8.3 Setting Priorities
If the costs associated with mitigating man-made hazards is too high, there are three approaches: (1) reduce the design threat, (2) increase the building setback, or (3) accept the risk. In some cases, the owner may decide to prioritize enhancements, based on their effectiveness in saving lives and reducing injuries. For instance, measures against progressive collapse are perhaps the most effective actions that can be implemented to save lives and should be considered above any other upgrades. Laminated glass is perhaps the single most effective measure to reduce extensive non-fatal injuries. If the cost is still considered too great, and the risk is high because of the location or the high-profile nature of the building, then the best option may be to consider building an unobtrusive facility in a lower-risk area instead. In some cases, for instance for financial institutions with trading floors, business interruption costs are so high they outweigh all other concerns. In such a case, the most cost-effective solution may be to provide a redundant facility.
Early consideration of man-made hazards will significantly reduce the overall cost of protection and increase the inherent protection level provided to the building. If protection measures are considered as an afterthought or not considered until the design is nearly complete, the cost is likely to be greater, because more areas will need to be structurally hardened due to poor planning. An awareness of the threat of manmade hazards from the beginning of a project also helps the team to decide early what the priorities are for the facility. For instance, if extensive teak paneling of interior areas visible from the exterior is desired by the architect for the architectural expression of the building, but the cost exceeds that of protective measures, than a decision needs to be made regarding the priorities of the project. Including protective measures as part of the discussion regarding trade-offs early in the design process often helps to clarify such issues.
Ultimately, the willingness to pay the additional cost for protection against man-made hazards is a function of the “probability of regrets” in the event a sizable incident occurs. In some situations, the small probability of an incident may not be compelling enough to institute these design enhancements. Using this type of logic, it is easy to see why it is unlikely that they will be instituted in any but the highest-risk buildings unless there is a mandated building code or insurance that requires these types of enhancements. This scenario is likely to lead to a selection process in which buildings stratify into two groups: those that incorporate no measures at all or only the most minimal provisions and those that incorporate high levels of protection. It also leads to the conclusion that it may not be appropriate to consider any but the most minimal measures for most buildings.