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

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.

Assessing capability instead of achieved functionings in risk analysis

“…Poverty and social exclusion in Germany have been analyzed using the capability framework (Robeyns 2006). The net societal impact of natural hazards and disasters has been defined in terms of changes in capabilities (Murphy and Gardoni 2006Murphy 2008, 2009, forthcoming). The capability approach is part of the curriculum in development studies, political philosophy, 'education, disability studies, public health and gender studies, among others' (Robeyns 2006, 351).…”

“…In the context of natural hazards, the likely consequences of a hazardous scenario are conceptualized and gauged in terms of changes in individuals' capabilities. A capability approach to risk analysis provides a way to conceptualize and gauge the societal impact of natural and man-made hazards in a comprehensive and principled manner (Murphy and Gardoni 2006). There are a potentially infinite number of consequences of a hazardous scenario that could be factored into a risk analysis.…”

“…A person's general capability is a function of the alternative combinations of functionings that he or she has a genuine opportunity to achieve (Sen 1992). Murphy and Gardoni (2006 and Murphy (2008, 2009, forthcoming) have argued that risk should be conceptualized as the probability that capabilities are reduced. Furthermore, Gardoni and Murphy (2009) have proposed a Hazard Impact Index (HII) which aims to gauge the likely impact of hazards as the average change of an individual's capability.…”

Understanding road network dynamics: Link-based topological patterns

“…Identification of the most important roads and a deeper knowledge of what makes the road network structure more vulnerable provide essential criteria for decision-makers and policy-makers in the course of their policy decision-making process (Murphy and Gardoni, 2007). The development and use of evaluative criteria and performance metrics leading to the most effective prioritization of transportation projects is critical (Novak et al, 2012).…”

A capability approach for seismic risk analysis and management

“…Strategies to promote safety share the same general goal: protecting the public by minimizing the societal impact of hazards. This goal informs the three major objectives of public policy and resource allocation strategies: (1) reducing the potential losses from hazards; (2) increasing awareness of and © Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013 information about hazards in vulnerable communities; and (3) improving our understanding of hazards and the effi cacy of mitigation (Murphy and Gardoni 2007).…”