.1989. Riesgo sísmico y espectros de diseño en el estado de Guerrero, Informe Proyectos 8782-9745, Instituto de Ingeniería UNAM, México, DF (in spanish).
42.
PearceD.2003. The social cost of carbon and its policy implications, Oxford Review of Economic Policy19, 362–384.
43.
PeckS. C.and TeisbergT. J.1993. CO2 emissions control: Comparing policy instruments, Energy Policy21, 222–230.
44.
PenttalaV.1997. Concrete and sustainable development, ACI Materials Journal94, 409–416.
45.
PlambeckE.and HopeC.1996. An updated valuation of the impacts of global warming, Energy Policy24, 783–793.
46.
ReillyJ. M.and RichardsK. R.1993. Climate change damage and the trace gas index issue, Environmental and Resource Economics3, 41–61.
47.
RichardsK.1997. The time value of carbon in bottom-up studies, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology27, S279–S292.
48.
RoughgardenT.and SchneiderS. H.1999. Climate change policy: quantifying uncertainties for damages and optimal carbon taxes, Climate Change Policy27, 415–429.
49.
RosenbluethE.and OrdazM.1987. Use of seismic data from similar regions, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn15, 619–634.
50.
SchauerM. J.1995. Estimation of the greenhouse gas externality with uncertainty, Environmental and Resource Economics5, 71–82.
51.
ScheuerC.KeoleianG. A.and ReppeP.2003. Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications, Energy and Buildings35, 1049–1064.
52.
SinghS. K.RodríguezM.and EstevaL.1983. Statistics of small earthquakes and frequency of occurrence of large earthquakes along the Mexican subduction zone, Bull Seism Soc Am73, 1779–1796.
53.
TolR.2005. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of uncertainties, Energy Policy33, 2064–2074.
54.
TolR.2008. The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes, Economics—the Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal2, 1–24.
55.
UlphA.and UlphD.1997. Global warming, irreversibility and learning, The Economic Journal107, 636–650.
56.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA/600), 2006. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles And Practice, Report No. EPA/600/R06/060, Cincinnati, OH.
VanmarckeE.CornellC. A.WhitmanR. V.and ReedJ. W.1973. Methodology for optimum seismic design, in Proceedings, Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering2, 2521–2530.
59.
Venkatarama ReddyB. V.and JagadishK. S.2003. Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies, Energy and Buildings35, 129–137.
60.
WahbaM.and HopeC.2006. The marginal impact of carbon dioxide under two scenarios of future emissions, Energy Policy34, 3305–3316.
61.
WatkissP.and DowningT. E.2008. The social cost of carbon: Valuation estimates and their use in UK policy, The Integrated Assessment Journal8, 85–105.
62.
WenY. K.and KangY. J.2001. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: Methodology, Journal of Structural Engineering127, 330–337.
63.
YanH.ShenQ.FanL.WangY.and ZhangL2010. Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: A case study of One Peking in Hong Kong, Building and Environment45, 949–955.
64.
ZabalzaI.ValeroA.and ArandaA.2011. Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential, Building and Environment46, 1133–1140.
65.
ZúñigaR.and GuzmánM.1994. Main Seismogenic Sources in Mexico, Tech. Rep., Seismic Hazard Project, Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia (IPGH), Mexico 1-Mex 82.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
