A capability approach for seismic risk analysis and management - Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems - page 252

information about hazards in vulnerable communities; and (3) improving
our understanding of hazards and the effi cacy of mitigation (Murphy and
Gardoni 2007).
Seismic safety of a community is achieved (or fails to be achieved)
depending on the choices of individual members of a community, members
of organizations, corporations and professions, and policy makers. Common
policy strategies for dealing with hazards include setting federal money
aside for risk reduction and disaster aid, regulating public and private sector
activity through business regulations (e.g., guidelines for insurance compa-
nies and construction fi rms), building codes, land use and zoning ordinances
(Murphy and Gardoni 2007). Engineering codes play an important role in
promoting seismic safety, because they outline minimum seismic perfor-
mance standards (May 2001).
Informing the decisions of policy makers, organizations, and individuals
regarding seismic safety is a conception of what makes a risk acceptable.
Standards for what constitutes acceptable levels of risk for members of a
community, for example, informs judgment about what makes a building or
structure (or requirement) safe enough. However, the proper way to specify
standards for acceptable risk is extremely challenging.
Given that this is fundamentally a value judgment, this would suggest
that the public, via a process of collective decision-making, determines such
levels. At the same time, it is important for standards to be formulated on
the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the risks involved and that
information is not always accessible to the public. Moreover, the public is
at times indifferent to risks that they face; this is especially true in the
context of seismic risk (Murphy and Gardoni 2006, 2008; Gardoni and
Murphy 2009). This suggests that experts determine standards or at least
play a role.
A further complication is that there are multiple considerations that
infl uence our judgment about the acceptability of risks. For example, equity
in distribution affects the acceptability of a risk (Murphy and Gardoni
2008). Equity considerations are relevant for the distribution of the poten-
tial losses from a hazard, the distribution of resources to mitigate such
potential losses, and the benefi ts to be gained by accepting a certain level
of risk. In addition, there is a strong desire to reduce or minimize losses
from hazardous events, which suggests that the standard for acceptable risk
should be quite demanding. On the other hand, it is generally recognized
that there is a desire to maximize the benefi ts that may accrue to communi-
ties if they are willing to accept certain risks (May 2001). Indeed, some
scholars point out that a refusal to accept certain risks may close off pos-
sibilities for new technologies or opportunities (Wildavsky 1988). Consider-
ing earthquake safety specifi cally, May (2001) writes, 'the least risky choice
would be not to build a given structure in a seismic-prone area. That, of