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

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.