Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determining Public Policy and Resource Allocation Priorities for Mitigating Natural Hazards: A Capabilities-based Approach

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a Capabilities-based Approach to guide hazard mitigation efforts. First, a discussion is provided of the criteria that should be met by an adequate framework for formulating public policy and allocating resources. This paper shows why a common decision-aiding tool, Cost-benefit Analysis, fails to fulfill such criteria. A Capabilities-based Approach to hazard mitigation is then presented, drawing on the framework originally developed in the context of development economics and policy. The focus of a Capabilities-based Approach is protecting and promoting the well-being of individuals. Capabilities are dimensions of well-being and specified in terms of functionings. Functionings capture the various things of value an individual does or becomes in his or her life, including being alive, being healthy, and being sheltered. Capabilities refer to the real achievability of specific functionings. In the context of hazard mitigation, from a Capabilities-based Approach, decision- and policy-makers should consider the acceptability and tolerability of risks along with the affectability of hazards when determining policy formulation and resource allocation. Finally, the paper shows how the proposed approach satisfies the required criteria, and overcomes the limitations of Cost-benefit Analysis, while maintaining its strengths.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is evidenced by the following statistic. “In the 1970s, natural disasters alone claimed nearly 2 million lives. By the 1990s, even though the occurrence of disasters was greater, fatalities had fallen to under 800,000. This shows that it is possible to reduce the loss of life, although the total number of people affected by disasters did increase markedly.” (Paper prepared by FAO for the second international conference on early warning).

  2. Gardoni, P., Murphy, C., & Sanchez-Silva, M., (2006). The practical implementation of a capabilities-based approach to measuring the societal impacts of natural and man-made hazards. Risk Analysis (Submitted).

  3. Murphy, C. & Gardoni, P. (2006). The acceptability and the tolerability of risks: A capabilities-based approach. Science & Engineering Ethics (Submitted).

  4. Gardoni, P. & Murphy, C. (2006). A capabilities-based approach to measuring the societal impacts of natural and man-made hazards. Natural Hazard Review (Submitted).

References

  1. Petak, W. J., & Atkisson, A. A. (1982). Natural hazard risk assessment and public policy: Anticipating the unexpected. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kaplan S., & Gerrick B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1, 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rowe, W. D. (1980). Risk assessment: Theoretical approaches and methodological problems. In J. Conrad (Ed.), Society, technology, and risk assessment (pp. 3–29). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vose, D. (2000). Risk analysis: A quantitative guide. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic risk analysis: Foundations and methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Finkel, A. M. (1990). Confronting uncertainty in risk management: A guide for decision-makers. Center for Risk Management, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Paté-Cornell, M. E. (1996). Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54, 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Irwin, A., Smith, D., & Griffiths, R. (1982). Risk analysis and public policy for major hazards. Physical Technology, 13, 258–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Merkhoffer, M. W. (1987). Decision science and social risk management: A comparative evaluation of cost-benefit analysis, decision analysis, and other formal decision-aiding approaches. Dordrecht, Holland: D, Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  10. MacLean D. (Ed.) (1986). Values at risk. Towata, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Prater, C. S., & Lindell, M. K. (2000). Politics of hazard mitigation. Natural Hazard Review, 1(2), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Markovits, R. S. (2005). Review of Matthew D. Alder and Eric A. Posner (eds.) Cost-benefit analysis: Legal, economic, and philosophical perspectives. Ethics, 115(3), 593–598.

  13. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Weighing the risks: Which risks are acceptable. Environment, 2(4), 17–20, 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson, E. (1988). Values, risks, and market norms. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 17(1), 54–65.

    Google Scholar 

  15. May, P. J. (2001). Societal perspectives about earthquake performance: The fallacy of “acceptable risk”. Earthquake Spectra, 17(4), 725–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Ethics, 115, 351–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Adler, M. D., & Posner, E. A. (2006). New foundations of cost-benefit analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ackerman, F., & Heinzerling, L. (2003). Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. NY: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2005). Engineering ethics: Concepts & cases (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Paté, M. E. (1983). Acceptable decision processes and acceptable risks in public sector regulations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13(3), 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Baier, A. (1986). Poisoning the wells. In D. MacLean (Ed.), Values at risk. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Smidtz, D. (2001). A place for cost-benefit analysis. Philosophical Issues, 11, 148–171.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sen, A. (1989). Development as capabilities expansion. Journal of Development Planning, 19, 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.

  25. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Aristotle, politics, and human capabilities: A response to Antony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan. Ethics, 111(1), 102–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Anand, S., & Sen, A. (2000). The income component of the human development index. Journal of Human Development, 1(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Raworth, K., & Stewart, D. (2003). Critiques of the human development index: A review. In S. Fukuda-Parr & A. K. Shiva Kumar (Eds.), Readings in human development (pp. 140–152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  32. Fukuda-Parr, S., & Shiva Kumar, A. K. (Eds.) (2003). Readings in human development (pp. 128–139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Clements, P. (1995). A poverty-oriented cost-benefit approach to the analysis of development projects. World Development, 23(4), 577–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Murphy, C., & Gardoni, P. (2006). The role of society in engineering risk analysis: A capabilities-based approach. Risk Analysis, 26(4), 1085–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments they received from Mrs. Kathleen Murphy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4237, USA

    Colleen Murphy

  2. Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-3136, USA

    Paolo Gardoni

Authors
  1. Colleen Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paolo Gardoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colleen Murphy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murphy, C., Gardoni, P. Determining Public Policy and Resource Allocation Priorities for Mitigating Natural Hazards: A Capabilities-based Approach. Sci Eng Ethics 13, 489–504 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9019-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9019-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation