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

科学、伦理和公共政策分析如何协同工作以减轻特大地震的风险？我的博士研究通过对北美太平洋西北地区（即卡斯卡迪亚）的巨型逆冲地震和伴随海啸的危害进行深入调查，探讨了这个问题。地质证据表明，这个从加利福尼亚北部延伸到不列颠哥伦比亚省的700英里地区，在过去的1万年里发生了41次大于8.0级的地震，其中19次大于9.0级（Schulz 2015）。上一次袭击太平洋西北部的大地震发生在1700年1月26日（Atwater et al. 2005; Jacoby et al. 1997; Satake et al. 1996; Yamaguchi et al. 1997）。最近的灾难，如2004年的印度洋地震和2011年的东北地震，都证明了特大逆冲地震及其伴随的海啸的破坏性。在卡斯卡迪亚地区，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程度仍然不确定。卡斯卡迪亚大地震不太可能在任何一年发生，但一旦发生，肯定会造成大范围的破坏，对这种风险的理性反应是什么？我的论文将卡斯卡迪亚作为一个案例来研究其在美国和加拿大应急计划背景下的政策重要性。因此，我的中心研究问题是：“应该用什么样的伦理框架来指导卡斯卡迪亚地区大型逆冲地震和海啸风险管理准备政策的制定？”为了回答这个问题，我将讨论几个子问题，如下：(1)哪些道德原则应该指导适当的保护水平和保护的公平分配？(2)如果在备灾政策中存在赢家和输家，那么利益和负担应该如何分配？(3)卡斯卡迪亚大地震作为代际风险的案例，当代人和后代都受到影响，需要采取哪些单独的政策应对措施？(4)应如何设计制度来考虑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境问题，国际、国家和地方层面的责任应如何分配？相关实证文献来自政策制定者和政策顾问（OSSPAC 2013）、灾害专家（如Tierney 2019）和风险学者（Bailey 2011）。然而，这些都没有明确地建立在道德原则的基础上。此外，还有关于社会正义、风险（Frick 2015; Horton 2017; Tadros 2013）和代际责任（评论见Caney 2018； Meyer 2020）的复杂哲学讨论。同时，灾难伦理本身在哲学文献中仍然处于边缘地位（现有的作品包括Zack 2009； Doorn 2015; Brake 2019）。这些哲学讨论都没有实质性地援引地震风险管理，也没有对相关的规范原则提供系统的处理。因此，我对学术文献的主要贡献是为卡斯卡迪亚开发了一套系统的地震风险管理规范理论，该理论一方面结合了对地震和现有地震政策的经验理解，另一方面结合了哲学分析。作为我分析策略的一部分，我的目标是对精英和社区利益相关者进行定性的半结构化（虚拟）访谈，以阐明进行规范分析所需的相关经验背景。不同的参与者群体将因不同的原因而被招募。

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.