policy analysis for natural hazards: some cautionary
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Policy Analysis for Natural Hazards: Some Cautionary](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081410/6298d5efe967a538b150eaa4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
littl(tiol
so-(
ion t;opolicy tor coc
.at reloc
is and radiation).idemic work toactice, there certahave well-develolrotocols for addrc
Corps oftise in'Doll
Col
,lop risk as,.rast, all th(focus on c
have ador00. 0pne
OC
11n advance otor Drovidin0
social se
,ClSlonmaklng tec-ong policy tools
alysis or competiIn the full Articleicussion is drawn,g list of lessons foi:
than provil-lsion of eachso as to proN
zanes, tornadocAs - for exam
or floodwalls;0reinforcing e)
Of
om the flood
-hnl
ftor tfroE
)ecific flood 0ergency food
vices to ancontrast,!
-on of sorEfor choos
is cost-ben
inl(Thicfor
(9) Do not adopconservatism
Nontrivial noiE; policy matters is:to controversial. I d
als recon-mendatiore,* policy analysis ar
-obal posture ofhandling uncerttive advice abotriablv somewh.
.o not
- e rob2
adopting some T,fore highly controxgeneral moral flaresion, one that I havwork, 2 is "weak wet
foIlovs polic
OVc
CO1
t pretendr natural I)ust acrosthe otherloes not;pecified'sial morayork for tidopted 1i
urallStlC tramework tmat recI1 well-being as a morally re:leration, but also allows forconsiderations and moral ri
ot:we]
0o
OOS
flavor of
ngage in more st-ow to evaluate t-azards pose to hrty, and other ht:lesirability of goieducing those tlh,trategy I adopt h
sons totrds. I focipol
aryto s
out
rs needt toussion abouiat naturalealth, Prop-ts, and the
)olicies for
to draw0ror
on cautio
)ortant to
Do not give priority toparticular aspect of well-])Do not use proxy tests ()Do not ignore populatic)Do not use arbitrary nonumerical cutoffs)Do not conflate moral iinfringements with well(even to vital interests)
)Develop risk assessmentsuitable for multidimenstion-size sensitive polic
nono eMid r(-X0 n
prlorltiover ot
ronmenta policy aEzes safety (longevityher aspects of huma,incases are the Detrequires FDA to refiitz carcinog enic fooc
ot
0- tOS
ro
onto, po
CI:or
gr the nutritive or hedor,e additives or, for thatnefits in preventing-eral provision for food.demands that they beion 109 of the Clean Aijuires EPA to issue stan-a major air pollutants atct[s] the public health"ate margin of safety"
OtW0tstanding econo c cos
31)Y
lOUS kindls ot lnterventlor
HeinOnline -- 32 Admin. & Reg. L. News 11 2006-2007
![Page 2: Policy Analysis for Natural Hazards: Some Cautionary](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081410/6298d5efe967a538b150eaa4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
ion, having to do
fand o
)Out,
ctical reason; affiy; control overcourse, one migSof Professor
only kill or ivariety of ot
se observatlorionality of we]
ion abotncorpor
-rotsots 01
ro
rotracte or
'ests, or as interests that)rority over others.it is possible, at least in t1 44institutional" J*ustificioritizing policy-analytthat sounds in adminis,Ls and the possibility of
losses oft-wealthtemporary o
'ess, psycholog
ia, unemployment (oteivith distress, anxiety,4 or,,)tion of famiffies and coriterruption of schooliniction of cultural heritaI hazards decisionmakerronmental counterpart,s employ choice criteri
al priority to certain ast
's cost-benefithal decision costs,orth incorporatir
Juation of ecol%on slightly firme,d economi~sts
coror
)os0tol
'other nand,uld be Justifi(;from its cosl
ors01n
iunt
Sot ot
cologlcal resotecreational val-ing, boating, h-
ood
,ion proceduLe- how to'
I flood control sn re0ed on cos
Talues; and so on.T11iterature in ecologibnonetizing use valuiLnd manipulability(hese in ACES cost-vould seem to be Ic
lov
ere is now a largCal economics or,es, and so the declcosts of incorpor.,-benefit procedur:wer than the be
1on criterion economic costsf'ect) correla- safety or ecoloverall recreational valing pro*et sion from the e-
flood control pro
I effects (ot). So there 1ronmental (
to increase o
flip. Furtcriterior
hough0er con
higher decision costs,ated with a higher raterror, than safety ma),ion costs include botl,eay costs.As for errotit criterion mght lea(
rough a coicost-benefied with ove
cUrecu cosk
, the cost-to a high(ninistratol
vhch 0 regulators often give prIifety over econoic costs.It is hard to see what the instistification for ACE's truncate
enefit analysis would be. Conenefits.The marginal decisioEredicting both the safety and
enefitsof flood control struct.an simply the economic benvould seem to be low. Further.ere are now well-accepted tc
tor
Otlvated to emlo-etTy it is not cleal
to the list of mol
lOrltV to mental provisions otto technological 'ea-t." For example, SectItiol
-ost-
dilllty 77or-on 112 of
ul
costs ofconomn
SO
iSSlOnS level tor a new pollutl-orlevel which is no higher than
;ion control that is achieved inSthe best controlled similar
for worh "mosi
o em0lo
more difficult for agenas courts, legislators, an(oversee compliance wiladministrators motivatc
D,
e crlterlor,other Zoa
to staff.To be sure, decby build flood control
; or error by ACEions about how to
iffect ooffloo
iong some group ot actoraagine the first sort of
over otfrom tl
ronmental pole priority to soiterests is worr
ol0V
iought,;ion; ot
bo
0iOtOr
ones env0ror
ounts oi
categorical fHowever,
to provide afor safety-prtests - onedecision cosi
rovisO
Iror to set polhtnization cr
-rlterlon of-o-rovision inst)olution level
COS
to ,an,
S01
onstruct of o
SOC
rorho,
,.Utlonal COnSIioritizing pro(
COS
mictional caTechnolo
OS
of a flood. Ho
HeinOnline -- 32 Admin. & Reg. L. News 12 2006-2007
![Page 3: Policy Analysis for Natural Hazards: Some Cautionary](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081410/6298d5efe967a538b150eaa4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
ious kinds), or, a close cousin, reliabili00 Even though proS. Or they might take some other form. out suboptimal polkc
of feet hihnd strong. Surelytop well short ofSits levees. Parallelbout the construcmuildings and stru,
roxy testtool foregulator:
on of 01OI
appropriate polronmental or ne answer shoul,)roxy tests are j Iutional ground&that proxy testsLboptimal polici
L 0ul1101ILCLUto employ
roxiffc
ratic error und-ffciently high.
ond, pol
,is more t000. 0e o
lolo
practices,.pNew construction cotaired to be as protective as someZentile of existing construction.different sort of technology-bas
roach to policy analysis, exempli
Df thumb. Untilly added 3 feet cnight of its leve(Ding caused byhst for the desigi-d to technologand an importa
.1 the 1990sc)f fre eb oarc
es, so as to
to o
d tests in environr)oint, showing hov
)IO to ine cien
overregulation (if, for example, smfirms are required to employ high-cost technologies) or underregulatit would be most efficient to redu,
pollution beyond the point that islologic,)roduct
floo(
tool
o00oi
)ro)oli*
ally feasible given co
-on of the good, foSdown production
ar observations can )ased criteria for naiaking. Consider AC
ot-freeboard ruprovide an extrcommunities atprotection provfrom communirecent study byCouncil foundi offlooding0
onal cr0terlor
flood
oth econo
rgin of Protof flooding
,on
,on
aot
6ostpro(pro)
optimal ift-theyotie in tracking ova, and moral right
is this possilomain of c.swer is diffi
rolo
lure will. So0 technology-based's May have lower decision costs.iven advances in computationalsoftware, and data availability, whict,te risk assessment, the decision-cos,re, is shrinking. Technology-ad
)Out fro
rolOiree-teet- to tneant to pofl.'ction for Cle
tion
iroacroach to
egulatl-on otion 112 of t
,FDI
t00(
t 0v to commun 0ooot aware of
in come
to the oicfeet of
,nnual pro Linities prothundred-eeboard va
)roxy testucodes: ensi
,DJ
rement to serve nonsatety goat:-llars need to think about DroN
looking toIcratic error
.ests. as comdo not coor
onto
const,
how low t]or overtortraditional
of
roughlysays to
issociatedto alternat
pol
ro
c aUV i
Article, ftorIt-of-ffeeboa.of no-collaing codes >l
ioro n
a variety of pro)or might conc(
(tor eon O(
loss C,
their impact on well-its dimensions. Proxy.nology-based tests (of
ort of coor lights fal]
ch economi-gs are shakeconomic losing compo-
0ts, systems, or co-onomic loss by viription, and other i1n
opposed to, foranalysis. Deterylevel, by contrasis. does not rec
Cosof I
i ff
cnnolo-orms-and-]ible. For exa
00
overtolpas forec,
Clos)olc
le is the approaor quasi-govei
bodies twill avoi
any non(
I to I-olla
olapse in no
lonmakers.1ar as they fo(tion on sore-es other than,or some ofmight be tec
-ost-bernO-cofl
COS
IOuS pOS"So thern
t(
HeinOnline -- 32 Admin. & Reg. L. News 13 2006-2007
![Page 4: Policy Analysis for Natural Hazards: Some Cautionary](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081410/6298d5efe967a538b150eaa4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
cono of decisior pos
poll
POF0-ote or
0otto
pollc)0 t3(3
polofi1
ronmental o
pol0E
ce to the numberby, or exposed to,natural hazard that
In the area ofural hazards polic.
two ways. First,0loy a proxy test for
ctlng policies. Second, the ag,ght employ a policy-analytic0 0 c
t does focus on some or all ofaensions of well-being, but is si opulation-size-insensitiveN
mnalogue in aised in decidiluch as buildi)rotect settlediurricanes. C,,"ion" criteriol
one hun
ated pollrotectiorof PO
ions Co
or new0sot
erlon that is so-how to design
,vees and flooc0as fromfloods
flood, the or
i flood, the F).Although lcy is not toicriterion ill
erre(1 pro-benefit aierion is lir
ional Flocnolo, o
effe
gory s emissions ai-e number of indikilled by its pollutizards example of
or prol
pol
to
ecisionmaker on someies other than wel-beirilation-size insensitivityequence of this refocusi.Using may be warrantecias sufficient advantagesion costs and bureaucramportant for agency ovmics to be attentive toIof proxy tests, includin
.ze insensitivity. Note also thatst might incorporate administ,
roxies for population size-forsin0 a more extreme earthqual
g the no-collopposed tot about the s(
pse criterion tornal structures.cond kind of pol
iw or by the closely analogotrotection" criterion for natui
id1 onrotectior
)ortant un rotectl ion is also diffitoAd Insurance Program
0oyed in other conte, the area-protectioncthe annual risk of pherty damage to anyona must not exceed on
one hundred (fitfte ocutoff is used) or zero
tooltsomc
Sdevelopec'years, to qof enviroE
roflo
0on toi or o
1101
ihito porshoul
0ion doto populatl
,or thousands. $1hivity of the b-Lurs in environ- of-dividual risk" ON
of th(population that occupies somer that is endangered by a floodie, and the expected benefit to
foci
(SUC
to -
or r
recognize that the foundation-onstructs which drive policy- overall well-being, moral
nd distributive considerationstidimensional and sensitive toion size. Policy criteria whichreply on one aspect of well-be
safety), or do not directly atte--being at all (as with technolo)ility-based proxy tests), shoulc
X-yearflood orpopulation-size.should view suctools, warrantedcontrol adminisl
r pop ato
0ofjustification. Proxy tests fo
of
Opulatlo
roi
rox
ot poouteirence to tlustrial cate-ticular, to t)osed to or
ion-
pro)
. Consli1er, torthat seisrmic CO(
-o buildinz coll
ot attento
ions, and sho
tior.Pocon, routinely oc
,virtue of"
0ol
)orne by SOifistribution. an to
OS
,son is (1ra-oral righ
)0o
0r~
7or a(11TlnI often not
OE
e
1n
-11
oc
HeinOnline -- 32 Admin. & Reg. L. News 14 2006-2007