This article considers the design of federal earthquake policy as an illustration of the difficulties of addressing “public risks” when public indifference, despite general awareness of the risks, is the norm. The present federal earthquake policy attempts to overcome this indifference through strategies aimed at building local governmental commitment to risk reduction and improving nonfederal capacity to implement risk reduction programs. Because of the fundamental difficulties in influencing actions among less capable and willing jurisdictions, federal efforts have resulted in disjunctive impacts among seismic prone regions. Some “leading” communities have become more prepared, while other “lagging” communities in the same region fall further behind. The preferred approach for overcoming these gaps entails a mix of federally backed earthquake insurance coupled with development of local regulatory standards. More generally, strategies for addressing public risks entail modification of the policy tools for addressing such “private risks” as crime and job-related accidents. The changes involve mechanisms that shift from individual responsibility to shared responsibility for addressing the risks.
[1]
V. Smith,et al.
Can public information programs affect risk perceptions
,
1990
.
[2]
Joanne M. Nigg,et al.
OPINION CONGRUENCE AND THE FORMULATION OF SEISMIC SAFETY POLICIES
,
1987
.
[3]
Peter J. May,et al.
Disaster Policy Implementation: Managing Programs Under Shared Governance
,
1986
.
[4]
V. Brannigan,et al.
Environmental Accidents: Personal Injury and Public Responsibility
,
1991
.
[5]
Colin Camerer,et al.
Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications
,
1989
.
[6]
M. Douglas.
Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences
,
1986
.
[7]
F R Johnson,et al.
Radon risk information and voluntary protection: evidence from a natural experiment.
,
1987,
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.