maker has to take into account also the risk of fatalities and injuries as well as potential
damages to the environment.
Rational risk acceptance criteria in the context of societal decision making may be derived on
the basis of socio-economical considerations. It is a fact that individuals of society engage in
activities which are dangerous, for the purpose of economical gain or personal diversion and
realization. Whereas from a societal point of view, it is clear that individuals should be
protected from exploitation of third parties, it is not clear to what extent voluntary risks
should be regulated at all to the extend that they don’t involve third persons. As an example it
is hardly possible to regulate the behaviour of individuals who like to spend time in nature. It
is a question of basic human rights whether society will allow such individuals to engage in
potentially dangerous activities and under which conditions. How such issues are
administered in different nations or regions depends on the political situation. In some cases
society requires that individuals take an education ensuring that they are able to protect them
selves through adequate behaviour, this is e.g. the case for mountaineering, hunting and
diving. In some cases additional requirements such as insurance is also mandatory with the
purpose of safeguarding the individuals themselves as well as third party persons which might
be exposed to their activities. In the present context, i.e. normative decision making, the
perspective is taken that societal decision making in regard to life safety investments relates
only to involuntary risks in the public domain, for what concerns activities related to the
functions of society.
It is assumed that risk reduction is always associated with reallocation of societal economical
resources. In the context of societal infrastructure with a life time typically in the order of
decades or centuries it is expedient that such economical resources are allocated with the
highest possible efficiency and with due consideration of intergenerational acceptability.
At the level of societal decision making an efficient life saving activity may be understood as
a measure which in the most cost effective manner reduces the mortality or equivalently
increases the statistical life expectancy.
The Life Quality Index
Fundamentally the only asset which is available to an individual of society is time. Time can
be spent for activities of self realization but can also be exchanged into goods, the exchange
rate of which depends on the value assigned to time. In principle the valuation of time is
subjective because it depends on the condition under which individuals live. In general, the
better living conditions, the more time is valued, it is preferred to spend the time for private
purposes. A model of life quality should thus include a consideration of the time which is
available for private purposes as well as the capability to enjoy this time. The real issue here
is time in good health.
The incremental increase in life expectancy through risk reduction, the corresponding loss of
economical resources, measured through the Gross National Product (GNP) together with the
time used for work, all assessed for a statistical life in a given society, form the most
important building stones for the assessment of the efficiency of risk reduction measures.
Based on these demographical indicators the Life Quality Index (LQI) facilitates the