Seismic Justice: The Ethics & Politics of Megathrust Earthquake Risk Management

地震正义：伦理

• 批准号: 2445389
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Warwick
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2445389
• 关键词: Seismic; Justice; Ethics; Politics; Megathrust

How can science, ethics and public policy analysis work together to mitigate the risk of very large earthquakes? My PhD research explores this question through an in-depth investigation of the hazards from megathrust earthquakes and accompanying tsunamis in the Pacific Northwest area of North America (known synonymously as Cascadia). Geological evidence indicates that this 700-mile region, stretching from northern California to British Columbia, has seen 41 earthquakes greater than magnitude 8.0 in the past 10,000 years, including 19 greater than magnitude 9.0 (Schulz 2015). The last great quake to hit the Pacific Northwest occurred on January 26, 1700 (Atwater et al. 2005; Jacoby et al. 1997; Satake et al. 1996; Yamaguchi et al. 1997).Recent disasters, such as the Indian Ocean earthquake of 2004 and the Tohoku quake of 2011, have exemplified the destructiveness of megathrust earthquakes and their accompanying tsunamis. Millions of people face the possibility of a similar catastrophe in the Cascadia region, but uncertainty remains over when the quake will occur, how large it will be and the severity of the consequences. What is the rational response to the risk of a major Cascadia earthquake, which is unlikely to materialize in any given year but is certain to cause widespread disruption when it does (Zack 2006: 12)? My thesis examines Cascadia as a case study for its policy import in the contexts of both American and Canadian emergency planning.Therefore, my central research question is: "What ethical framework should guide the development of preparedness policy for megathrust earthquake and tsunami risk management in Cascadia?" To answer this, I will address several sub-questions, as follows:(1) Which ethical principles should guide an adequate level of protection and the fair distribution of protection?(2) If there are winners and losers from earthquake preparedness policy, how should the benefits and burdens be distributed?(3) What individual policy responses are required to deal with the threat of large Cascadia earthquakes as a case of intergenerational risk, where both current and future generations are affected?(4) How should institutions be designed to account for the intergenerational risk emanating from the threat of large Cascadia earthquakes?(5) Given that Cascadia earthquake risk is a cross-border problem, involving both the United States and Canada, how should responsibilities be distributed among the international, national and sub-national levels?Relevant empirical literatures are drawn from policymakers and policy advisors (OSSPAC 2013), disaster experts (e.g. Tierney 2019) and risk scholars (Bailey 2011). However, none of these are explicitly grounded in ethical principles. Additionally, there are sophisticated philosophical discussions of social justice, risk (Frick 2015; Horton 2017; Tadros 2013) and intergenerational responsibilities (for reviews, see Caney 2018; Meyer 2020). Meanwhile disaster ethics itself remains marginal in the philosophical literature (existing work includes Zack 2009; Doorn 2015; Brake 2019). None of these philosophical discussions substantively invoke earthquake risk management, nor do they provide a systematic treatment of the relevant normative principles. Thus my central contribution to the scholarly literature is to develop a systematic normative theory of earthquake risk management for Cascadia, one which integrates an empirical understanding of earthquakes and existing seismic policy, on the one hand, with philosophical analysis, on the other.As part of my analytical strategy, I aim to conduct qualitative semi-structured (virtual) interviews with both elites and community stakeholders in order to elucidate the relevant empirical background necessary for conducting the normative analysis. Different groups of participants will be recruited for different reasons.

科学、伦理和公共政策分析如何共同努力减轻特大地震的风险？我的博士研究通过深入调查北美太平洋西北地区（也称为卡斯卡迪亚）的大推力地震和伴随的海啸的危害来探索这个问题。地质证据表明，这个从北方加州到不列颠哥伦比亚省的700英里区域在过去的10，000年中发生了41次大于8.0级的地震，其中19次大于9.0级（Schulz 2015）。最近一次发生在太平洋西北部的大地震发生在1700年1月26日（Atwater et al. 2005; Werkby et al. 1997; Satake et al. 1996; Yamaguchi et al. 1997）。最近的灾害，如2004年的印度洋地震和2011年的东北地震，都是巨型逆冲断层地震及其伴随的海啸的破坏性的例证。卡斯卡迪亚地区数百万人面临着类似灾难的可能性，但地震何时发生、规模有多大以及后果的严重性仍不确定。什么是对卡斯卡迪亚大地震风险的理性反应，这是不太可能在任何一年实现，但肯定会造成广泛的破坏时，它（扎克2006：12）？我的论文研究卡斯卡迪亚作为一个案例研究，其政策进口的背景下，美国和加拿大的应急planning.Therefore，我的中心研究问题是：“什么道德框架应该指导准备政策的发展，在卡斯卡迪亚的巨型推力地震和海啸风险管理？“为了回答这个问题，我将讨论以下几个子问题：（1）哪些道德原则应指导适当的保护水平和公平分配保护？(2)如果防震政策有赢家和输家，那么收益和负担应该如何分配？(3)作为代际风险的一个案例，卡斯卡迪亚大地震的威胁对当代和后代都有影响，需要采取什么样的政策应对措施？(4)应如何设计制度来应对卡斯卡迪亚大地震威胁所产生的代际风险？(5)鉴于卡斯卡迪亚地震风险是一个涉及美国和加拿大的跨界问题，国际、国家和次国家各级应如何分配责任？相关的经验文献来自政策制定者和政策顾问（OSSPAC 2013），灾害专家（例如Tierney 2019）和风险学者（Bailey 2011）。然而，这些都没有明确的道德原则为基础。此外，还有关于社会正义、风险（弗里克，2015; Horton，2017; Tadros，2013）和代际责任（综述见Caney，2018; Meyer，2020）的复杂哲学讨论。与此同时，灾难伦理学本身在哲学文献中仍然处于边缘地位（现有的工作包括Zack 2009;多恩2015; Brake 2019）。这些哲学讨论都没有实质性地援引地震风险管理，也没有系统地处理相关的规范性原则。因此，我对学术文献的主要贡献是为卡斯卡迪亚开发了一个系统的地震风险管理规范理论，一方面将对地震和现有地震政策的经验理解与哲学分析相结合。我的目标是进行定性半结构化（虚拟）与精英和社区利益相关者的访谈，以阐明进行规范性研究所需的相关经验背景。分析.将出于不同的原因招募不同的参与者。