Colleen Murphy

The Role of Society in Engineering Risk Analysis: A Capabilities-Based Approach

This article proposes a new conceptual framework in engineering risk analysis to account for the net impact of hazards on individuals in a society. It analyzes four limitations of prevailing approaches to risk analysis and suggests a way to overcome them. These limitations are a result of how societal impacts are characteristically accounted for and valued. Prevailing approaches typically focus too narrowly on the consequences of natural or man-made hazards, not accounting for the broader societal impacts of such hazards. Such approaches lack a uniform and consistent metric for accounting for the impact of the nonquantifiable consequences (like psychological trauma or societal impacts) and rely upon implicit and potentially inaccurate value judgments when evaluating risks. To overcome these limitations, we propose an alternative, Capabilities-Based Approach to the treatment of society in risk analysis. A similar approach is currently used by the United Nations to quantitatively measure the degree of development in countries around the world. In a Capabilities-Based Approach, the potential benefits and losses due to a hazard are measured and compared in a uniform way by using individual capabilities (functionings individuals are able, still able, or unable to achieve) as a metric. This Capabilities-Based Approach provides a foundation for identifying and quantifying the broader, complex societal consequences of hazards and is based on explicit, value judgments. The Capabilities-Based Approach can accommodate different methods or techniques for risk determination and for risk evaluation and can be used in assessing risk in diverse types of hazards (natural or man-made) and different magnitudes that range from minor to catastrophic. In addition, implementing a Capabilities-Based Approach contributes to the development of a single standard for public policy decision making, since a Capabilities-Based Approach is already in use in development economics and policy.

A Scale of Risk

This article proposes a conceptual framework for ranking the relative gravity of diverse risks. This framework identifies the moral considerations that should inform the evaluation and comparison of diverse risks. A common definition of risk includes two dimensions: the probability of occurrence and the associated consequences of a set of hazardous scenarios. This article first expands this definition to include a third dimension: the source of a risk. The source of a risk refers to the agents involved in the creation or maintenance of a risk and captures a central moral concern about risks. Then, a scale of risk is proposed to categorize risks along a multidimensional ranking, based on a comparative evaluation of the consequences, probability, and source of a given risk. A risk is ranked higher on the scale the larger the consequences, the greater the probability, and the more morally culpable the source. The information from the proposed comparative evaluation of risks can inform the selection of priorities for risk mitigation.

Classification and moral evaluation of uncertainties in engineering modeling

Engineers must deal with risks and uncertainties as a part of their professional work and, in particular, uncertainties are inherent to engineering models. Models play a central role in engineering. Models often represent an abstract and idealized version of the mathematical properties of a target. Using models, engineers can investigate and acquire understanding of how an object or phenomenon will perform under specified conditions. This paper defines the different stages of the modeling process in engineering, classifies the various sources of uncertainty that arise in each stage, and discusses the categories into which these uncertainties fall. The paper then considers the way uncertainty and modeling are approached in science and the criteria for evaluating scientific hypotheses, in order to highlight the very different criteria appropriate for the development of models and the treatment of the inherent uncertainties in engineering. Finally, the paper puts forward nine guidelines for the treatment of uncertainty in engineering modeling.

Assessing capability instead of achieved functionings in risk analysis

A capability approach has been proposed to risk analysis, where risk is conceptualized as the probability that capabilities are reduced. Capabilities refer to the genuine opportunities of individuals to achieve valuable doings and beings, such as being adequately nourished. Such doings and beings are called functionings. A current debate in risk analysis and other fields where a capability approach has been developed concerns whether capabilities or actual achieved functionings should be used. This paper argues that in risk analysis the consequences of hazardous scenarios should be conceptualized in terms of capabilities, not achieved functionings. Furthermore, the paper proposes a method for assessing capabilities, which considers the levels of achieved functionings of other individuals with similar boundary conditions. The capability of an individual can then be captured statistically based on the variability of the achieved functionings over the considered population.

Design, Risk and Capabilities

The design of complex artifacts, for example civil structural and infrastructural systems, is based on the premise that their performance can be predicted and evaluated with sufficient confidence for the engineers, clients and other stakeholders jointly to make intelligent and informed decisions. This requires a shift away from current prescriptive codes, which tend to be implicitly conservative and do not properly account for the consequences of damage or failure of an artifact, and toward a design process and design codes more firmly rooted in the realistic prediction of the probabilities of damage and failure, and the associated consequences. There is also a need for a risk-based design process and code that account in a normative and comprehensive way for the consequences associated to risks. This chapter proposes a capability approach to design, herein called capability-based design. We argue that capabilities provide the requisite framework for conceptualizing consequences in risk assessment, evaluation, and management. Finally, a capability approach to design offers concrete guidance to engineers making design choices and balancing competing design constraints.

The Responsibilities of Engineers

Knowledge of the responsibilities of engineers is the foundation for answering ethical questions about the work of engineers. This paper defines the responsibilities of engineers by considering what constitutes the nature of engineering as a particular form of activity. Specifically, this paper focuses on the ethical responsibilities of engineers qua engineers. Such responsibilities refer to the duties acquired in virtue of being a member of a group. We examine the practice of engineering, drawing on the idea of practices developed by philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, and show how the idea of a practice is important for identifying and justifying the responsibilities of engineers. To demonstrate the contribution that knowledge of the responsibilities of engineers makes to engineering ethics, a case study from structural engineering is discussed. The discussion of the failure of the Sleipner A Platform off the coast of Norway in 1991 demonstrates how the responsibilities of engineers can be derived from knowledge of the nature of engineering and its context.

Risk Analysis of Natural Hazards: Interdisciplinary Challenges and Integrated Solutions

Natural hazards can have a devastating impact on society. They cause billions of dollars of damage each year, kill thousands, and render millions homeless, and their frequency and severity are expected to increase with climate change. Although the source of damage from natural hazards may appear to be “natural,” in fact it results from complex interactions between the natural environment, human decisions about the built environment, and social vulnerability. This volume brings together leading minds in engineering, science, philosophy, law, and the social sciences to develop a deeper understanding of the interdisciplinary challenges involved in the mitigation of natural hazards.

Political Reconciliation, the Rule of Law, and Genocide

Political reconciliation involves the repairing of damaged political relationships. This paper considers the possibility and moral justifiability of pursuing political reconciliation in the aftermath of systematic and egregious wrongdoing, in particular genocide. The first two sections discuss what political reconciliation specifically requires. I argue that it neither entails nor necessitates forgiveness. Rather, I claim, political reconciliation should be conceptualized as the (re-)establishment of Fullerian mutual respect for the rule of law. When a society governs by law, publicly declared legal rules establish clear and practicable standards for behavior which are enforced in practice. Subjects of the law thus can form stable and reasonable predictions of how other citizens and officials will respond to their actions. After explaining why this analysis of political reconciliation is compelling, the third section spells out the implications of my analysis for determining the possibility of achieving and the justifiability of pursuing political reconciliation.

A Reliability-Based Capability Approach

This article proposes a rigorous mathematical approach, named a reliability-based capability approach (RCA), to quantify the societal impact of a hazard. The starting point of the RCA is a capability approach in which capabilities refer to the genuine opportunities open to individuals to achieve valuable doings and beings (such as being mobile and being sheltered) called functionings. Capabilities depend on what individuals have and what they can do with what they have. The article develops probabilistic predictive models that relate the value of each functioning to a set of easily predictable or measurable quantities (regressors) in the aftermath of a hazard. The predicted values of selected functionings for an individual collectively determine the impact of a hazard on his/her state of well-being. The proposed RCA integrates the predictive models of functionings into a system reliability problem to determine the probability that the state of well-being is acceptable, tolerable, or intolerable. Importance measures are defined to quantify the contribution of each functioning to the state of well-being. The information from the importance measures can inform decisions on optimal allocation of limited resources for risk mitigation and management.

A multidisciplinary definition and evaluation of resilience: the role of social justice in defining resilience

Abstract This paper aims to explore how insights from the philosophical and social science literature can be incorporated into the definition of resilient infrastructure so that considerations of social justice can be accounted for and addressed more adequately. Building on the view that engineering ultimately aims to promote societal well-being, this paper argues that human well-being depends on (1) the resilience of the physical infrastructure and (2) the socioeconomic context, both of which in turn affect (i) how the impact and recovery of the physical infrastructure translates into societal impact and recovery and (ii) the ability of individuals to recover/adapt independently from the recovery of the physical infrastructure. The paper suggests that a capability approach may be a suitable framework for providing content to the formal concept of resilience as a capability approach is especially suitable for expressing non-tangible damage that might be caused by natural hazards and disasters.