California Geological Survey – “Probabilistic Tsunami Modeling and Public Pol...
Political and Policy Perspectives: Vulnerable Buildings - Peter May
1. Political and Policy Perspectives:
Vulnerable Buildings
Peter J. May
Donald R. Matthews Distinguished Professor of
American Politics
Center for American Politics and Policy
University of Washington
2. A Puzzle
Why don’t citizens, politicians, and
others take more seriously the risks
posed by vulnerable buildings?
Photos: The Olympian
3. The Standard Answer
They don’t know or understand the risks
Source: Seattle Times, March 3, 2001; p. B 5
4. Perhaps …
But, there are powerful other
reasons for failing to take
appropriate protective actions
5. Cognitive and Other Limits
People under-estimate low
probabilities – round to zero
Costly actions are required upfront
with uncertain longer term payoffs
Actions are interdependent – why
should I do something if others
don’t?
Other priorities, especially for firms
and governmental entities
6. A Matter of Public Concern?
Not Really: Public shows limited interest
except after events –
Source: Seattle PI, March 3, 2001; p. B3
7. What About Elected Officials?
Limited constituency for earthquake
resilience
Most politicians show limited
interest, although that is changing
some
But, the issues of cost and public
safety make this an issue of relevance
to government (and others)
8. Net Effect
There has been overall an under-
investment in protective actions that
will enhance seismic resilience
But, various programs have been
undertaken over the years in
response to particular events
And, there have been varied private
efforts by some building owners and
others
9. How to capitalize on all of this?
And move forward
Source: Time Magazine, March 12, 2001; p. 18
10. Critical Ingredients
Political champions within
government
Platform for moving ahead
Evangelists among the engineering
and design communities
Energy, rationale and technical basis
First movers -- building owners who
show how seismic and other
vulnerabilities can be addressed
Demonstration effect
11. A Basic Question Remains
How far should government go in
protecting citizens and others from
earthquake (and other) risks?
12. There is a Large Policy Toolkit
Calling attention to the
vulnerabilities,
Requiring building
assessments,
Posted ratings of buildings,
Devising voluntary risk-
reduction programs,
Mandating required retrofits.
13. Towards a Comprehensive Approach
Elements of each of these actions
that take into account different
types and levels of risk.
Consider potential unintended
effects of the disruptions posed by
retrofit or other risk-reduction
programs
Link seismic issues to broader
initiatives like the current ones in
Seattle concerning sustainability
14. Bottom Line
None of this is easy or
automatic
The engineering and design
community is critical for
success
Not just in providing
analyses and advice
But also as policy and
program advocates