Advertisement

Journal of Transportation Security

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 143–159 | Cite as

A risk and cost-benefit assessment of United States aviation security measures

  • Mark G. StewartEmail author
  • John Mueller
Article

Abstract

This paper seeks to discover whether aviation security measures are cost-effective by considering their effectiveness, their cost and expected lives saved as a result of such expenditure. An assessment of the Federal Air Marshal Service suggests that the annual cost is $180 million per life saved. This is greatly in excess of the regulatory safety goal (societal willingness to pay to save a life) of $1–$10 million per life saved. As such, the air marshal program fails a cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the opportunity cost of these expenditures is considerable, and it is highly likely that far more lives would have been saved if the money had been invested instead in a wide range of more cost-effective risk mitigation programs. On the other hand, hardening of cockpit doors has an annual cost of only $800,00 per life saved, showing that this is a cost-effective security measure.

Keywords

Terrorism Security Risk Cost-benefit analysis Aviation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Part of this work was undertaken while the first author was a visiting scholar at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University. He greatly appreciates the assistance and financial support of the Mershon Center. The first author also appreciates the financial support of the Australian Research Council.

References

  1. Ahrens M (2007) U.S. experience with smoke alarms and other fire detection/alarm equipment. National Fire Protection Association, April 2007Google Scholar
  2. Anderson T (2006) Terror may be at bay at port; shipping hubs too vulnerable. The Daily News of Los Angeles, 18 May 2006Google Scholar
  3. CRC (2007) Homeland security department: FY2008 appropriations. CRC Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, August 20, 2007Google Scholar
  4. FAA (2002) FAA sets new standards for cockpit doors. Federal aviation administration office of public affairs press release, January 11, 2002Google Scholar
  5. FAA (2003) Airlines meet FAA’s hardened cockpit door deadline. Federal aviation administration office of public affairs press release, April 2003Google Scholar
  6. Gerges FA (2005) The far enemy: why Jihad went global.. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Hudson A (2004) Air marshals cover only a few flights. Washington Times, August 16, 2004Google Scholar
  8. Hudson A (2005) Flight marshal numbers disputed, agents criticize data ‘padding’. Washington Times, March 3, 2005Google Scholar
  9. John R, Rosoff H (2007) Estimating likelihood of terrorist attacks by modeling terrorist beliefs and motivations, first annual DHS university network summit on research and education, Department of Homeland Security, Washington D.C., March 15–16, 2007Google Scholar
  10. Kaye K (2007) More pilots bring guns on flights. South Florida Sun-Sentinel, February 13, 2007Google Scholar
  11. Kearney S (2005) Air marshal’s role now VIP security. The Australian, 9 December 2005Google Scholar
  12. Kramer M (2004) The perils of counterinsurgency: Russia's war in Chechnya. Int Secur 29(3):5–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Little RG (2007) The economic costs and consequences of terrorism. In: (ed) Cost-effective strategies to address urban terrorism: a risk management approach. Edward Elgar, UK, pp 98–115Google Scholar
  14. Lott JR (2004) Marshals are good, but armed pilots are better. Wall Street Journal Europe, January 2, 2004Google Scholar
  15. Maley P (2008) Overhaul cuts sky marshals by a third. The Australian, January 23, 2008Google Scholar
  16. Mandel DR (2005) Are risk assessments of a terrorist attack coherent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 11(4):277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meckler L, Carey S (2007) Sky patrol: U.S. air marshal service navigates turbulent times. Wall Street J, February 9, 2007Google Scholar
  18. Meeks BN (2004) For air marshals, less equals more. MSNBC, September 15, 2004Google Scholar
  19. Melchers RE (2001) On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mueller J (2002) Harbinger or aberration? Natl Interest, 45–50, FallGoogle Scholar
  21. Mueller J (2006) Overblow: how politicians and the terrorism industry inflate national security threats, and why we believe them. Free, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy P, Hudson P (2003) Heroes foil Qantas hijack attack. The Age, May 30, 2003Google Scholar
  23. Paté-Cornell ME (1994) Quantitative safety goals for risk management of industrial facilities. Struct Saf 13:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paté-Cornell ME, Guikema S (2002) Probabilistic modeling of terrorist threats: a systems analysis approach to setting priorities among counter-measures. Mil Oper Res 7(4):5–23Google Scholar
  25. Plum MM et al (2004) Novel threat-risk index using probabilistic risk assessment and human reliability analysis, Report No. INEEL/EXT-03-0111, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, February 2004Google Scholar
  26. Poe T (2005) Department of homeland security appropriations Act, 2006: Amendment No. 10. House of Representatives, May 17, 2005Google Scholar
  27. Prentice BE (2008) Tangible and intangible benefits of transportation security measures. Journal of Transport Security 1(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reid SR (2000) Acceptable risk criteria. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sandler T, Enders W (2005) The economic impact of terrorist attacks. In: (ed) Transnational terrorism: an economic analysis. Elgar, UK, pp 11–34Google Scholar
  30. Schneier B (2006) Beyond fear: thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. Copernicus, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Seitz R (2004) Weaker than we think: Al-Qaeda may have already fired its best shot. American Conservative, December 6, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith P (2007) The airport security follies. nytimes.com 28 December 2007Google Scholar
  34. Stewart MG (2007) Life safety risks and optimisation of protective measures for terrorist threats to built infrastructure. International forum on engineering decision making: optimal strategies for disaster and hazard mitigation. Sydney University Press, pp 19–30Google Scholar
  35. Stewart MG (2008) Cost-effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for protection of buildings against terrorist attack. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers 22(2):115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stewart MG, Melchers RE (1997) Probabilistic risk assessment of engineering systems. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Stewart MG, Mueller J (2008a) Assessing the costs and benefits of United States homeland security spending, Research Report No. 265.04.08, Centre for infrastructure performance and reliability, The University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, April 2008Google Scholar
  38. Stewart MG and Mueller J (2008b) A Cost-Benefit and Risk Assessment of Australian Aviation Security Measures, Security Challenges, (in press)Google Scholar
  39. Tengs TO, Graham JD (1996) In: (ed) The opportunity costs of haphazard social investments in life-saving. Risks, costs, and lives saved: getting better results from regulation.. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, pp 167–182Google Scholar
  40. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS et al (1995) Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 15(3):369–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Viscusi WK (2000) The value of life in legal contexts: survey and critique. Am Law Econ Rev 2(1):195–222Google Scholar
  42. Zycher B (2003) A preliminary benefit/cost framework for counterterrorism public expenditures. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Infrastructure Performance and ReliabilityThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  2. 2.Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Department of Political ScienceOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations