Publications

@article{Boakye2022,

title = {Which consequences matter in risk analysis and disaster assessment?},

author = {Jessica Boakye and Colleen Murphy and Paolo Gardoni and Ramesh Kumar},

doi = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102740},

issn = {2212-4209},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-12-20},

urldate = {2021-12-20},

journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction},

volume = {71},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {Extreme events (like earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires) can create significant physical damage to structures and infrastructure, downtime and business interruptions, economic losses, and casualties. The assessment of the consequences of past extreme events and the prediction of the consequences of future extreme events has typically focused on these types of consequences. However, the consequences of extreme events typically exceed these more immediately evident consequences. The societal consequences are complex and multi-faceted, affecting financial, economic, and physical aspects of individual well-being such as psychological trauma, missed work and school opportunities. Yet due to restrictions on time and resources, not every possible consequence of an extreme event can be included in risk analysis or impact analysis. To assess the societal impact of extreme events, it is critical to first determine which consequences should be considered (measured for disasters and predicted for hazards.) This paper develops a comprehensive list of which consequences need to be considered. We provide a theoretical justification for the list by adopting a capability approach for extreme event consequences. The list of consequences is meant to go beyond the traditional metrics of infrastructure damage and downtime. We show how the developed list incorporates the diverse insights of recent work expanding the consequences of extreme events. The proposed list is general and can be used within different assessment approaches.},

keywords = {capability approach, disaster assessment, risk, risk analysis},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Doorn2018,

title = {A multidisciplinary definition and evaluation of resilience: the role of social justice in defining resilience},

author = {Neelke Doorn and Paolo Gardoni and Colleen Murphy},

url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=4887867, SSRN},

doi = {10.1080/23789689.2018.1428162},

issn = {2378-9697},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-07-03},

urldate = {2019-07-03},

journal = {Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure},

volume = {4},

number = {3},

pages = {112--123},

publisher = {Informa UK Limited},

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.},

keywords = {capability approach, critical infrastructures, disasters, engineering, natural hazards, philosophy, risk, social justice, well-being},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Gardoni2013,

title = {A Scale of Risk},

author = {Paolo Gardoni and Colleen Murphy},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2371068, SSRN},

doi = {10.1111/risa.12150},

issn = {1539-6924},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-12-20},

journal = {Risk Analysis},

volume = {34},

number = {7},

pages = {1208--1227},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {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.},

keywords = {risk, risk comparison, risk evaluation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}