Session No. 21

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Course Title: Coastal Hazards Management**

**Session Name: Competing Values in Coastal Hazards Management**

**Author: Professor Tim Beatley, University of Virginia**

**Time: 50 minutes**

**Objectives:**

> 21.1 List some of the competing values that come into play in coastal
> hazards management

21.2 Discuss the ethical quandary that can arise when coastal hazard
managers are faced with balancing the values of Public Good v. Private
Interest.

> 21.3 What are some differing views of acceptable risk in coastal
> hazards management?

4.  Discuss the issue of responsibility for safety along the coast

5.  Consider the Moral Community: what or who do we take into account in
    ethical judgments?

6.  Discuss the issues of Fairness and Equity in coastal hazards
    management

> 21.7 What are some guidelines for ethical coastal management?

**Scope:**

While the previous session lays out a broad ethical framework, this
session presents a more extended discussion of the full range of
societal and personal values that typically come into play in coastal
hazards management. Sometimes this rich mix of values entails serious
and extensive conflicts between values, at other times complementary
between values. As well as identifying and thoroughly discussing these
values, this session will present ideas for how competing and
conflicting values can be overcome, and how a range of values can be
integrated and acknowledged in coastal hazards management.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Readings for Sessions 20 and 21:**

*Instructor and Student Readings:*

Godschalk, David R., et al. 1999. *Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting
Disaster Policy and Planning.* Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp.
479-524: "Ethical Guidelines for Hazard Mitigation."

Beatley, Timothy, et al. 2002. *An Introduction to Coastal Zone
Management*, 2nd

Edition. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 63-89.

*Additional Instructor Readings:*

Beatley, Timothy. 1989. "Towards a Moral Philosophy of Natural Disaster
Mitigation." *International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters*
7(1): 5-32.

Beatley, Timothy. 1994. *Ethical Land Use: Principles for Policy and
Planning*. Johns Hopkins University Press.

**PowerPoint Slides:**

**PowerPoint 21.1 Competing Values in Coastal Hazards Management**

# PowerPoint 21.2 Public Goals for Coastal Hazards Management 

PowerPoint 21.3 Individual Values That May Conflict with Public Values
in Coastal Hazards Management

# PowerPoint 21.4 Public Choices About Risk

### PowerPoint 21.5 Individual Values of Risk

**PowerPoint 21.6 Risk Awareness**

**PowerPoint 21.7 Estimating Loss in Assessment of Risk**

**PowerPoint 21.8 Intangible Losses**

**PowerPoint 21.9 Who Bears Responsibility for Safety Along the Coast?**

**PowerPoint 21.10 Who Bears Responsibility for Safety Along the Coast?
(continued)**

**PowerPoint 21.11 Who is Included in Our Moral Community?**

**PowerPoint 21.12 Fairness and Equity in Coastal Hazards Management**

**General Requirements**

As with the previous sessions, the best pedagogic strategy is a
combination of lecture and discussion, with an abundant use of coastal
hazards examples to illustrate the ethical and value dilemmas. The
lecture is supported by PowerPoint slides. Students should understand
that there are few "correct" answers; rather, there is a rich set of
ethical factors and considerations that should be examined and
discussed. Students should feel comfortable expressing their own
personal viewpoints while attempting to understand the perspectives and
values of others in the class. Students should be called upon to address
some of the inherent (and difficult) conflicts that inevitably emerge in
making and implementing coastal hazards policy.

**Supplemental Considerations:**

This session does not include lecture or discussion on the "Takings
Clause" of the 5^th^ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, some
of the issues raised during Objective 21.2, which involves discussion of
the balancing between public good and private interest, could easily
include material on the limits of the government's power to regulate and
control private property. This topic is too complex to be raised here,
but it may be broached during discussion if the students are familiar
with the Constitutional ramifications of regulating private property.

Objective 21.1 List some of the competing values that come into play in
coastal hazards management

**Requirements**:

The content should be presented as a lecture, supported by PowerPoint
slide. Class discussion is to be encouraged.

The following PowerPoint slide will be used during this Objective:

**PowerPoint 21.1 Competing Values in Coastal Hazards Management**

**Remarks:**

-   As we learned in the previous session, there is a **full range of
    values** that are typically expressed and come into play in coastal
    hazards management.

-   We will explore a few of these today in our discussion of competing
    values in coastal hazards management:

> **\[PowerPoint 21.1 Competing Values in Coastal Hazards Management\]**

-   Public good v. private interest

-   Differing views of what constitutes acceptable risk

-   Who is responsible for safety along the coast?

-   Who is included in the "moral community?"

-   Issues of fairness and equity in coastal hazards management

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   These issues define the parameters of our discussion today on
    competing values in coastal hazards management. **Some values** are
    likely to **conflict with effective hazards management,** while
    **others** may **complement** efforts by coastal managers.

-   During the next few objectives we will also bring up **examples**
    that will illustrate clashing and conflicting values in the coastal
    hazards context. As we discuss these issues, you should be
    identifying tools, techniques and strategies for reconciling,
    acknowledging, and effectively integrating different values in
    coastal hazards management.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Objective 21.2 Discuss the ethical quandary that can arise when
coastal hazard managers are faced with balancing the values of Public
Good v. Private Interest.**

**Requirements:**

The content should be presented as a lecture, supported by PowerPoint
slides. Class discussion is to be encouraged.

The following PowerPoint slides will be used during this Objective:

# PowerPoint 21.2 Public Goals for Coastal Hazards Management 

PowerPoint 21.3 Individual Values That May Conflict with Public Values
in Coastal Hazards Management

**Remarks:**

-   Many of the most difficult ethical dilemmas that arise in coastal
    hazards management involve **conflicts** between values in support
    of a **larger public good** and **individual self-interest.**

-   **Examples of the larger public good** that are often the goal of
    coastal hazards management include:

# \[PowerPoint 21.2 Public Goals for Coastal Hazards Management\]

-   safety of the public at large

-   long-term sustainability

-   the presentation of public leaders

-   protection of public investment

-   economic stability/protection of the tax base

-   other important public goals

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   At times, these may conflict with values of **individual
    self-interest**.

-   **Examples of individual values** that may conflict with public
    values of coastal hazards management and mitigation include:

> **\[PowerPoint 21.3 Individual Values That May Conflict with Public
> Values in Coastal Hazards Management\]**

-   unfettered use of private property

-   limits on government interference

-   an aversion to "paternalistic" government action

-   the right to make economic use of private property

-   the right to protect and safeguard private property from coastal
    hazards

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A **policy dilemma** can arise when determining the appropriate
    **balance** between government **police power regulations** of
    coastal lands and the **sanctity of private property**.

-   Many states and local coastal communities have enacted **land use
    regulations** intended to reduce the risk to people and property
    from coastal hazards.

    -   *Examples* of such regulations include:

        -   Coastal setbacks (prohibiting construction seaward of
            certain lines)

        -   Restrictions on filling wetlands

        -   Prohibitions on post-storm reconstruction

        -   Prohibitions on shore-hardening erosion-control devices
            (e.g., groins, jetties, revetments)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   These regulations are meant to **prevent harm** to the public from
    coastal erosion, storm surge, flooding, inlet formation, etc. as
    well as to protect public goods, such as shoreline access,
    recreational beaches, etc.

-   Some landowners argue that these regulations **violate their private
    property rights** by curtailing their use of coastal property.

-   When regulation restricts use of private land, it may be deemed
    **unconstitutional**.

    -   On the other hand, can it be argued that property **owners have
        an ethical obligation** regarding their land?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Is there an **affirmative duty** to be a good **steward of the
    land?** Is there a duty owed to the larger community?

-   *For example*, **altering the natural environment** in coastal areas
    can have profound ramifications for hazards management. Many types
    of natural resources perform a mitigation function.

-   Activities that are commonly undertaken during **development** of
    private property that may **increase the vulnerability** of a
    neighboring parcels include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   covering land with large amounts of impervious surface

-   draining or filling wetlands

-   removing natural vegetation

-   interfering with natural sand migration

-   destroying dune systems

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *For discussion*:

    -   Consider state laws that prohibit shore-hardening erosion
        control:

    -   *For example*: **North Carolina** **prohibits permanent
        stabilization** of the ocean shoreline, because structures such
        as bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, revetments and groins interrupt
        natural sand migration patterns and can increase erosion at
        nearby properties. Sandbags are allowed only on a temporary
        basis to protect imminently threatened oceanfront structures.

        -   The NC Coastal Resources Commission, the policy-making body
            for North Carolina's coastal management program, states that
            **comprehensive shoreline management** is preferred over
            small-scale projects for oceanfront protection. Erosion
            management measures are more successful when coordinated
            over a large stretch of shoreline rather than at scattered,
            individual sites.

    -   On the other hand, **individual property owners** whose private
        homes and investment properties are threatened by coastal
        hazards may consider it their right to employ measures such as
        seawalls or other erosions control devices in **defense of their
        property**.

    -   How to reconcile and balance these often-**conflicting
        public-private values** is a significant and difficult task.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   While setting the legal arguments aside, **discuss and debate** the
    ethical, political and philosophical issues presented here.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Objective 21.3 What are some differing views of acceptable risk in
coastal hazards management?

**Requirements**:

The content should be presented as a lecture, supported by PowerPoint
slides. Class discussion is to be encouraged.

The following PowerPoint slides will be used during this Objective:

**PowerPoint 21.4 Public Choices About Risk**

**PowerPoint 21.5 Individual Values of Risk**

**PowerPoint 21.6 Risk Awareness**

**PowerPoint 21.7 Estimating Loss in Assessment of Risk**

**PowerPoint 21.8 Intangible Losses**

Remarks:

#### Levels of Risk

-   Another major category of **value conflict** involves **judgments**
    about what amounts to ***acceptable* or *unacceptable* levels of
    risk** at the coast.

-   This involves conflict between **individual and collective
    judgments** about acceptable risk.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Such judgments are faced at an individual level all the time, but
    this represents a significant ethical challenge at the public or
    collective level as well.

# [Acceptable Levels of Risk in the Public Arena]{.underline}

-   All coastal **hazard reduction** or mitigation strategies undertaken
    by the government represent **choices about acceptable risk**,
    whether explicit or implicit.

> **\[PowerPoint 21.4 Public Choices About Risk\]**

-   *For example*, the **policy decision** to adopt the 30-year erosion
    line versus the 60-year line as a standard for imposing development
    **setbacks along the coast**, or the decision to adopt no setback
    rule at all, is clearly a decision about **risk acceptability**.

-   *For example*, for flooding, national policy (under the NFIP) is to
    accept the **100-year flood** standard for regulation (i.e., a 1%
    probability per year); life and property need to be protected
    against any flood up to this size. The implication is that larger
    floods are too rare and costly to mitigate through land use means.
    (Burby, 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is clear that **the choice of the appropriate recurrence
    interval** that serves as the basis of hazard management crosses the
    line from the purely technical to issues of *policy* as it directly
    relates to the question of acceptable risk. (see Burby, 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This choice of what is an acceptable level of risk represents a
    **value judgment** that can be **difficult to deal with in the
    political arena**.

    -   As a general rule, **local officials** (particularly elected
        officials) are oriented towards **short-term issues and
        decisions**.

    -   The wider **ethical ramifications** of risk acceptance can be
        **difficult** to grapple with in this context.

### [Individual Values Regarding Risk]{.underline}

-   Individuals may have **differing values** regarding acceptable
    levels of risk.

-   **Individual values** that may conflict with coastal hazards
    management and mitigation include:

> **\[PowerPoint 21.5 Individual Values of Risk\]**

-   strong individualism, personal independence

-   personal freedom to choose a particular living environment (i.e.
    risky) and to pursue a particular coastal lifestyle

-   personal judgments and perception about risk that differ
    substantially from the judgments about risk made by public agencies

-   fears about paternalistic government risk reduction

-   preference for and belief in the market system as the correct
    determinant of acceptable risk (e.g. if developers can profitably
    build and sell homes in a high-risk coastal location then it must be
    okay, right?)

# [Issues of Risk Awareness]{.underline}

-   Making choices about acceptable risk, that is, what magnitude and
    likelihood of losses are deserving of public attention, raises a
    further complicating issue: the varying **levels of awareness** of
    individuals and the public about the hazard risks they face.

> **\[PowerPoint 21.6 Risk Awareness\]**

-   **Research** has shown that **people are typically unaware of all
    the risks** and choices they face. This lack of awareness often
    manifests itself in different ways.

    -   People tend to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Plan only for the immediate future

-   ignore or discount emergency warnings

-   overestimate their ability to cope when disaster strikes

-   fail to prepare for hazard events

-   rely heavily on emergency relief.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Hazard researchers now also recognize that **demographic
    differences** play a large role in determining the risks people
    encounter, whether and how they prepare for disasters, and how they
    fare when disasters occur.

-   The need for mitigation and response efforts that acknowledge the
    demographic differences among the nation's citizens will become even
    **more critical** as the US population becomes **more diverse**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *For example*, **non-minorities** and households with higher
    socioeconomic status **fare better**, while **low-income**
    households are at **greater risk** mainly because they live in
    lower-quality housing, and because disasters exacerbate poverty
    (Mileti, 1999).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Question*: **What are the moral implications** when individuals'
    perceptions of risk do not reflect reality? Is there **a duty to
    provide information** so that individuals can make an informed
    choice about the level of risk that is acceptable to them? Where
    does this duty lie?

# [What Does "Risk" Involve?]{.underline}

-   When we debate the issue of what constitutes an acceptable or
    unacceptable level of risk, we need to know what "risk" is.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Government management of hazard risk has been **criticized** for its
    **narrow focus** on ***risk reduction***.

    -   Risk reduction is typically defined as exclusively concerned
        with **mitigating property and income loss**.

-   **Environmental and social concerns** of people living in and near
    hazardous areas have often been **left out** of the formula for
    calculating risk.

-   The narrow focus on **property loss reduction benefits property
    *owners*** at the possible **expense of *other* community
    interests** who might benefit from dollars spent on other community
    needs rather than loss reduction. (Burby, 1998)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This narrow focus is articulated in the method of risk assessment
    used by most state and local governments when engaging in hazard
    mitigation planning and policy formulation.

-   **Loss estimation** is a large part of these risk assessments.

> **\[PowerPoint 21.7 Estimating Loss in Assessment of Risk\]**

-   *Loss* is often represented as the **monetary damage** to structures
    and contents, interruption of services, and displacement of
    residents and businesses. (FEMA, 2001).

-   The use of money as a measure of loss is the essence of
    comprehensive risk assessment under many models.

> **\[PowerPoint 21.8 Intangible Losses\]**

-   It is important to note that there may be **other intangible
    losses** from a disaster that occur in a community that are
    difficult to quantify, such as:

    -   **historic value**

    -   **cultural integrity**

    -   **environmental quality**

    -   **community character**

    -   **sense of place**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Discuss* the **ethical ramification**s of a **monetary definition
    of loss** to the exclusion of other considerations in the
    determination of acceptable levels of coastal hazards risk.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## Objective 21.4 Discuss the issue of responsibility for safety along the coast

**Requirements**:

The content should be presented as a lecture, supported by PowerPoint
slide. Class discussion is to be encouraged.

The following PowerPoint slide will be used during this Objective:

**PowerPoint 21.9 Who Bears Responsibility for Safety Along the Coast?**

**PowerPoint 21.10 Who Bears Responsibility for Safety Along the Coast?
(continued)**

Remarks:

#### Who Bears Responsibility for Safety Along the Coast?

-   Many different actors, professionals, and groups have a hand in
    making decisions about coastal hazards.

-   While we often assume that primary responsibility for ensuring
    public safety along our coasts resides with government, and
    specifically state and local governments, there are different
    perspectives on this.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A different view is that safety is a **shared responsibility**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Business owners, homeowners and visitors** at the coast can be
    said to have a certain responsibility for their own safety:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   a responsibility to **monitor weather** and to be prepared to
    **evacuate** when necessary

-   a responsibility to perform **structural mitigation** on their home
    (e.g.,install hurricane shutters)

-   a responsibility to be prepared for known hazards (e.g., prepare a
    "**disaster care kit**" for the family)

-   a responsibility to **purchase flood insurance**

-   a responsibility to be **fully apprised of the riskiness** of a
    building site or home location before they purchase it.

-   Other responsibilities?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Other actors and interests** may also share in the responsibility
    for safety at the coast:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **banks** and lending institutions have responsibility to be
    cautious in loaning money to risky projects

-   **real estate professionals** have a responsibility to fully inform
    prospective buyers about possible risks

-   **landlords and building owners** are responsible for the safety of
    tenants and building occupants

-   **builders and developers** have a responsibility to adhere to
    minimum building codes and construction standards

-   landscapers, architects, engineers, planning consultants and **other
    professionals** have a responsibility to apply the building process
    and community development process in a manner that does not
    exacerbate the coastal hazard risk

> **\[PowerPoint 21.9 Who Bears Responsibility for Safety Along the
> Coast?\]**
>
> **\[PowerPoint 21.10 Who Bears Responsibility for Safety Along the
> Coast? (continued)\]**

-   *For Discussion*: Expand on the ways that these different parties
    should (or should not) be responsible for safety at the coast. To
    what degree should parties be culpable for lapses in safety? Where
    do the risks and liabilities lie?

    -   Some possible answers:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Housing consumers*: should we rely on homebuyers to educate
    themselves about hazard risks?

-   *Real estate professionals*: is there a duty to inform potential
    property buyers about known hazards in jurisdictions where there are
    no disclosure laws? Or is it "buyer beware"?

-   *Residents of coastal communities*: is there a civic duty to learn
    about coastal hazards and be proactive in reducing the risks?

-   *City council/mayor/zoning or planning departments*: is the local
    government liable for promoting or allowing development to take
    place in hazard areas?

-   *Lawmakers*: are state and local lawmakers responsible for enacting
    building codes and safety standards for coastal areas?

-   *Local inspectors and building officials*: is there a duty to
    enforce the building code to the letter? To refuse rebuilding
    permits following a disaster?

-   *Building owners and landlords*: are they responsible for
    constructing and/or retrofitting buildings to prevent injuries to
    employees, tenants, customers? Are the costs passed on, or absorbed
    by the owner?

-   *Insurance companies*: do they have a responsibility to provide
    incentives for safety features and good design? To provide insurance
    to homeowners at *all* levels of risk exposure equally? Or to
    *refuse* coverage for risky behavior (i.e., building in high-hazard
    areas)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Objective 21.5 Consider The Moral Community: What or Who Do We Take Into
Account in Ethical Judgments?

**Requirements**:

The content should be presented as a lecture, supported by PowerPoint
slide. Class discussion is to be encouraged.

The following PowerPoint slide will be used during this Objective:

### PowerPoint 21.11 Who is Included in Our Moral Community?

**Remarks:**

-   One of the most important categories of ethical questions has to do
    with **whom or what ought to be considered** in making ethical
    judgments about coastal hazards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Philosophers often describe this as the **defining of the *moral
    community***---the group of people, places, things whose interests
    ought to be taken into account in judgments and policymaking.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   So much **contemporary policymaking** is based on a relatively
    **narrow conception of the moral community**---viewed usually as
    people (humans) currently living, with a clear, obvious and direct
    interest in a decision or outcome.

    -   *For example*, in deliberating about whether it is permissible
        to develop in a **coastal wetland or floodplain**, a narrow
        notion of the moral community might consider just **effects on
        landowners and the current residents** of the locality in which
        these ecological lands are located.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   **Ethics** is often, however, about **expanding the definition
        of the moral community**,

        -   *For example*, taking into account the **other species of
            life** dependent upon the wetlands and coastal riparian
            areas.

    -   Ought we to consider the interests and perspectives of **future
        generations**, or at least likely future residents of this
        place? Are there coastal resources of **extra-local or even
        national or international significance**?

-   *For discussion*: In thinking about coastal hazards policy,
    **who/what is part of our moral community?** Are the following to be
    included?

> **\[PowerPoint 21.11 Who is Included in Our Moral Community?\]**

-   residents who will be living in the locality in 100 years?

-   developers and property owners only?

-   seasonal visitors and part time residents?

-   sea turtles and sand crabs?

-   coastal wetlands and dunes?

-   residents and public residing in the larger watershed/bioregion?

-   others???

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Those who argue on behalf of the notion of sustainability and
    **sustainable coastal communities** (see Beatley, Brower and Schwab,
    2002), often do so at least in part through an **expanded sense of
    the moral community**---that people and other life that follow in
    time are entitled to certain things from us.

### [The Failure to Act Regionally]{.underline}

-   Consider the problem that stems from the fact that **hazards** and
    the geophysical systems that engender them **do not respect
    political boundaries**.

    -   *For example*, when only a portion of a **watershed** is
        managed, serious consequences can result, such as when the
        hazard mitigation efforts of one jurisdiction lead to increased,
        not decreased, **losses for neighboring communities.** (Burby,
        1998)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This can happen when one community builds a groin or jetty that
    captures sand to stall beach erosion, to the detriment of
    neighboring communities who are deprived of sand that is normally
    carried by down-shore drift.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Objective 21. 6 Discuss the issue of fairness and equity in coastal
hazards management**

**Requirements**:

The content should be presented as a lecture, supported by PowerPoint
slide. Class discussion is to be encouraged.

The following PowerPoint slide will be used during this Objective:

# PowerPoint 21.12 Fairness and Equity in Coastal Hazards Management

Remarks:

-   Another major category of **value conflict** involves **how fair and
    equitable coastal hazards policy** is, as well as the fairness and
    equity of policy **implementation**.

> **\[PowerPoint 21.12 Fairness and Equity in Coastal Hazards
> Management\]**

# [Equal Treatment]{.underline}

-   Ethical theory (and the law) suggests that **similarly-situated**
    individuals ought to be **treated similarly**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *For instance*, should **damaged buildings** be **treated all the
    same** following a disaster? (e.g., following a hurricane,
    substantially damaged buildings do not receive a permit to rebuild.
    All buildings damaged less than 50% may rebuild. *Is this fair,
    equitable?*

-   Although **consistent implementation** is one important value, there
    are also strong pressures to **relax standards** following a
    disaster. There is a natural desire to help people who have been
    devastated by a disaster and to do everything possible to allow them
    to restore their lives to a state of normalcy. *Is this ethical,
    moral?*

-   Should families that **never participated** in mitigation activities
    or purchased flood insurance be entitled to the benefits of a public
    acquisition of their property? Is seems unfair, does it not, that
    these folks **reap the same reward** for doing nothing as those
    conscientious homeowners who heeded the call and strengthened their
    homes and purchased flood insurance well in advance of the event.

-   But perhaps some **unfairness is a necessary evil** in exchange for
    **achieving some greater mitigation good**. Although it may seem
    unfair to extend buyout benefits to those who have taken no action
    to protect themselves, the reality is that without the buyout
    program, these people will rebuild in the floodplain, later costing
    the federal government much more. (Godschalk, et al, 1999).

# [Procedural Ethics]{.underline}

-   Procedural ethics requires that the **process of coastal hazards
    management be fair**. This means that the **needs, interests, and
    opinions** of affected individuals and groups are **taken into
    account.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Public involvement** and public input are critical in decisions
    regarding large-scale mitigation projects.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Government agencies must also take care that the **unique
    characteristics** of individual communities are not discounted in
    efforts to bring mitigation programs to localities impacted by a
    natural disaster.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *For example*, the **Town of Princeville**, incorporated in 1885 by
    former slaves, illustrates the pride that many North Carolinians
    take in their communities. The high floodwaters brought by Hurricane
    Floyd in 1999 caused severe damage to a majority of the houses in
    Princeville. Despite the extent of the damage, homeowners in the
    town **chose not to participate in the buyout** offer made by the
    State to fund the acquisition of the damaged homes, which would have
    enabled the citizens to move to higher ground. Instead, the
    residents of Princeville, believing that their **sense of place**
    could not be replicated elsewhere, decided to strengthen the levee
    against the banks of the Tar River, and to keep the Town intact for
    future generations. The case of Princeville demonstrates the need
    for sensitivity that State agencies must sometimes use when
    implementing government programs.

# [Equitable Distribution of Mitigation Costs]{.underline}

-   A related issue of **fairness** has to do with **how the costs of
    mitigation or management programs are distributed** and apportioned.

    -   **A benefits standard**, one commonly endorsed in discussions of
        fairness in public finance, suggests that **those who directly
        and primarily benefit** from a hazard reduction program (e.g.
        oceanfront property owners benefiting from extensive and
        expensive beach renourishment) ought to **bear the lions share
        of the costs.**

        -   Here perhaps the most **controversial** contemporary issue
            is the extent to which **federal taxpayers** ought to **bear
            (any) of the costs** associated with **hazardous coastal
            development** (e.g. NFIP, disaster assistance funding) and
            efforts to **make coastal property safer** (and thus private
            investments more valuable).

# 

# Objective 21.7 What are some Guidelines for Ethical Coastal Management? *(Optional)*

Requirements:

If time permits, the instructor should lead a discussion regarding some
of the

guidelines for ethical hazard mitigation that are listed in the
*Reading* for this Session:

> Godschalk, David R., et al. 1999. *Natural Hazard Mitigation:
> Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning.* Washington, D.C.: Island
> Press, pp. 516-523: "Guidelines for Ethical Mitigation."

The material presented in this Objective may be copied and distributed
to students for use during the discussions.

# Remarks:

# [Guidelines for Ethical Mitigation]{.underline}

1.  Acknowledge and openly discuss the ethical choices involved in
    mitigation.

2.  Identify and take into account the full array of moral duties and
    claims; consider the full range of moral issues.

3.  Directly involve affected individuals and groups in mitigation
    decisions; promote an open and democratic process.

4.  Give public needs priority over individual wants.

5.  Be honest and direct with the public about risks; expect honesty and
    courage from elected officials in confronting the prospects of
    disaster.

6.  Encourage individuals and groups to assume personal responsibility
    for safety and hazard reduction; acknowledge the special duty of
    government to ensure public safety.

7.  Apply mitigation rules, regulations and standards fairly and
    consistently.

8.  Treat similarly situated individuals similarly.

9.  Obey and enforce the law.

10. Demand professional accountability; ensure that the safety of the
    public is placed above the profit motive and the selling of
    services.

11. Give protection of human life priority over protection of property.

12. Preserve and restore the natural environment.

13. Protect and preserve historic buildings and resources.

14. Develop mitigation alternatives that satisfy multiple values.

15. Minimize the negative side effects of mitigation programs on
    individuals and communities.

16. Avoid mitigation that places disproportionate burdens on the least
    advantaged in society; strive to improve the conditions of the lease
    advantaged.

17. Ensure equal access to mitigation benefits

18. Consider the interests of future generations in making mitigation
    decisions. Take a long-term view.

19. Consider the negative effects of mitigation actions (or of failure
    to take them) on neighboring communities; minimize these effects.

20. Provide mitigation benefits and disaster assistance based on need,
    not citizenship.

21. Respect the personal freedom and life choices of individuals.

22. Respect private property; restrict its use where necessary to
    prevent disasters or where other important values are jeopardized.

23. Encourage landowners and property owners to acknowledge their
    ethical duties to minimize the creation of hazards and to protect
    important public values; promote a hazards-based land ethic.

24. Hold those individuals or entities that create or cause a hazard (or
    disaster) culpable for it; those who cause or contribute to a
    disaster should bear responsibility for it.

25. Require those who benefit from risky behavior to assume (a portion
    of) the costs of mitigation.

26. Work to modify expectations about public disaster assistance.

27. Clarify the ethical assumptions of analytic tools used in mitigation
    decisions.

28. Convey the inherent uncertainties of science where they exist.

**Course Developer References**

See *Student and Instructor Readings*; *Additional Readings*, above

Mileti, Dennis S. 1999. *Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States.* Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Burby, Raymond J., Ed. 1998. *Cooperating With Nature: Confronting
Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities.*
Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

FEMA. August 2001. *Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and
Estimating Losses*. Washington, D.C.: FEMA 386-2.