A capability approach for seismic risk analysis and management - Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems - page 254

10.2 Desiderata for a framework for seismic risk

analysis and management

First, an approach should provide a common metric for assessing different
kinds of consequences that capture direct as well as indirect impacts of
hazards on communities. Second, it must provide a way of assessing the
distribution of consequences across a community. Third, it should inspire
confi dence in the public, both with respect to the methodology used and
the conclusions generated. Fourth, it should provide theoretical resources
for prioritizing which hazard to address and which mitigation strategies to
pursue.
There are a number of indexes that have been or could be used to assess
the impact of events based on the consequences for the quality of life of
individuals (e.g., Nathwani et al. 1997; Rackwitz 2002, 2006; Cutter et al.
2003; Pandey and Nathwani 2004; Ditlevsen and Friis-Hansen 2007). The
Life Quality Index (LQI) (Nathwani et al. 1997; Rackwitz 2002, 2006), the
Life Quality Time Allocation Index (LQTAI) (Ditlevsen and Friis-Hansen
2007), and the Societal Willingness to Pay (SWTP) (Pratt and Zeckhauser
1996; Pandey and Nathwani 2004) are examples of such indexes. Quality of
life is typically assessed based on two factors: (1) life expectancy (which
provides information about the length of life in good health) and (2) gross
domestic product (GDP).
While these indexes share an emphasis on well-being and the quality of
life of individuals with the capability approach (which will be described in
the next section), they have two important limitations (Gardoni and Murphy
2009). First, they adopt a narrow conception of the quality of life, focusing
strictly on length of life and the economic resources available to individuals
as indicators of the quality of life. However, other factors, such as the oppor-
tunity to be mobile, educated and employed, intuitively seem to infl uence
the quality of life an individual enjoys. Moreover, the GDP of a community
does not always tell us about the quality of life members of a community
enjoy, and in particular whether they have these additional opportunities.
Economic resources are not suffi cient to guarantee many important oppor-
tunities. For example, the opportunity for education depends on a variety
of factors, such as the vicinity of schools; the availability of skilled instruc-
tors; whether a school charges tuition, and at what level; as well as the
distribution of resources within a community.
Advocates of one of the above indexes may respond by trying to expand
the factors considered when evaluating the quality of life. However, and
this is the second limitation, such indexes do not provide a principled way
to combine different consequences risks might have for the quality of life
into a composite index, nor standards for determining which additional
dimensions might be considered.