Multiobjective Optimization of Postdisaster

Reconstruction Processes for Ensuring

Long-Term Socioeconomic Benefits
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pedram Ghannad, S.M.ASCE 1; Yong-Cheol Lee, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 2; Carol J. Friedland, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 3;
Jin Ouk Choi, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 4; and Eunhwa Yang, Ph.D. 5

Abstract: Widespread destruction from large-scale disasters results in lengthy and costly recovery of damaged infrastructure and commun-
ities, with societal and economic impacts persisting many years after a hazard event. Robust and coherent reconstruction planning and rapid
execution play pivotal roles in ameliorating time-consuming postdisaster recovery. Reconstruction generally constitutes a considerable
portion of an entire disaster recovery process that requires significant resources, including materials, workforce, funding, time, and others.
To pursue maximum socioeconomic benefits, which can be one of the critical goals of the postdisaster recovery process, optimized recovery
strategies should be designed by considering given federal, state, and local resources. Even though recent studies have proposed disaster
recovery planning and execution models, they rarely addressed social and economic indicators required for comprehensive postdisaster
recovery plans. This paper presents a new postdisaster recovery prioritization model, including social and economic factors, that evaluates
priorities of damaged facilities recovery projects in affected regions through a resource allocation analysis. The primary goal of the proposed
model is to optimize resource allocation and quantify and maximize socioeconomic benefits for a postdisaster reconstruction project portfolio
through multicriteria decision analysis and multiobjective optimization. Also, this research study adopts a modular construction technique as
a potential solution for facilitating the recovery processes, which can significantly reduce their time and cost. The proposed model is expected
to provide a comprehensive decision-making process for researchers and practitioners to design a postdisaster recovery plan and arrange their
available resources by considering the socioeconomic factors of affected communities. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000799.
© 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Postdisaster recovery; Socioeconomic benefits; Optimization; Multicriteria decision analysis; Modular construction.

Introduction Hurricane Katrina (Louisiana and Mississippi) required $81 billion

Diverse natural disasters in the US, including floods, hurricanes,
earthquakes, wildfires, and tsunamis, have caused widespread
destruction to buildings, infrastructure, and communities. Recovery
of such damaged infrastructure and buildings is often lengthy and
expensive. Reconstruction of damaged facilities constitutes a con-
siderable portion of the recovery process, requiring substantial re-
sources and burdening the economy. For example, Turnipseed et al.
(2007) stated that recovery projects in the areas affected by 2005
1 construction has been identified as an approach with the potential
Ph.D. Student, Bert S. Turner Dept. of Construction Management,
Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-5279-0548. Email: gpedra1@lsu.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Bert S. Turner Dept. of Construction Management,
Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (corresponding author).
Email: yclee@lsu.edu
3 proach as a promising method for decreasing a considerable amount
Associate Professor, Bert S. Turner Dept. of Construction Manage-
ment, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803. ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-0443-5266. Email: friedland@lsu.edu
4 enables faster reconstruction because most of the operations and
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154. Email: jinouk
.choi@unlv.edu
5
Assistant Professor, School of Building Construction, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332. Email: eunhwa.yang@design.gatech
.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 5, 2019; approved on
February 5, 2020; published online on May 6, 2020. Discussion period
open until October 6, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X.
and 44 months (FEMA 2009). According to federal agencies and
previous studies, the recovery process can generally take 5 (FEMA
2005) to 10 (Goodyear 2014; Rowley 2008) years, depending on
a severity of a disaster and size of an affected area. Chang and
Nojima (2001) found that after the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
occurred in the Kobe region in Japan, highway reconstruction alone
took 20 months.
From the technical perspective, there is a need for an approach
that facilitates the quick and cost-effective reconstruction of the
damaged facilities in the critical postdisaster situation. Modular
to minimize time and cost for restoration of the affected commun-
ities (Ghannad et al. 2019). Modular construction is a technique of
exporting site-based work to fabrication shops (Choi et al. 2019a, b).
The previous studies have identified the modular construction ap-
of time and cost as well as guaranteeing the expected quality of
facilities (Choi et al. 2019b; Liu et al. 2016). Modular construction
required expertise in reconstruction are directed to one solution
provider (Lawson et al. 2011). This aspect also allows stakeholders
to tackle common challenges of the postdisaster recovery process,
including the shortage of resources such as skilled workforce and
materials (Chang et al. 2010) and inefficiencies in planning, com-
munication, and coordination (Ismail et al. 2014).
The massive demand for resources after a disaster event and lim-
ited available resources can also prolong the restoration process.
Extended time for reviving affected communities would result in

© ASCE 04020038-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038

 adverse social and economic consequences. More importantly,
the lesson learned from past recovery experiences illustrate that
spatial and social inequalities in socially vulnerable areas have been
aggravated by a fragmented and unequal recovery process (Peacock
et al. 2014). Therefore, consideration of socioeconomic aspects is
imperative for establishing a robust disaster recovery plan to ad-
dress the urgent demands of an affected community.
The other primary challenge that the decision makers are
encountered during the postdisaster recovery process is the lack
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of a systematic approach that evaluates potential recovery plans
for promptly restoring the normal livelihood of communities
(Karlaftis et al. 2007). In the demanding postdisaster landscape,
decision makers and disaster management practitioners require
an interdisciplinary methodology to select and execute an opti-
mized reconstruction process that sequentially allocates available
reconstruction resources into affected regions to reduce the entire
recovery time and cost while mitigating negative postdisaster com-
munity impacts.
The goal of this study is to develop a new framework for modu-
lar construction–based postdisaster reconstruction planning and
prioritization that is capable of considering resource limitation,
time constraints, and socioeconomic factors simultaneously. In the
proposed recovery planning model, the social impacts of disasters
are considered as one of the crucial decision-making factors in or-
der to address underlying communities’ vulnerability and needs.
Thus, the proposed model is designed to maximize the socioeco-
nomic benefits of recovery strategies. The main contribution of
this paper is to identify the impacts of integrating underlying com-
munities’ vulnerability and socioeconomic factors in prioritizing
postdisaster recovery strategies. In addition, the study provides a
systematic prioritization model dealing with the resource utilization
challenges that generally occur during the postdisaster recovery
process.
Background
Previous Relevant Studies
There are several clusters of studies available addressing project
prioritization, planning, and scheduling. Resource-constrained
projects and related planning issues have been investigated in the
literature by focusing on the resource allocation and leveling of a
single construction project (Leu and Yang 1999; Senouci and Eldin
2004) or for multiple projects under resource constraints (e.g., East
and Liu 2006; Zhang et al. 2006). This group of studies, however,
has not addressed resource utilization challenges that occur during
the postdisaster recovery process.
Instead, there is another cluster of studies focused on specific
aspects of the recovery process. These studies used different
approaches to address part of the recovery process, for example,
genetic algorithms for the housing recovery (El-Anwar et al. 2009);
geographic information systems (GIS) for disaster management is-
sues (Pradhan et al. 2007); the mixed-integer linear programming
model for postdisaster recovery of transportation projects (El-
Anwar et al. 2015); and evolutionary algorithms for transportation
recovery fund allocations (Karlaftis et al. 2007). Although consid-
erable efforts were made to optimize the postdisaster recovery pro-
cess based on the physical and economic impacts of a disaster,
explicit analysis of the underlying community vulnerability and
socioeconomic factors are typically absent due to the difficulty
in quantifying these factors.
In one of the efforts to address this existing gap, Eid and El-
Adaway (2017) integrated social vulnerability into stakeholder’s
© ASCE 04020038-2
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
objective functions during the postdisaster recovery process. They
utilized agent-based modeling to optimize the required budget
for disaster recovery as well as residents’ insurance plan choices.
Their paper utilized a well-established model for considering the
social vulnerabilities of the impacted communities. However, it
did not address the postdisaster projects’ prioritization problem
or its effects on communities’ social vulnerability. So, there is still
a research gap to develop a comprehensive interdisciplinary priori-
tization model for postdisaster reconstruction projects. To fill this
gap, the societal effects of a disastrous event, which represents im-
pacted communities’ needs, should be incorporated into the model
as one of the major decision factors. Consequently, the output of
this study is expected to lead to a prioritized list of options that can
be considered as a workable and balanced action plan.
Disasters and Socioeconomic Impacts
Over the last decade, many research studies have been conducted to
identify key factors for a successful recovery process focusing on
strategies commonly used by impacted communities and govern-
ments. It has been repeatedly stated that the involvement of com-
munities’ needs in recovery-related decisions enhanced the overall
recovery output. Various disaster-related models have been devel-
oped to evaluate the impacts of a disaster on society. These models
have mostly considered the vulnerability by reflecting physical
damage as direct economic loss for physical structures at risk.
However, they have overlooked social loss, including the loss of
life, indirect economic loss, loss of jobs, and health issues, which
all contribute to social vulnerability.
The primary reason why social vulnerability has been rarely
regarded in postdisaster loss estimation analyses is that the social
factors are challenging to quantify systematically (Cutter et al.
2003). However, in the social science literature, there are various
proposed methods and models to quantify social vulnerability to
hazards (Burton 2010). The social vulnerability of a community
reflects the extent of which a particular event can put the commun-
ity’s livelihood at risk, how much that event can harm people and
places, and the ability of the community to cope with the conse-
quences and attenuate the effects. (Polsky et al. 2007). Cutter et al.
(2003) developed the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI), which is
one of the most well-established vulnerability evaluation models.
The SoVI consists of various socioeconomic variables, such as
household value, average income, education level, and percentage
of mobile homes, among others, and computes a summary score
through an additive model.
Modular-Based Postdisaster Reconstruction
From a construction perspective, reconstruction of infrastructures
after a disaster can be generally divided into the following two
parts: buildings as social infrastructure (houses, public buildings,
schools, commercial buildings, and others) and other critical in-
frastructure (e.g., water and power supplies, transportation, and
communication infrastructures). Repair and reconstruction of all
facilities are essential to recovering communities’ living standards
to a predisaster condition. However, housing recovery projects have
been considered as the highest priority for disaster victims and de-
cision makers in previous disaster events. Freeman (2004) carried
out research on postdisaster fund allocation, which indicated that
30%–50% of financial resources were traditionally assigned to
housing reconstruction projects. The reconstruction of destroyed
and damaged houses is the most critical and laborious step of
the postdisaster recovery process for communities and people to
restore their normal livelihood.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Time efficiency is an inherent advantage of modular construc-
tion that presents its great potential to facilitate planning a suitable
strategy for postdisaster building reconstruction. Modular construc-
tion is a modern construction system that was instituted as an alter-
native for traditional onsite construction. In recent years, modular
construction has considerably drawn many countries’ attention
(O’Connor et al. 2014) because of its superiority including, but
not limited to, time efficiency (Choi et al. 2016; MBI 2010), cost
savings (Lawson et al. 2011), reduced onsite labor demand (Nadim
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Goulding 2010), low resource depletion (Won et al. 2013), con-
struction waste reduction (MBI 2010), improved quality control
(Choi et al. 2019a), noise and dust reduction (Pons and Wadel
2011), higher standards for health and safety (O’Connor et al.
2013, 2015; MBI 2010), and better structural performance during
hazards such as hurricane and high winds (FEMA 1992). In par-
ticular, these characteristics of modular construction can facilitate
postdisaster building reconstruction (Ghannad et al. 2019). Thus, in
this study, the authors have defined the postdisaster recovery pro-
cess as a portfolio of building reconstruction projects that can be
rapidly and efficiently completed by the modular construction
method.
Current Practices
Postdisaster reconstruction typically requires a gigantic amount of
resources, funds, and time. For example, approximately 1,500 state
buildings were damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005,
with an estimated damage of $1.8 billion for buildings and contents
(Louisiana Recovery Authority 2006). Because of insufficient re-
sources including experts, workforces, funds, materials, designers,
contractors, and others, it was significantly challenging to repair
and recover all damaged facilities rapidly in the previous cata-
strophic disaster events. To address these challenges, there is a criti-
cal need for a systematic methodology to prioritize and optimize
postdisaster recovery projects in affected locations. To identify pri-
orities and make informed decisions with available data, decision
makers or state practitioners need to understand the reconstruction
limitations and recovery needs. According to FEMA (2005), state
or local governments are recommended to consider the following
aspects when identifying priorities:
• Objectives of senior elected officials;
• Recovery stakeholder goals;
• Existing legal authorities;
• Availability of resources;
• Unique cultural characteristics and expectations of the
jurisdiction;
• Planning for and inclusion of people with disabilities and others
with access and functional needs;
• Short-, intermediate-, or long-term impacts; and
• Potential impacts of prioritizing certain recovery needs over
others.
However, there are a large number of factors that should be con-
sidered for planning priorities such as the existing governments’
policies and strategic plans or the specific needs of a particular in-
cident. The following factors are the examples affecting priority
planning not mentioned in FEMA (2005):
• Restore the tax base and revenues to stable levels;
• Restore schools, including Head Start schools, health services
provided in schools, and school lunch programs before the
upcoming school year;
• Reopen key industries and key sources of employment as soon
as possible;
• Implement mitigation principles and practices to enhance
resiliency;
© ASCE 04020038-3
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
• Preserve and restore the natural and cultural resources of the
community; and
• Retain the population and character of the community.
Finding priorities will assist in deciding the sequence of recov-
ery projects, allowing state or local governments to prepare and
organize recovery resources. Each agency generally decides its
own criteria for this prioritization process. For example, the State
of Louisiana has a decision-making diagram for prioritizing the
recovery projects (Louisiana Recovery Authority 2006). In addi-
tion, the staff of Facility Planning and Control (FP&C) in the
Department of Administration (DOA) established this decision
tree approved by the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget
(Louisiana DOA 2006). The decision tree is founded on the
FP&C’s understanding of the facilities, agencies, and programs ac-
commodated in those damaged buildings. Cultural or historical sig-
nificance, the necessity of the function, and the role of the project in
economic development are the parameters considered in this
decision-making tool.
This decision tree yields the prioritization of all facilities at the
program level in the eight priority categories. However, the ap-
proach lacks a mechanism to rank the projects within one priority
category. For instance, reconstruction of all damaged facilities
with cultural importance would fall into Priority category 1, but the
method is not capable of prioritizing various projects within that
Category 1. In other words, this method is only able to cluster
the project based on several preferences rather than prioritize them
for a workable plan.
Reviewing the current practice of prioritization process helped
the authors to identify the shortcomings and indicated that the local
and federal guidelines only entail general considerations for their
postdisaster recovery planning. Thus, this study aims to tackle a
critical challenge in recovery planning caused by the lack of a com-
prehensive plan by establishing a well-balanced prioritization
model embracing necessary considerations to build an action plan.
The proposed methodology provides an informed decision-making
process structurally and practically incorporating various factors
and necessary criteria, including FEMA’s National Disaster Recov-
ery Framework (FEMA 2016).
The large number of reconstruction projects after a disaster
event, various sources of funds, and diverse agencies and organi-
zations (federal, state, and local) cause the complexity of the dis-
aster recovery process, which can be exacerbated according to
distinct procedures, criteria, and goals defined in each agency.
Also, heterogeneous recovery plans can be a serious obstacle for
establishing the long-term recovery process and selecting an opti-
mized recovery plan because of the possibilities to overlook
regional requirements, communities’ needs, and technical aspects.
The identified major challenges in planning priorities for post-
disaster reconstruction are (1) absence of a systemic method to
cope with competing objectives and various constraints regarding
social, economic, and technical issues; (2) lack of integration of
preferences, attitudes, and organizational values of the involved
stakeholders; and (3) inconsistency of prioritizing policies, which
leads to an “ad hoc case-by-case” decision-making process (Jones
et al. 2013; Karvetski et al. 2009). To address these challenges, this
research study aims to develop a comprehensive and practical meth-
odology for prioritizing and optimizing postdisaster reconstruction
processes by considering all available requirements in both the pro-
gram level and the project level.
Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis
Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) consists of a set of
methods that comparatively evaluates various aspects of a problem
J. Manage. Eng.
 rather than optimizing a single-dimensional objective function. The
central task of MCDA is development of a preference model com-
prising the following two components: (1) preference in terms of an
individual criterion for which the relative importance of achieving
different levels of performance is measured; and (2) anaggregation
model to combine preference across criteria (Belton and Stewart
2002). A large number of MCDA models have been developed
to support decision makers in comparing and prioritizing alterna-
tive projects (Goodman and Hastak 2006).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
MCDA methods for project selection and prioritization consist
of the following three categories: (1) ranking-based approaches such
as the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), the preference ranking
organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE),
the elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE), the im-
pact index method, and the goal achievement matrix (Ziara et al.
2002; Balali et al. 2012, 2014); (2) mathematical programming
methods such as the multiattribute utility theory (MAUT), the goal
programming (GP), and dynamic programming; and (3) heuristic
optimization methods (Iniestra and Gutiérrez 2009).
This research study adopted the MCDA for postdisaster recov-
ery prioritization to assess multiple alternatives while taking into
account both objective and subjective criteria to obtain a universal
output. With the concept of the MCDA, the authors established a
new model of prioritizing postdisaster recovery projects integrating
the AHP and the multiobjective genetic algorithm (MGA) approach
to consider both qualitative and quantitative factors.
Methodology
Disaster Recovery Optimization Model
This paper presents a new optimization method to identify the
priorities of postdisaster reconstruction of damaged facilities in
impacted areas by logical resource distribution. The postdisaster
recovery process has been defined as a portfolio of reconstruction
projects that should be completed with limited resources such as
inconsistent funding and insufficient supplies. Thus, the optimiza-
tion of resource allocation plays a pivotal role in minimizing the
total time and cost required to complete the given projects success-
fully. This research study adopts the modular construction approach
as a potential solution for the postdisaster recovery processes,
which can effectively address their time and cost challenges. To
develop the proposed prioritization model of the modular construc-
tion–based postdisaster recovery, this study involves the following
phases: (1) conducting the literature review and evaluating the in-
fluential factors on prioritization of the postdisaster reconstruction
projects by obtaining experts’ surveys and opinions (e.g., social,
economic, and technical, among others); (2) developing a prelimi-
nary prioritization model according to the identified socioeconomic
factors using the AHP method; (3) integrating the prioritization
model with the MGA approach to optimize project planning and
resource allocation; and (4) conducting validation of the proposed
model with the illustrative examples.
Analytical Hierarchy Process
AHP is a standardized method for structuring and analyzing
complex decision-making problems based on principles of psy-
chology and mathematics. This method, which was developed by
Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s for facilitating decision making in
multiobjective situations (Saaty 2005), has been extensively uti-
lized and refined for diverse purposes in broad disciplines. The
AHP has been applied to numerous complex decision-making sit-
uations involving planning, prioritization, alternative selection, and
© ASCE 04020038-4
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
MCDA
Socioeconomic evaluation
AHP
Project
Damage assessment prioritization
Resource utilization and
scheduling NSGA-II
Fig. 1. Steps designed for developing the optimization model.
resource allocation. To adopt AHP, it first needs to decompose a
particular decision problem into a hierarchy to structure known
subproblems, each of which can be examined independently. The
elements of the hierarchy can relate to any aspect of the decision
problem. After constituting the hierarchy, the decision makers sys-
tematically analyze the elements by comparing them with each
other two at a time, concerning their impact on an element above
them in the hierarchy.
Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II Approach
One of the multiobjective optimization methods is the nondomi-
nated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II), which was presented
by Deb et al. (2002). NSGA-II first generates a random population
of size nPop. Then the objectives’ values of the population are cal-
culated by the evaluation function. With respect to the objectives’
values, the nondomination sorting procedure is used to ranks the
population. Each member of the population obtains a rank equal
to its nondomination level and is assigned to a front according to
its rank, where the smaller the rank, the better the level. In the next
step, the linear distances between all members of each front are
calculated to define the crowding distance for each individual. A
tournament selection operator is used to select the parents. The
selection is mainly based on the rank of individuals, but if the se-
lected individuals share an equal rank, then the member with larger
crowding distance is chosen. In the next step, executing the selec-
tion, the crossover, and the mutation operators generates a new
population of offspring with a size of n. Then, the current and
the new population are combined to create a population of the size
of (nPop þ n). Finally, a population of the exact size of nPop is
obtained using the sorting procedure, including both crowding
distance– and rank-based sorting of individuals. This process is re-
peated consequently for a predefined number of generations as the
termination criterion or until convergence. At the end of NSGA-II
implementation, a set of nondominated Pareto-optimal solutions is
obtained.
Optimization Model
Fig. 1 demonstrates the steps designed for developing the optimi-
zation model for postdisaster reconstruction projects. The first step
is to identify the data required for prioritizing the reconstruction
projects based on the socioeconomic criteria. In this step, the socio-
economic and loss data are collected and evaluated. In the next step,
the projects in the reconstruction portfolio are ranked based on the
findings of the first step. As a result, this method identifies the
optimized prioritization solution pursuing the maximum socioeco-
nomic benefits by executing the AHP method. The next step is
optimization of project portfolio planning by considering all
constraints and aspects of the recovery processes. This phase
J. Manage. Eng.

AHP
Problem decomposition and
hierarchy construction
Determine project portfolio
Pairwise comparison
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(criteria and alternatives)
Weight calculation
Consistency check
Meet the
No consistency
requirement
?
Yes
Final weights for the
projects
Initial
prioritization
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the integrated AHP and NSGA-II method.
incorporates the resource allocation schema designed based on
modular construction concepts. The MGA called nondominating
sorting algorithm II used in this step provides Pareto-optimal pri-
oritization solutions according to the defined objectives.
Integrated AHP and NSGA-II Method for Prioritization
and Optimization
Typically, a project prioritization problem entails multiple criteria
that result in difficulties in creating an optimal solution. The current
prioritization practices mainly deal with either quantitative mea-
sures or qualitative measures. However, a technique dealing with
both quantitative and qualitative factors is required to consider
the complexity of the models and uncertainty of the project priori-
tization problem. The developed methodology in this paper is based
on the integrated method of the AHP and NSGA-II, which is shown
in Fig. 2.
This proposed model employs the AHP, which utilizes a pair-
wise comparison, to make the trade-off between tangible and
intangible socioeconomic factors and to calculate a preliminary
ranking of given projects. This ranking is considered as a salient
criterion for identifying the optimal solution as well as maintaining
maximized socioeconomic benefits. However, some other vital
constraints and objectives exist that should be additionally consid-
ered in the optimization process. For addressing these require-
ments, the proposed model adopts NSGA-II to optimize the
other aspects of the reconstruction process while maintaining the
socioeconomic benefits. By applying the preliminary rankings as
the baseline of socioeconomic benefits, the model forms a new
objective that is the deviation of the final solutions from the opti-
mal solution (socioeconomic perspective). Thus, the model can
minimize the new objective along with the optimization of other
© ASCE
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
NSGA-II
Select the parameters (e.g. population size, max number
of generation, crossover and mutation probabilities
Generate initial population
Resource allocation and scheduling module
Evaluate objective functions for initial population
Set the generation count, 0
Perform parent selection based on tournament selection
Generate offspring population using crossover and
mutation
Resource allocation and scheduling module
Evaluate objective functions for generated population
Perform non-dominated sorting for combined parent and
offspring populations
Yes No
Stop
objectives such as time and cost according to the resource con-
straints. The authors conducted the following tasks to accomplish
the goal.
Criteria Selection and Hierarchical Structure
The first step in the AHP method is choosing the project prioriti-
zation criteria that represent the interests of the studied region. The
next step is breaking down the prioritization criteria into the hier-
archy structures, in which the higher level has the general catego-
ries, and the lower-level criteria are selected based on the following
three primary sources: the literature review, the project evaluation,
and feasibility studies, and the experts’ opinions. The literature re-
view can provide insight into what type of data is more critical for
project prioritization and considering the social vulnerability of
the communities. Project evaluation, cost and time estimation, and
financial assessment create a strong basis for prioritization analysis.
Finally, experts can propose and finalize the best criteria according
to a specific disaster scenario. In this study, the authors analyzed the
literature and collected the socioeconomic and other critical criteria
that should be considered in most of the cases to link the prioriti-
zation process to postdisaster recovery planning.
Table 1 contains fundamental criteria that have been collected
by the authors according to the previous studies of disasters and the
challenges of the recovery processes, which can be found from
Green et al. (2007), Weerakoon et al. (2007), Koria (2009), Tas et al.
(2011), and Arshad and Athar (2013). However, this list contains
preliminary criteria, which can be flexibly adjusted by experts
based on the nature of the prioritization problem, geographic con-
dition, and special local considerations. According to the selected
criteria, the hierarchical structure of the prioritization problem has
been constructed, as shown in Fig. 3.
04020038-5 J. Manage. Eng.
 Table 1. Influential criteria for the postdisaster recovery process
Criteria Subcriteria
Socioeconomic Number of people affected by projects in each region
factors Social vulnerability of affected people in each region
Physical damage to the regions affected by the project
Other factors Community services’ criticality
Political importance
Historical and cultural importance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Socioeconomic Evaluation
Olshansky (2006) evaluated the strategies to identify the key ele-
ments for achieving a successful recovery process. They found that
incorporating the communities’ needs in the postdisaster decisions
enhanced the overall recovery output (Olshansky et al. 2006).
To this extent, it needs to understand and account for affected
communities’ needs and status (which can be reflected by social
vulnerability to hazard) to optimize the various disaster recovery
strategies. In this study, for postdisaster recovery programs, the so-
cial vulnerability index SoVI was incorporated in the methodology
to reflect the affected regions’ different recovery needs. This can
help the decision makers to allocate reconstruction funds and
resources more systematically and purposefully. The SoVI model
is an extensive socioeconomic and demographic model that
assesses the communities’ vulnerability to disaster. SoVI is a
well-established and widely recognized vulnerability evaluation
model created based on the communities’ specific socioeconomic
data (Cutter et al. 2003). These data are used in a multivariate factor
analysis to identify the variables that most heavily influence the
social vulnerability of a specific community. The factors that under-
line the social vulnerability elements include economic, equity,
adaptive capacity, occupation, and ethnicity.
Damage Assessment
In addition to the social characteristics of the affected regions, the
extent of physical damage is also a determinant factor for success-
ful resource allocation during the postdisaster recovery. Reliable
assessment of physical losses allows the decision makers to logi-
cally and sequentially assign the limited available resources among
Project
prioritization
Socio-economic
factors
Physical damage to
NO. of people
Social vulnerability the regions Community
affected by project
of affected people affected by the services’ criticality
project
Project 1 Project 2 . . . . .
Fig. 3. Hierarchical structure of postdisaster reconstruction prioritization problem.
© ASCE 04020038-6
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
affected regions. However, it would take a considerable amount of
time to assess the damages after a disaster event practically. Sim-
ulation of the disaster and damage analysis offers an advanced way
for evaluation of the affected regions. The proposed model in this
study uses FEMA’s Hazus Hurricane-MH 4.2 Model to simulate
damage and loss analysis. Hazus-MH is “a nationally applicable
standardized methodology that contains models for estimating po-
tential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes” (FEMA
2015). Hazus contains a comprehensive nationwide facility inven-
tory data in the US and utilizes the hazards’ specifications and vari-
ous loss functions to analyze the damages in affected areas. The
loss data provided by Hazus are incorporated into the proposed
model to balance the resource allocation among different projects
and regions.
Criteria Weight Calculation
The next step is the generation of weights through surveys for each
criterion selected in Step1. The weights of the set ofP M criteria in
Step 1, defined as W i , are calculated with regard to m i¼1 W i ¼ 1
and 0 < W i <. The quantity W i represents the relative importance
of criterion C. The larger weight is implying higher importance
given the stakeholder’s perspectives of the project ranking priority.
This method uses a pairwise comparison matrix to calculate the
relative value of requirements and the weights of criteria. In this
approach, a decision maker needs to consider the value of one sin-
gle pairwise comparison at a time in a linguistic phrase. Then, the
scales in Table 2 are used to quantify linguistic phrases. If criterion
i has one of the nonzero values assigned to it when compared with
criterion j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i.
Scoring the Projects
In the next step, each pairing of the projects within each criterion,
the options will be compared and awarded a score. For the quanti-
tative criteria, the numerical value is used for scoring, whereas for
quantitative criteria, the pairwise comparison described in the pre-
vious section will be used to score the projects. In the final step, the
project scores are combined with the criterion weights to produce
an overall score for each project. The higher final score indicates
the higher priority of the project.
Other factors
Historical
Political
and cultural
importance
importance
Project n
J. Manage. Eng.
 Table 2. Scale of relative importance
Intensity of
importance Definition
1 Equal importance
3 Weak importance of one over another
5 Essential or strong importance
7 Demonstrated importance
9 Absolute importance
2, 4, 6, and 8 Intermediate values between the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
two adjacent judgments
Source: Data from Saaty (2005).
Problem Formulation for NSGA-II
Assumptions
The problem optimization of this study is performed with NSGA-II
according to the following set of rules and assumptions:
• Reconstruction resources are used in recovery projects accord-
ing to the priorities of these projects.
• Recovery projects cannot start with fewer reconstruction
resources than required.
• Recovery projects cannot be interrupted once started.
• Each reconstruction project requires a specific number of mod-
ules and often includes various types of modules.
• Each reconstruction project requires a specific amount of
resources and workforces.
• Project duration can extend or shrink based on the number and
availability of the resources.
• Resources are released from a project once the project is
complete.
Objective Functions
The first objective integrates the socioeconomic factors with the
optimization model. To this end, it is assumed that the solution
obtained from the AHP method is the optimal solution from the
socioeconomic perspective, and any other solution deviates the
plan from maximum socioeconomic benefit. Therefore, this objec-
tive is designed to minimize the deviation of the solutions from the
optimal solution derived from the AHP method. The deviation is
calculated by the summation of squared distances between the pri-
ority of each project (Pj ) and its priority in the optimal solution
from a socioeconomic perspective (IPj ) multiplied by the project
weight in the AHP methodology. The squared distance of Pj
and IPj reflects the deviation of the project’s priority in a given
solution from its priority in optimal solution yielded by the AHP
method. Also, the incorporation of weights in the calculations en-
sures that the deviation of the project with a higher weight (more
important) causes a more negative effect on this objective. This al-
lows the optimization model to minimize the deviation from the
optimal socioeconomic solution
X
n
Minimize SEDev ¼ W j · ðIPj − Pj Þ2
j¼1
where IPj = initial priority of the project j derived from the AHP
method; Pj = priority of the project j derived from NSGA-II
method; and W j = weight of the project j derived from the
AHP method.
The second objective is to minimize the total cost of recovery
projects. The inherent complexity of the postdisaster recovery
process makes it challenging to develop a comprehensive cost
model that needs to cover all available financial aspects and fund-
ing processes. The cost of the reconstruction project portfolio can
© ASCE
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
be divided into the following three main components: direct costs,
indirect costs, and interruption costs. In order to simplify the cost
model, it is assumed that the total direct cost of the portfolio is a
constant value and is not a function of project prioritization. Also,
the indirect cost can be attributed to the time of the project. Hence,
the minimization of the total reconstruction time will directly min-
imize the indirect costs. Service interruption cost of the damaged
facilities is an inevitable cost for the affected communities. Limita-
tion of resources can hinder the timely reconstruction of all damaged
facilities and recovery of communities to the predisaster condition.
Thus, according to the disaster occurrence time and completion time
of each project, the interruption period can be calculated.
Interruption costs and its calculation differ from one type of
project to another. For example, the interruption cost of a damaged
bridge can be calculated by analyzing its effects on the transporta-
tion network, whereas the interruption cost for housing projects can
be calculated by analyzing the relocation and temporary housing
costs for residents. Minimizing the interruption cost (TIC) is the
second objective of the developed optimization model (Eq. 2)
X
n
Minimize TIC ¼ Fj · ICj ð2Þ
j¼1
where Fj = end time of the project with priority j; and ICj =
interruption cost of project j per time unit.
The third objective of the model is to minimize the total
reconstruction time. Disaster recovery projects should be com-
pleted as quickly as possible to mitigate the negative impacts on
affected victims. Minimizing the completion time of reconstruction
projects may also lead to reducing the total construction cost.
Weerakoon et al. (2007) indicated that inflation could cause cost
overruns of about 15%–25%, for postdisaster recovery projects.
Total reconstruction time will be calculated with Eq. 3
Minimize TCT ¼ Sn þ Dn ð3Þ
where n = number of projects in the reconstruction portfolio; Sn =
start time of the project with priority n; and Dn = duration of the
project with priority n.
Decision Variables
The decision variables of this optimization model are priorities of
the projects which is shown by Pj (priority of project j).
Defining the Constraint
The following constraints have been considered for model develop-
ment to fulfill the postdisaster reconstruction project portfolio
requirements:
1. Funding constraints
X
n
ajt f jt ≤ Ft
i¼1
2. Module production constraints
ð1Þ
X n 
∀i ajt mijt ≤ MCit ; i ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; M
j¼1
3. Resource availability constraints
X n 
∀k ajt rkjt ≤ RCkt ; k ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; K
j¼1
where ajt = activeness of project j in time period t (if project
j is active in period t, then ajt ¼ 1; otherwise ajt ¼ 0);
04020038-7 J. Manage. Eng.
 Non-dominating Crowding
Set Time, sorting distance
sorting
Select the unscheduled
project with highest priority

Calculate the current status of all

resources (e.g. funding, workforces,
equipment, modules)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rejected
Determine the
possibility for No
starting the
project
Fig. 5. NSGA-II process.
Yes
Set the start time of the
project = T
the initial population is randomly generated. The algorithm evalu-
Set the finish time of the ates the generation and ranks them based on a nondominating level
project = T+ Duration of the and a crowding distance (Fig. 5). Parents are selected by using
project the roulette-wheel selection method (Goldberg and Holland 1988),
in which the higher-ranked individuals have a higher chance for
Set the project as active selection. This selection method can reduce convergence time
during the completion time significantly.
In order to execute the crossover and mutation, it is crucial to
maintain the permutation among the genes to have a feasible sol-
No All the projects
ution. Thus, permutation single-point crossover (Fig. 6) and com-
are scheduled? bination of swap, insertion, and switch mutation (Fig. 7) have been
utilized as the crossover and mutation operators, respectively. The
offspring and parent constitute the new generation, and they are
Yes
evaluated and ranked again against a nondominating level and a
Stop crowding distance to generate the new population. This process
will be iteratively conducted until the termination criterion is sat-
Fig. 4. Resource utilization and scheduling algorithm. isfied. At the end of the NSGA-II implementation, a set of nondo-
minated Pareto-optimal prioritization solutions are obtained in the
sense of multiobjective optimization.

f jt = required funding for project j in time period t; Ft = total

available funding for period t; mijt = required numbers of
module i for project j in time period t; MCit = module produc-
tion capacity of module i in period t; rkjt = amount of required
resource k for project j in time period t ; and RCkt = available
amount of resource k in period t.
Resource Utilization and Scheduling Model
The other major objective of this model is to distribute limited
reconstruction resources among recovery projects of damaged
facilities based on their priorities to generate a recovery schedule.
The resource utilization model uses the iterative procedure shown
in Fig. 4. This process ensures that the required amount of funds
and other resources in each time unit will fulfill the resource limi-
tation constraint. It can also follow the constraint of the module
production capacity to avoid any possible project disruption and
consequent delays. The output of this step allows the NSGA-II
to evaluate the time and interruption cost objective functions for
each possible solution.
NSGA-II Process
For the encoding part, the genotype of the members (called a
chromosome) is represented by a sequence of n (number of proj-
ects) integers with no repeated values in order to provide chromo-
somes directly interpreted as projects’ priorities. In the next step,
Model Evaluation
To assess the efficiency and correctness of the proposed approach,
the authors developed an illustrative example using the data for
counties (called parishes) located in Louisiana and simulation of
the Hurricane Gustave in this area. Hurricane Gustav was a
Category 2 hurricane when it hit the Louisiana shore in September
2008. It cost $6.9 billion in US in damages and caused 11 deaths
directly and 41 deaths indirectly in Louisiana. Fig. 8 shows the lo-
cations of the 10 made-up projects proposed within a postdisaster
reconstruction portfolio overlain on the damage map simulated us-
ing MH-Hazus. These hypothetical projects are spread out on the
affected region according to the severity of the hurricane. The direct
capital loss was used to calculate the loss index for each county.
Table 3 provides the project cost, the project duration, and the num-
ber of required modules and resources for completion of each
project. Table 4 presents the constraints, including available funds,
the production capacity of three types of modules, and the limita-
tion of two resources.
The first step is to conduct a socioeconomic evaluation and im-
plement the AHP method. For the SoVIs, the indices developed and
calculated by the Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute based
on the American Community Survey 2012–2014 (5-year census)
have been used in this example. Fig. 9 indicates the relative SoVI
scores within the nation and the state. All the required data for the
socioeconomic evaluation of the reconstruction portfolio has been

© ASCE 04020038-8 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038

 Randomly selected
Crossover point

Parent 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Parent 2 2 5 1 8 7 4 6 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 5 1 8 5 6 7 8 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 Child 1

1 2 5 8 7 4 6 3 Child 2
1 2 3 4 7 4 6 3

Repetitive Non-existing
5, 8 3, 4
3, 4 5, 8

Fig. 6. Permutation single-point crossover.

Parent Child regions. Other factors, including community services’ criticality,

political importance, historical, and cultural importance, have been
Swap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 6 3 4 5 2 7 8 evaluated by pairwise comparison using the scale given in Table 2.
Finally, the weights are calculated according to Saaty (2005), and
Order the projects are ranked based on their weights. Table 6 indicates the
Inversion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 5 4 3 6 7 8 projects’ weights and ranks, which show the optimal solution from
a socioeconomic perspective.
The output of the AHP method is used to constitute an objective
Insertion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 3 4 5 6 2 7 8 function that determines the deviation from the best socioeconomic
solution (Objective 1). The total completion time (Objective 2) and
Fig. 7. Various utilized mutation methods. total interruption cost (Objective 3) are the two other objectives that
form the multiobjective optimization model. In the next step, the
NSGA-II algorithm is applied to solve the multiobjective optimi-
calculated according to the affected regions, the damage data, and the zation problem.
location of the projects (Table 5). In some cases, the projects influ- The authors conducted the model evaluation by using MATLAB
ence more than one region. Thus, the criteria values for those projects R2018b (version 9.5) as the implementation platform. Although
are the weighted averages calculated based on the population of the metaheuristic methods are generally efficient in solving complex

Damage level
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium
Medium-high
High
Very High
Location of projects

Fig. 8. Postdisaster reconstruction locations overlain on Hazus-modeled damage map. (Data from simulation of Hurricane Gustave in MH-HAZUS
4.2 software.)

© ASCE 04020038-9 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038

 Table 3. Postdisaster project portfolio information
Number of modules Number of resources
Interruption cost
Project Related regions Cost ($1,000) Time (weeks) ($1,000 per week) M1 M2 M3 R1 R2
1 Jefferson 1,125 18 15 3,900 2,900 3,000 4,100 45,000
2 Jefferson 859 23 20 3,900 1,400 6,000 5,200 43,000
3 Lafourche, St. Charles 1,781 50 15 8,900 5,300 7,100 8,900 57,900
4 St. James, Ascension 1,598 39 8 4,000 2,300 8,000 6,400 36,000
5 Ascension 1,199 24 9 3,600 2,400 4,000 8,400 32,000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 Orleans 2,247 36 15 5,100 5,400 9,000 6,000 44,900

7 Livingston 2,496 50 20 10,800 2,900 10,000 8,700 34,900
8 East Baton Rouge 2,181 44 15 5,800 2,800 15,300 16,400 49,100
9 Iberville, West Baton Rouge 2,248 50 5 6,200 4,500 6,000 12,400 101,200
10 Iberia, St. Martin 987 29 10 2,200 800 3,300 3,900 26,300

Table 4. Resource constraints running at 2.50 GHz for running the model, and each run took be-
Resource Availability (per week) Unit tween 1,310 and 1,370 s, which shows the low computational effort
of the proposed methodology.
M1 18,000 Number of module Type 1
M2 10,000 Number of module Type 2 The proposed GA approach can be utilized to optimize the prob-
M3 25,000 Number of module Type 3 lem for one or more objectives. The optimal solutions for each ob-
R1 25,000 Units of Resource 1 jective are given individually in Table 8, which illustrates that the
R2 300,000 Units of Resource 2 minimum completion time of the projects is 130 weeks, and the
Funds 200,000 USD minimum interruption cost is $4,096,000. Fig. 10 also depicts
the final schedule for the optimal solutions presented in Table 8.

optimization problems, their performances highly depend on the

internal parameters. In this study, the internal parameters for
NSGA-II included population size, crossover rate, mutation rate,
and termination criteria, and these parameters were determined by
multiple runs for model evaluation (Table 7). Several existing stat-
istical models, however, can be used to optimize the set of param-
eters. A predefined number of generations (200 generations) was
used as the termination criterion to ensure the convergence, although
the model converged before reaching the maximum number of gen-
erations. The authors used a system with Intel Core i5-7200 CPU
State Quantiles
High (Top 20%)
Medium High
Medium
Medium Low
Low (Bottom 20%)
Fig. 9. SoVI 2010–2014 for the state of Louisiana. (Data from Hazards
& Vulnerability Research Institute 2019.)
Discussion
This case study showed that the proposed approach can not only
systematically execute the trade-off between each set of two objec-
tives but also consistently allow decision makers to compare the
underlying objectives with each other regardless of other objectives.
Figs. 11(a–c) show the Pareto-optimal solutions of three possible
trade-offs. The Pareto front for optimal solutions by considering
all three objectives is provided in Fig. 11(d). The optimal solutions
presented in Table 8 are also included in the Pareto front of
Fig. 11(d), which contains 17 competitive optimal solutions.
Decision makers would be able to select any of these solutions
based on their preferences and distinct conditions. Because the
measuring units for Objectives 1, 2, and 3 pursue the heterogeneous
aspects, it is not practically feasible to compare the solutions ac-
cording to their criteria. Thus, all these solutions can be considered
as optimal because there is no other solution that can dominate
them in all objectives. Choosing one solution among these options
is purely based on the decision makers’ preference. Several meth-
ods for post-Pareto analysis to reduce the number of solutions in the
Pareto set have been developed, such as nonuniform weight gener-
ator method (Carrillo and Taboada 2012), k-means clustering
(Taboada and Coit 2007), Greedy Reduction approach (Venkat et al.
2004), and value efficiency approach (Halme and Korhonen 2000).
These methods can also be utilized by decision makers to select a
specific solution among Pareto-optimal solutions.
In the stochastic environment produced by metaheuristic meth-
ods such as NSGA-II, finding a good set of solutions is one of the
main issues that should be addressed. A good recovery plan should
be robust against criteria and variables changes and should also
work satisfactorily in all cases. To appraise the quality of the ac-
quired solutions from NSGA-II and evaluate the performance of the
algorithm, the authors selected the metric measurements Two
metrics are used: (1) generational distance (GD), which measures
how far from the Pareto front a set of solutions is located [details
have been given by Veldhuizen (1999)], and (2) spacing (SP) met-
ric, which calculates the distribution uniformity of the points in a

© ASCE 04020038-10 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038

 Table 5. Socioeconomic criteria of the project portfolio
Total number of Average physical
Project Related regions Average SoVI affected people damage to the regions (USD)
1 Jefferson 59.7 432,552 50,605,370
2 Jefferson 59.7 432,552 50,605,370
3 Lafourche, St. Charles 18.93 149,098 14,326,396
4 St. James, Ascension 8.14 129,317 12,280,344
5 Ascension 3.5 107,215 10,207,618
6 Orleans 86.1 343,829 45,552,878
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 Livingston 5.2 128,026 10,662,695

8 East Baton Rouge 31.3 440,171 49,284,426
9 Iberville, West Baton Rouge 25.88 57,175 5,142,859
10 Iberia, St. Martin 40.14 125,400 11,126,415

Table 6. Projects’ ranking and weights derived from the AHP method the methodology can be applied to other test cases, and further stat-
Rank Project number Weights istical analyses can be conducted to assure the robustness of the
methodology and identify the factors that affect the performance
1 3 0.216
of this algorithm.
2 1 0.152
3 4 0.148 The test case indicated promising results that the proposed
4 7 0.093 method could be utilized as a decision-making tool with low com-
5 2 0.089 putation effort to quickly and efficiently respond to the demands of
6 9 0.084 the recovery process. However, several simplifications and assump-
7 5 0.078 tions are considered to develop the model and test the proposed
8 10 0.050 method, such as focusing on the portfolio level and neglecting
9 8 0.049 the single project level for resource utilization and generalizing
10 6 0.039
modules for all projects. Two performance measures were calcu-
lated over 10 runs of the model and Pareto optimal sets of solutions.
The analyses confirmed the quality of the algorithm for the pro-
posed model evaluation case.
The focus of the paper is on proposing a holistic framework
Table 7. Internal parameters of applied NSGA-II for model evaluation for structuring the decision-making process in a postdisaster envi-
Intensity of importance Definition ronment rather than providing a single formula for project priori-
tization. Each disaster scenario has specific consideration and
Population size 100
Crossover rate 0.80 needs that must be reflected in the workable plan of the recovery
Swap mutation rate 0.02 process. All the components of the proposed framework are de-
Insertion mutation rate 0.02 signed in a way that can be modified according to decision makers’
Switch mutation rate 0.02 preferences and disaster scenario requirements. However, calibrat-
Number of generations 200 ing and formulating the model to fit a specific disaster scenario or
reconstruction project portfolio can be remarkably challenging.
The main contribution of this study is the comprehensiveness
set of solutions [Schott (1995) has given details]. The NSGA-II of the proposed framework for evaluating the postdisaster recovery
gives different estimates for each execution. problem and prioritize the recovery projects in an optimized
Therefore, for empirical evidence of the performance of our way. Prioritization of postdisaster recovery projects is a multidi-
method, the algorithm was run multiple times on the same problem. mensional problem that requires an interdisciplinary approach. This
Then, the authors calculated the aforementioned performance framework is designed to incorporate all types of factors, including
measures for each run. The values achieved by the GD metric technical considerations, societal needs, economic evaluation,
are relatively small and vary between 0.7524 and 2.2765. Thus, financial and managerial preferences, and regional requirements,
it can be concluded that the set of acquired solutions is close to among others. Although many researchers have focused on
the Pareto front. The results obtained for the PS metric are close proposing a holistic approach for solving the project prioritization
to 0 (vary between 1.4535 and 4.5437), so the solutions are well problem, they rarely tried to incorporate both qualitative and
distributed in the Pareto front. The statistical analyses confirmed quantitative factors. The integration of two different methods,
the quality of the obtained Pareto fronts and the performance of the AHP and NSGA-II, facilitates the fusion of various types of
the NSGA-II for the illustrative example. In future efforts, however, factors.

Table 8. Optimal solution for each objective

Project number Value for objectives
Decision variable Objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Objective 1 Objective 2 (weeks) Objective 3 ($1,000)
Priorities Objective 1 3 1 4 7 2 9 5 10 8 6 0 162 9,599
(optimal solution) Objective 2 4 1 3 10 2 5 6 7 9 8 6.164 138 10,423
Objective 3 4 5 8 2 1 9 6 10 7 3 4.21 192 8,844

© ASCE 04020038-11 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038

 Project

Project
#1 #1
#2 #2
#3 #3
#4 #4
#5 #5
#6 #6
#7 #7
#8 #8
#9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

#9
#10 Time (week) #10 Time (week)
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
(a) (b)

Project
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10 Time (week)
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
(c)

Fig. 10. Optimal reconstruction schedule for (a) Objective 1; (b) Objective 2; and (c) Objective 3.

Fig. 11. (a) Trade-off between Objectives 1 and 2; (b) trade-off between Objectives 2 and 3; (c) trade-off between Objectives 1 and 3; and (d) Pareto
front of optimal solutions for three objectives.

© ASCE 04020038-12 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038

 Conclusion
For prioritizing projects and optimizing reconstruction plans, this
study proposed a new framework to involve the economic factors,
technical considerations, and societal impacts after a disastrous
event. The prioritizing method was designed to reach the maximum
social benefits of the postdisaster reconstruction strategy while con-
sidering the severity of the economic loss to the facilities in an af-
fected community as well as their social vulnerability. In order to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
incorporate socioeconomic factors, the proposed method adopted
the AHP methodology, which is a powerful tool for multicriteria de-
cision making, especially when the criteria are qualitative, and the
stakeholders’ preferences play an important role in the decision-
making process. The AHP method was further integrated with a
MGA known as NSGA-II to reflect all existing constraints during
the postdisaster recovery process. In addition, this proposed model
was assessed by conducting the illustrative case study with the real
disaster scenario, which showed its feasibility, time-efficiency, and
accuracy in the application for systematically allocating the limited
available resources to the portfolio of the postdisaster reconstruction
projects based on project priority.
However, in future studies, the model should be tested over differ-
ent problems with various sizes and numbers of variables to examine
the robustness of the proposed methodology comprehensively.
In future efforts, the model can be improved by considering the
project-level criteria, contractor assignments, project acceleration,
and other factors that affect the projects individually. Also, to
make the model more practical for practitioners and decision mak-
ers, the model can be integrated with a MCDA tool to select the
best option from the optimal answers according to the experts’
analysis.
Robust recovery planning of infrastructures and communities
damaged by large-scale disaster events is one of the most challeng-
ing managerial issues in the aftermath of a disaster. The multidis-
ciplinary nature of the recovery process, including societal and
economic impacts, typically adds excessive complexity to the criti-
cal issue. In addition to the engineering aspect of the recovery pro-
cess, other necessary considerations such as socioeconomic factors
play a pivotal role in successful postdisaster planning. With the
holistic perspective of postdisaster recovery planning, this paper
contributes to the body knowledge to the management in the en-
gineering domain by providing a new recovery prioritization model
that systematically integrates the social and economic factors with
other technical factors. This new model, which has been rarely in-
vestigated in previous studies, is imperative in proposing a coherent
prioritization framework well-balanced among economic, societal,
sustainable, and other essential aspects. This multiobjective method
creates a comprehensive framework that allows government offi-
cials, practitioners, and decision makers to prioritize their recovery
plan in an optimized way without neglecting any aspect of this
interdisciplinary process.
This proposed method and model is expected to help (1) explic-
itly integrate social factors reflecting the affected community’s
needs in planning the disaster recovery process, (2) systematically
utilize limited reconstruction resources to complete recovery proj-
ects, and (3) generate recovery plans that minimize reconstruction
cost while maintaining the optimal level of socioeconomic benefits.
The proposed model is expected to be an initial step toward a
comprehensive decision-making process to design an efficient post-
disaster recovery plan and arrange their available resources con-
cerning the socioeconomic factors of affected communities. The
authors also expect that this flexibility regarding the certain levels
of assumptions and simplifications can provide the broader impacts
for several state agencies to establish their recovery plan with their
© ASCE 04020038-13
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
distinct requirements but also can be the limitations of this
proposed model that require further improvement in reflecting
assumed disaster recovery indicators or others not covered in this
model.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the research support of the Louisiana
Economic Development Assistantship (EDA).
References
Arshad, S., and S. Athar. 2013. Rural housing reconstruction program
post-2005 earthquake: Learning from the Pakistan experience: A
manual for post-disaster housing program managers. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Balali, V., A. Mottaghi, O. Shoghli, and M. Golabchi. 2014. “Selection of
appropriate material, construction technique, and structural system of
bridges by use of multicriteria decision-making method.” Transp.
Res. Rec. 2431 (1): 79–87. https://doi.org/10.3141/2431-11.
Balali, V., B. Zahraie, and A. Roozbahani. 2012. “Integration of ELECTRE
III and PROMETHEE II decision-making methods with an interval ap-
proach: Application in selection of appropriate structural systems.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 28 (2): 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CP.1943-5487.0000254.
Belton, V., and T. Stewart. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis: An
integrated approach. New York: Springer.
Burton, C. G. 2010. “Social vulnerability and hurricane impact modeling.”
Nat. Hazards Rev. 11 (2): 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527
-6988(2010)11:2(58).
Carrillo, V. M., and H. Taboada. 2012. “A post-Pareto approach for multi-
objective decision making using a non-uniform weight generator
method.” Procedia Comput. Sci. 12 (1): 116–121. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.procs.2012.09.040.
Chang, S. E., and N. Nojima. 2001. “Measuring post-disaster transportation
system performance: The 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative
perspective.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 35 (6): 475–494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(00)00003-3.
Chang, Y., S. Wilkinson, R. Potangaroa, and E. Seville. 2010. “Resourcing
challenges for postdisaster housing reconstruction: A comparative
analysis.” Build. Res. Inf. 38 (3): 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09613211003693945.
Choi, J., X. Chen, and T. Kim. 2019a. “Opportunities and challenges of
modular methods in dense urban environment.” Int. J. Constr. Manage.
19 (2): 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1382093.
Choi, J., J. T. O’Connor, and T. Kim. 2016. “Recipes for cost and schedule
successes for industrial modular projects: Qualitative comparative
analysis approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (10): 04016055.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001171.
Choi, J. O., J. T. O’Connor, Y. H. Kwak, and B. K. Shrestha. 2019b.
“Modularization business case analysis model for industrial projects.”
J. Manage. Eng. 35 (3): 04019004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000683.
Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff, and W. L. Shirley. 2003. “Social vulnerability to
environmental hazards.” Social Sci. Q. 84 (2): 242–261. https://doi.org
/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002.
Deb, K., A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. A. M. T. Meyarivan. 2002. “A fast
and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.” IEEE Trans.
Evol. Comput. 6 (2): 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.
J. Manage. Eng.
 East, E. W., and L. Y. Liu. 2006. “Multiproject planning and resource
controls for facility management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (12):
1294–1305. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:12
(1294).
Eid, M. S., and I. H. El-Adaway. 2017. “Integrating the social vulnerability
of host communities and the objective functions of associated stakehold-
ers during disaster recovery processes using agent-based modeling.” J.
Comput. Civ. Eng. 31 (5): 04017030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP
.1943-5487.0000680.
El-Anwar, O., K. El-Rayes, and A. S. Elnashai. 2009. “Maximizing the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sustainability of integrated housing recovery efforts.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 136 (7): 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000185.
El-Anwar, O., J. Ye, and W. Orabi. 2015. “Innovative linear formulation for
transportation reconstruction planning.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (3):
04015048. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000504.
FEMA. 1992. Building performance: Hurricane Andrew in Florida.
Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2005. Planning for post disaster recovery and reconstruction.
Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2009. FEMA temporary housing program ending for families of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2015. Hazus online download quick reference guide. Washington,
DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2016. National disaster recovery framework. Washington, DC:
FEMA.
Freeman, P. K. 2004. “Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing
to housing.” Build. Res. Inf. 32 (5): 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080
/0961321042000221016.
Ghannad, P., Y. C. Lee, and J. O. Choi. 2019. “Investigating stakeholders’
perceptions of feasibility and implications of modular construction-
based post-disaster reconstruction.” In Proc., Modular and Offsite Con-
struction (MOC) Summit, 504–513. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Univ. of
Alberta Library.
Goldberg, D. E., and J. H. Holland. 1988. “Genetic algorithms and
machine learning.” Mach. Learn. 3 (2): 95–99. https://doi.org/10
.1023/A:1022602019183.
Goodman, A. S., and M. Hastak. 2006. Infrastructure planning handbook:
Planning, engineering, and economics. New York: ASCE.
Goodyear, R. 2014. Housing in greater Christchurch after the earthquakes:
Trends in housing from the Census of Population and Dwellings
1991–2013. Wellington, New Zealand: Statistics New Zealand.
Green, R., L. K. Bates, and A. Smyth. 2007. “Impediments to recovery in
New Orleans’ Upper and Lower Ninth Ward: One year after Hurricane
Katrina.” Disasters 31 (4): 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467
-7717.2007.01011.x.
Halme, M., and P. Korhonen. 2000. “Restricting weights in value efficiency
analysis.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 126 (1): 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0377-2217(99)00290-8.
Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute. 2019. SoVI 2010–2014 scores
and percentiles. Columbia, SC: College of Arts & Sciences, Univ. of
South Carolina.
Iniestra, J. G., and J. G. Gutiérrez. 2009. “Multicriteria decisions on inter-
dependent infrastructure transportation projects using an evolutionary-
based framework.” Appl. Soft Comput. 9 (2): 512–526. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.asoc.2008.07.006.
Ismail, D., T. A. Majid, R. Roosli, and N. Ab Samah. 2014. “Project man-
agement success for post-disaster reconstruction projects: International
NGOs perspectives.” Procedia Econ. Finance 18 (1): 120–127.
Jones, S., M. Tefe, and S. Appiah-Opoku. 2013. “Proposed framework for
sustainability screening of urban transport projects in developing coun-
tries: A case study of Accra, Ghana.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract.
49 (Mar): 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.003.
Karlaftis, M. G., K. L. Kepaptsoglou, and S. Lambropoulos. 2007. “Fund
allocation for transportation network recovery following natural disas-
ters.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 133 (1): 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9488(2007)133:1(82).
Karvetski, C. W., J. H. Lambert, and I. Linkov. 2009. “Emergent conditions
and multiple criteria analysis in infrastructure prioritization for
© ASCE 04020038-14
J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038
developing countries.” J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 16 (5–6): 125–
137. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.444.
Koria, M. 2009. “Managing for innovation in large and complex recovery
programmes: Tsunami lessons from Sri Lanka.” Int. J. Project Manage.
27 (2): 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.005.
Lawson, R. M., R. G. Ogden, and R. Bergin. 2011. “Application of modular
construction in high-rise buildings.” J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2): 148–154.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000057.
Leu, S. S., and C. H. Yang. 1999. “GA-based multicriteria optimal model
for construction scheduling.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 125 (6):
420–427. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:6(420).
Liu, G., K. Li, D. Zhao, and C. Mao. 2016. “Business model innovation and
its drivers in the Chinese construction industry during the shift to modu-
lar prefabrication.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (3): 04016051. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000501.
Louisiana DOA (Dept. of Administration). 2006. Office of facility planning
and control (FPC) prioritization criteria. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana
DOA.
Louisiana Recovery Authority. 2006. Proposed action plan for the use of
disaster recovery funds. Baton Rouge, LA: Office of Community
Development.
MBI (Modular Building Institute). 2010. Productivity with modular
construction. Charlottesville, VA: MBI.
Nadim, W., and J. S. Goulding. 2010. “Offsite production in the UK: The
way forward? A UK construction industry perspective.” Constr. Inno-
vation 10 (2): 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171011037183.
O’Connor, J. T., W. J. O’Brien, and J. O. Choi. 2013. Industrial modula-
rization: How to optimize; how to maximize. Austin, TX: Construction
Industry Institute, Univ. of Texas.
O’Connor, J. T., W. J. O’Brien, and J. O. Choi. 2014. “Critical success
factors and enablers for optimum and maximum industrial modulariza-
tion.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 140 (6): 04014012. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000842.
O’Connor, J. T., W. J. O’Brien, and J. O. Choi. 2015. “Industrial project
execution planning: Modularization versus stick-built.” Pract. Period.
Struct. Des. Constr. 21 (1): 04015014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
SC.1943-5576.0000270.
Olshansky, R. B. 2006. “Planning after Hurricane Katrina.” J. Am. Plann.
Assoc. 72 (2): 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976735.
Olshansky, R. B., L. A. Johnson, and K. C. Topping. 2006. “Rebuilding
communities following disaster: Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles.”
Built Environ. 32 (4): 354–374. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.32.4.354.
Peacock, W. G., S. Van Zandt, Y. Zhang, and W. E. Highfield. 2014.
“Inequities in long-term housing recovery after disasters.” J. Am. Plann.
Assoc. 80 (4): 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.980440.
Polsky, C., R. Neff, and B. Yarnal. 2007. “Building comparable global
change vulnerability assessments: The vulnerability scoping diagram.”
Global Environ. Change 17 (3–4): 472–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.gloenvcha.2007.01.005.
Pons, O., and G. Wadel. 2011. “Environmental impacts of prefabricated
school buildings in Catalonia.” Habitat Int. 35 (4): 553–563.
Pradhan, A. R., D. F. Laefer, and W. J. Rasdorf. 2007. “Infrastructure man-
agement information system framework requirements for disasters.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 21 (2): 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0887-3801(2007)21:2(90).
Rowley, K. M. 2008. GulfGov reports: The role of community rebuilding
plans in the hurricane recovery. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of Government.
Saaty, T. L. 2005. “Analytic hierarchy process.” In Encyclopedia of
biostatistics. New York: Wiley.
Schott, J. R. 1995. Fault tolerant design using single and multicriteria
genetic algorithm optimization. Rep. No. AFIT/CI/CIA-95-039.
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Institute of Technology.
Senouci, A. B., and N. N. Eldin. 2004. “Use of genetic algorithms in resource
scheduling of construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130 (6):
869–877. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:6(869).
Taboada, H. A., and D. W. Coit. 2007. “Data clustering of solutions for
multiple objective system reliability optimization problems.” Qual.
Technol. Quantit. Manage. 4 (2): 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080
/16843703.2007.11673145.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Tas, N., M. Tas, and N. Cosgun. 2011. “Permanent housing production
process after 17 August 1999 Marmara Earthquake in Turkey.” Int.
J. Strategic Property Manage. 15 (3): 312–328. https://doi.org/10
.3846/1648715X.2011.617863.
Turnipseed, D. P., K. V. Wilson Jr., J. Stoker, and D. Tyler. 2007. “Mapping
Hurricane Katrina peak storm surge in Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana.” In Proc., 37th Mississippi Water Resources Conf.,
202–207. Jackson, MS: Mississippi State Univ.
Van Veldhuizen, D. A. 1999. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Clas-
sifications, analyses, and new innovations. Rep. No. AFIT/DS/ENG/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of the Philippines, Diliman College of Engg on 02/27/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Weerakoon, D., S. Jayasuriya, N. Arunatilake, and P. Steele. 2007.
Economic challenges of post-tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka.
Rep. No. 75. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.
Won, I., Y. Na, J. T. Kim, and S. Kim. 2013. “Energy-efficient algorithms of
the steam curing for the in situ production of precast concrete mem-
bers.” Energy Build. 64 (Sep): 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.enbuild.2013.05.019.
Zhang, H., H. Li, and C. M. Tam. 2006. “Heuristic scheduling
of resource-constrained, multiple-mode and repetitive projects”
Constr. Manage. Econ. 24 (2): 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080

99-01. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Institute of Technology. /01446190500184311.

Venkat, V., S. H. Jacobson, and J. A. Stori. 2004. “A post-optimality Ziara, M., K. Nigim, A. Enshassi, and B. M. Ayyub. 2002. “Strategic
analysis algorithm for multi-objective optimization.” Comput. Optim. implementation of infrastructure priority projects: Case study in
Appl. 28 (3): 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COAP.0000033968 Palestine.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 8 (1): 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1061
.55439.8b. /(ASCE)1076-0342(2002)8:1(2).

© ASCE 04020038-15 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2020, 36(4): 04020038