Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
1
Introduction
W
hen a strong earthquake hits an urban area, structures collapse,
people are injured or killed, infrastructure is disrupted, and
business interruption begins. The immediate impacts caused
by an earthquake can be devastating to a community, challenging it to
launch rescue efforts, restore essential services, and initiate the process
of recovery. The ability of a community to recover from such a disaster
reflects its resilience, and it is the many factors that contribute to earth -
quake resilience that are the focus of this report. Specifically, we provide
a roadmap for building community resilience within the context of the
Strategic Plan of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP), a program first authorized by Congress in 1977 to coordinate
the efforts of four federal agencies—National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
National Science Foundation (NSF), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
The three most recent earthquake disasters in the United States all
occurred in California—in 1994 near Los Angeles at Northridge, in 1989
near San Francisco centered on Loma Prieta, and in 1971 near Los Angeles
at San Fernando. In each earthquake, large buildings and major highways
were heavily damaged or collapsed and the economic activity in the
afflicted area was severely disrupted. Remarkably, despite the severity of
damage, deaths numbered fewer than a hundred for each event. More-
over, in a matter of days or weeks, these communities had restored many
essential services or worked around major problems, completed rescue
efforts, and economic activity—although impaired—had begun to recover.
It could be argued that these communities were, in fact, quite resilient. But
9
OCR for page 10
10 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
it should be emphasized that each of these earthquakes was only moder-
ate to strong in size, less than magnitude-7, and that the impacted areas
were limited in size. How well would these communities cope with a
magnitude-8 earthquake? What lessons can be drawn from the resilience
demonstrated for a moderate earthquake in preparing for a great one?
Perhaps experience in dealing with hurricane disasters would be
instructive in this regard. In a typical year, a few destructive hurricanes
make landfall in the United States. Most of them cause moderate struc-
tural damage, some flooding, limited disruption of services—usually
loss of power—and within a few days, activity returns to near normal.
However, when Hurricane Katrina struck the New Orleans region in 2005
and caused massive flooding and long-term evacuation of much of the
population, the response capabilities were stretched beyond their limits.
Few observers would argue that New Orleans, at least in the short term,
was a resilient community in the face of that event.
Would an earthquake on the scale of the 1906 event in northern
California or the 1857 event in southern California lead to a similar
catastrophe? It is likely that an earthquake on the scale of these events in
California would indeed lead to a catastrophe similar to hurricane Katrina,
but of a significantly different nature. Flooding, of course, would not be
the main hazard, but substantial casualties, collapse of structures, fires,
and economic disruption could be of great consequence. Similarly, what
would happen if there were to be a repeat of the New Madrid earthquakes
of 1811-1812, in view of the vulnerability of the many bridges and chemical
facilities in the region and the substantial barge traffic on the Mississippi
River? Or, consider the impact if an earthquake like the 1886 Charleston
tremor struck in other areas in the central or eastern United States, where
earthquake-prone, unreinforced masonry structures abound and earth -
quake preparedness is not a prime concern? The resilience of communities
and regions, and the steps—or roadmap—that could be taken to ensure
that areas at risk become earthquake resilient, are the subject of this report.
EARTHQUAKE RISK AND HAZARD
Earthquakes proceed as cascades, in which the primary effects of
faulting and ground shaking induce secondary effects such as landslides,
liquefaction, and tsunami, which in turn set off destructive processes
within the built environment such as fires and dam failures (NRC, 2003).
The socioeconomic effects of large earthquakes can reverberate for decades.
The seismic hazard for a specified site is a probabilistic forecast of how
intense the earthquake effects will be at that site. In contrast, seismic risk is a
probabilistic forecast of the damage to society that will be caused by earth-
quakes, usually measured in terms of casualties and economic losses in a
OCR for page 11
11
INTRODUCTION
specified area integrated over the post-earthquake period. Risk depends
on the hazard, but it is compounded by a community’s exposure—its popu-
lation and the extent and density of its built environment—as well as the
fragility of its built environment, population, and socioeconomic systems
to seismic hazards. Exposure and fragility contribute to vulnerability. Risk
is lowered by resiliency, the measure of how efficiently and how quickly a
community can recover from earthquake damage.
Risk analysis seeks to quantify the risk equation in a framework that
allows the impact of political policies and economic investments to be
evaluated, to inform the decision-making processes that contribute to risk
reduction. Risk quantification is a difficult problem, because it requires
detailed knowledge of the natural and the built environments, as well as
an understanding of both earthquake and human behaviors. Moreover,
national risk is a dynamic concept because of the exponential rise in
the urban exposure to seismic hazards (EERI, 2003b)—calculating risk
involves predictions of highly uncertain demographic trends.
Estimating Losses from Earthquakes
The synoptic earthquake risk studies needed for policy formulation
are the responsibility of NEHRP. These studies can take the form of deter-
ministic or scenario studies where the effects of a single earthquake are
modeled, or probabilistic studies that weight the effects from a number of
different earthquake scenarios by the annual likelihood of their occurrence.
The consequences are measured in terms of dollars of damage, fatalities,
injuries, tons of debris generated, ecological damage, etc. The exposure
period may be defined as the design lifetime of a building or some other
period of interest (e.g., 50 years). Typically, seismic risk estimates are pre -
sented in terms of an exceedance probability (EP) curve (Kunreuther et
al., 2004), which shows the probability that specific parameters will equal
or exceed specified values (Figure 1.1). On this figure, a loss estimate cal -
culated for a specific scenario earthquake is represented by a horizontal
slice through the EP curve, while estimates of annualized losses from
earthquakes are portrayed by the area under the EP curve.
The 2008 Great California ShakeOut exercise in southern California is
an example of a scenario study that describes what would happen dur-
ing and after a magnitude-7.8 earthquake on the southernmost 300 km of
the San Andreas Fault (Figure 1.2), a plausible event on the fault that is
most likely to produce a major earthquake. Analysis of the 2008 ShakeOut
scenario, which involved more than 5,000 emergency responders and the
participation of more than 5.5 million citizens, indicated that the scenario
earthquake would have resulted in an estimated 1,800 fatalities, $113 bil -
lion in damages to buildings and lifelines, and nearly $70 billion in busi -
OCR for page 12
12 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
FIGURE 1.1 Sample mean EP curve, showing that for a specified event the prob-
Figure 1.1.eps
ability of insured losses exceeding Li is given by pi. SOURCE: Kunreuther et al.
(2004). bitmap
ness interruption (Jones et al., 2008; Rose et al., in press). The broad areal
extent and long duration of water service outages was the main contribu -
tor to business interruption losses. Moreover, the scenario is essentially a
compound event like Hurricane Katrina, with the projected urban fires
caused by gas main breaks and other types of induced accidents projected
to cause $40 billion of the property damage and more than $22 billion of
the business interruption. Devastating fires occurred in the wake of the
1906 San Francisco, 1923 Tokyo, and 1995 Kobe earthquakes.
Loss estimates have been published for a range of earthquake sce-
narios based on historic events—e.g., the 1906 San Francisco earthquake
(Kircher et al., 2006); the 1811/1812 New Madrid earthquakes (Elnashai et
al., 2009); and the magnitude-9 Cascadia subduction earthquake of 1700
(CREW, 2005)—or inferred from geologic data that show the magnitudes
and locations of prehistoric fault ruptures (e.g., the Puente Hills blind
thrust that runs beneath central Los Angeles; Field et al., 2005). In all cases,
the results from such estimates are staggering, with economic losses that
run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
FEMA’s latest estimate of Annualized Earthquake Loss (AEL) for the
nation (FEMA, 2008) is an example of a probabilistic study—an estimate
of national earthquake risk that used HAZUS-MH software (Box 1.1)
together with input from Census 2000 data and the 2002 USGS National
Seismic Hazard Map. The current AEL estimate of $5.3 billion (2005$)
OCR for page 13
13
INTRODUCTION
USGS ShakeMap : ShakeOut M7.8 Scenario V2
NOV 13 2008 10:00:00 AM M 7.8 N33.35 W115.71 Depth: 7.6km ID:ShakeOut2_full
36˚
34˚
km
Tijuana
0 50 100 Reacomodo
32˚
-120˚ -118˚ -116˚ -114˚
Map Version 2 Processed Fri Mar 28, 2008 08:05:57 AM MDT -- NOT REVIEWED BY HUMAN
PERCEIVED
Not felt Weak Light Moderate Strong Very strong Severe Violent Extreme
SHAKING
POTENTIAL none none none Very light Light Moderate Moderate/Heavy Heavy Very Heavy
DAMAGE
124
PEAK ACC.(%g)
8.1-16 16-31 31-60 60-116 >116
<0.1 0.1-1.1 1.1-3.4 3.4-8.1
PEAK VEL.(cm/s)
INSTRUMENTAL
I II-III IV V VI VII VIII IX X+
INTENSITY
FIGURE 1.2 A “ShakeMap” representing the shaking produced by the scenario
Figure 1.2.eps
earthquake on which the Great California ShakeOut was based. The colors rep -
resent the Modified Mercalli Intensity, with warmer colors representing areas of
greater damage. SOURCE: USGS. Available at earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/
shakemap/sc/shake/ShakeOut2_full_se/.
reflects building-related direct economic losses including damage to
buildings and their contents, commercial inventories, as well as dam-
aged building-related income losses (e.g., wage losses, relocation costs,
rental income losses, etc.), but does not include indirect economic losses
or losses to lifeline systems. For comparison, the Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (EERI) (2003b) extrapolated the FEMA (2001) estimate
of AEL ($4.4 billion) for residential and commercial building-related direct
economic losses by a factor of 2.5 to include indirect economic losses, the
social costs of death and injury, as well as direct and indirect losses to the
OCR for page 14
14 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
BOX 1.1
HAZUS®—Risk Metrics for NEHRP
The ability to monitor and compare seismic risk across states and
regions is critical to the management of NEHRP. At the state and local
level, an understanding of seismic risk is important for planning and for
evaluating costs and benefits associated with building codes, as well as a
variety of other prevention measures. HAZUS is Geographic Information
System (GIS) software for earthquake loss estimation that was developed
by FEMA in cooperation with the National Institute of Building Sciences
(NIBS). HAZUS-MH (Hazards U.S.-Multi-Hazard) was released in 2003
to include wind and flood hazards in addition to the earthquake hazards
that were the subject of the 1997 and 1999 HAZUS releases. Succes-
sive HAZUS maintenance releases (MR) have been made available by
FEMA since the initial HAZUS-MH MR-1 release; the latest version,
HAZUS-MH MR-5, was released in December 2010.
Annualized Earthquake Loss (AEL) is the estimated long-term average
of earthquake losses in any given year for a specific location. Studies by
FEMA based on the 1990 and 2000 censuses provide two “snapshots”
of seismic risk in the United States (FEMA, 2001, 2008). These studies,
together with an earlier analysis of the 1970 census by Petak and Atkisson
(1982), show that the estimated national AEL increased from $781 mil-
lion (1970$) to $4.7 billion (2000$)—or by about 40 percent—over
four decades (Figure 1.3). All three studies used building-related direct
economic losses and included structural and nonstructural replacement
costs, contents damage, business inventory losses, and direct business
interruption losses.
industrial, manufacturing, transportation, and utility sectors to arrive at
an annual average financial loss in excess of $10 billion.
Although the need to address earthquake risk is now accepted in
many communities, the ability to identify and act on specific hazard and
risk issues can be improved by reducing the uncertainties in the risk
equation. Large ranges in loss estimates generally stem from two types
of uncertainty—the natural variability assigned to earthquake processes
(aleatory uncertainty), as well as a lack of knowledge of the true hazards
and risks involved (epistemic uncertainty). Uncertainties are associated
with the methodologies, the assumptions, and databases used to estimate
the ground motions and building inventories, the modeling of building
responses, and the correlation of expected economic and social losses to
the estimated physical damages.
OCR for page 15
15
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.3.eps
FIGURE 1.3 Growth of seismic risk in the United States. Annualized Earth-
bitmap
quake Loss (AEL) estimates are shown for the census year on which the es-
timate is based, in census year dollars. Estimate for 1970 census from Petak
and Atkinson (1982); HAZUS-99 estimate for 1990 census from FEMA
(2001); and HAZUS-MH estimate for 2000 census from FEMA (2008).
Consumer Price Index (CPI) dollar adjustments based on CPI inflation
calculator (see data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl).
Comparison of published risk estimates reveals the sensitivity of such
estimates to varying inputs, such as soil types and ground motion attenu-
ation models, or building stock inventories and damage calculations. The
basic earth science and geotechnical research and data that the NEHRP
agencies provide to communities help to reduce these types of epistemic
uncertainty, whereas an understanding of the intrinsic aleatory uncer-
tainty is achieved through scientific research into the processes that cause
earthquakes. Accurate loss estimation models increase public confidence
in making seismic risk management decisions. Until the uncertainties
surrounding the EP curve in Figure 1.1 are reduced, there will be either
unnecessary or insufficient emergency response planning and mitigation
because the experts in these areas will be unable to inform decision-makers
of the probabilities and potential outcomes with an appropriate degree of
OCR for page 16
16 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
confidence (NRC, 2006a). Information about new and rehabilitated build-
ings and infrastructure, coupled with improved seismic hazard maps, can
allow policy-makers to track incremental reductions in risk and improve-
ments in safety through earthquake mitigation programs (NRC, 2006b).
NEHRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS—THE PAST 30 YEARS
In its 30 years of existence, NEHRP has provided a focused, coordi -
nated effort toward developing a knowledge base for addressing the earth-
quake threat. The following summary of specific accomplishments from
the earth sciences and engineering fields are based on the 2008 NEHRP
Strategic Plan (NIST, 2008):
• Improved understanding of earthquake processes. Basic research
and earthquake monitoring have significantly advanced the understand-
ing of the geologic processes that cause earthquakes, the characteristics of
earthquake faults, the nature of seismicity, and the propagation of seismic
waves. This understanding has been incorporated into seismic hazard
assessments, earthquake potential assessments, building codes and design
criteria, rapid assessments of earthquake impacts, and scenarios for risk
mitigation and response planning.
• Improved earthquake hazard assessment. Improvements in the
National Seismic Hazard Maps have been developed through a scien -
tifically defensible and repeatable process that involves peer input and
review at regional and national levels by expert and user communities.
Once based on six broad zones, they now are based on a grid of seismic
hazard assessments at some 150,000 sites throughout the country. The
new maps, first developed in 1996, are periodically updated and form the
basis for the Design Ground Motion Maps used in the NEHRP Recom -
mended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures, the foundation for the seismic elements of model building
codes.
• Improved earthquake risk assessment. Development of earth-
quake hazard- and risk-assessment techniques for use throughout the
United States has improved awareness of earthquake impacts on com-
munities. NEHRP funds have supported the development and continued
refinement of HAZUS-MH. The successful NEHRP-supported integration
of earthquake risk-assessment and loss-estimation methodologies with
earthquake hazard assessments and notifications has provided significant
benefits for both emergency response and community planning. Moreover,
major advances in risk assessment and hazard loss estimation beyond what
could be included in a software package for general users were developed
by the three NSF-supported earthquake engineering centers.
OCR for page 17
17
INTRODUCTION
• Improved earthquake safety in design and construction. Earth-
quake safety in new buildings has been greatly improved through the
adoption, in whole or in part, of earthquake-resistant national model
building codes by state and local governments in all 50 states. Devel-
opment of advanced earthquake engineering technologies for use in
design and construction has greatly improved the cost-effectiveness of
earthquake-resistant design and construction while giving options with
predicted decision consequences. These techniques include new methods
for reducing the seismic risk associated with nonstructural components,
base isolation methods for dissipating seismic energy in buildings, and
performance-based design approaches.
• Improved earthquake safety for existing buildings. NEHRP-led
research, development of engineering guidelines, and implementation
activities associated with existing buildings have led to the first generation
of consensus-based national standards for evaluating and rehabilitating
existing buildings. This work provided the basis for two American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards documents: ASCE 31 (Seismic Evalu -
ation of Existing Buildings) and ASCE 41 (Seismic Rehabilitation of Exist -
ing Buildings).
• Development of partnerships for public awareness and earth-
quake mitigation. NEHRP has developed and sustained partnerships
with state and local governments, professional groups, and multi-state
earthquake consortia to improve public awareness of the earthquake
threat and support the development of sound earthquake mitigation
policies.
• Improved development and dissemination of earthquake infor-
mation. There is now a greatly increased body of earthquake-related infor-
mation available to public- and private-sector officials and the general
public. This comes through effective documentation, earthquake response
exercises, learning-from-earthquake activities, publications on earth-
quake safety, training, education, and information on general earthquake
phenomena and means to reduce their impact. Millions of earthquake
preparedness handbooks have been delivered to at-risk populations, and
many of these handbooks have been translated from English into lan -
guages most easily understood by large sectors of the population. NEHRP
now maintains a website1 that provides information on the program and
communicates regularly with the earthquake professional community
through the monthly electronic newsletter, Seismic Waves.
• Improved notification of earthquakes. The USGS National Earth-
quake Information Center and regional networks, all elements of the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), now provide earthquake
1 See www.nehrp.gov.
OCR for page 18
18 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
alerts describing a magnitude and location within a few minutes after an
earthquake. The USGS PAGER system2 provides estimates of the number
of people and the names of cities exposed to shaking, with correspond -
ing levels of impact shown by the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale and
estimates of the number of fatalities and economic loss, following sig -
nificant earthquakes worldwide (Figure 1.4). When coupled with graphic
ShakeMaps3 showing the distribution and severity of ground shaking
(e.g., Chapter 3, Figure 3.2), this information is essential for effective emer-
gency response, infrastructure management, and recovery planning.
• Expanded training and education of earthquake professionals.
Thousands of graduates of U.S. colleges and universities have benefited
from their involvement and experiences with NEHRP-supported research
projects and training activities. Those graduates now form the nucleus of
America’s earthquake professional community.
• Development of advanced data collection and research facili-
ties. NEHRP took the lead in developing ANSS and the George E. Brown,
Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). Through
these initiatives, NEES now forms a national infrastructure for testing
geotechnical, structural, and nonstructural systems, and once completed,
ANSS will provide a comprehensive, nationwide system for monitoring
seismicity and collecting data on earthquake shaking on the ground and in
structures. NEHRP also has participated in the development of the Global
Seismographic Network to provide data on seismic events worldwide.
As well as this list of important accomplishments cited in the 2008
NEHRP Strategic Plan, the following range of NEHRP accomplishments
in the social science arena were described in NRC (2006a):
• Development of a comparative research framework. Largely
supported by NEHRP, over the past three decades social scientists increas-
ingly have placed the study of earthquakes within a comparative frame-
work that includes other natural, technological, and willful events. This
evolving framework calls for the integration of hazards and disaster
research within the social sciences and among social science, natural sci-
ence, and engineering disciplines.
• Documentation of community and regional vulnerability to
earthquakes and other natural hazards. Under NEHRP sponsorship,
social science knowledge has expanded greatly in terms of data on com -
munity and regional exposure and vulnerability to earthquakes and other
natural hazards, such that the foundation has been established for devel-
2 See earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/.
3 See earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/.
OCR for page 19
19
INTRODUCTION
FIGURE 1.4 Sample PAGER output for the strong and damaging February 2011
earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. SOURCE: USGS. Available at earth -
quake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/events/us/b0001igm/index.html.
OCR for page 20
20 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
oping more precise loss estimation models and related decision support
tools (e.g., HAZUS). The vulnerabilities are increasingly documented
through state-of-the-art geospatial and temporal methods (e.g., GIS,
remote sensing, and visual overlays of hazardous areas with demographic
information), and the resulting data are equally relevant to pre-, trans-,
and post-disaster social science investigations.
• Household and business-sector adoption of self-protective mea-
sures. A solid knowledge base has been developed under NEHRP at the
household level on vulnerability assessment, risk communication, warn -
ing response (e.g., evacuation), and the adoption of other forms of protec -
tive action (e.g., emergency food and water supplies, fire extinguishers,
procedures and tools to cut off utilities, hazard insurance). Adoption of
these and other self-protective measures has been modeled systematically,
highlighting the importance of disaster experience and perceptions of per-
sonal risk (i.e., beliefs about household vulnerability to and consequences
of specific events) and, to a lesser extent, demographic variables (e.g.,
income, education, home ownership) and social influences (e.g., com-
munications patterns and observations of what other people are doing).
Although research on adoption of self-protective measures of businesses
is much more limited, recent experience of disaster-related business or
lifeline interruptions has been shown to be correlated with greater pre -
paredness activities, at least in the short run. Such preparedness activi-
ties are more likely to occur in larger as opposed to smaller commercial
enterprises.
• Public-sector adoption of disaster mitigation measures. Most
NEHRP-sponsored social science research has focused on the politics of
hazard mitigation as they relate to intergovernmental issues in land-use
regulations. The highly politicized nature of these regulations has been
well documented, particularly when multiple layers of government are
involved. Governmental conflicts regarding responsibility for the land-use
practices of households and businesses are compounded by the involve -
ment of other stakeholders (e.g., bankers, developers, industry associa -
tions, professional associations, other community activists, and emergency
management practitioners). The results are complex social networks of
power relationships that constrain the adoption of hazard mitigation poli -
cies and practices at local and regional levels.
• Hazard insurance issues. NEHRP-sponsored social research has
documented many difficulties in developing and maintaining an actuari -
ally sound insurance program for earthquakes and floods—those who are
most likely to purchase earthquake and flood insurance are, in fact, those
who are most likely to file claims. This problem makes it virtually impos-
sible to sustain an insurance market in the private sector for these hazards.
Economists and psychologists have documented in laboratory studies
OCR for page 21
21
INTRODUCTION
a number of logical deficiencies in the way people process information
related to risks as it relates to insurance decision-making. Market failure
in earthquake and flood insurance remains an important social science
research and public policy issue.
• Public-sector adoption of disaster emergency and recovery pre-
paredness measures. NEHRP-sponsored social science studies of emer-
gency preparedness have addressed the extent of local support for disaster
preparedness, management strategies for improving the effectiveness of
community preparedness, the increasing use of computer and communica-
tions technologies in disaster planning and training, the structure of com-
munity preparedness networks, and the effects of disaster preparedness
on both pre-determined (e.g., improved warning response and evacuation
behavior) and improvised (e.g., effective ad hoc uses of personnel and
resources) responses during actual events. Thus far there has been little
social science research on the disaster recovery aspect of preparedness.
• Social impacts of disasters. A solid body of social science research
supported by NEHRP has documented the destructive impacts of disas -
ters on residential dwellings and the processes people go through in
housing recovery (emergency shelter, temporary sheltering, temporary
housing, and permanent housing), as well as analogous impacts on busi -
nesses. Documented specifically are the problems faced by low-income
households, which tend to be headed disproportionately by females and
racial or ethnic minorities. Notably, there has been little social science
research under NEHRP on the impacts of disasters on other aspects of the
built environment. There is a substantial research literature on the psy-
chological, social, and economic and (to a lesser extent) political impacts
of disaster, which suggests that these impacts, while not random within
impacted populations, are generally modest and transitory.
• Post-disaster responses by the public and private sectors. Research
before and since the establishment of NEHRP in 1977 has contradicted
misconceptions that during disasters, panic will be widespread, that large
percentages of those who are expected to respond will simply abandon
disaster relief roles, that local institutions will break down, that crime and
other forms of anti-social behavior will be rampant, and that the mental
impairment of victims and first responders will be a major problem. Exist-
ing and ongoing research is documenting and modeling the mix of expected
and improvised responses by emergency management personnel, the pub-
lic and private organizations of which they are members, and the multi-
organizational networks within which these individual and organizational
responses are nested. As a result of this research, a range of decision support
tools is now being developed for emergency management practitioners.
• Post-disaster reconstruction and recovery by the public and
private sectors. Prior to NEHRP relatively little was known about disas-
OCR for page 22
22 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
ter recovery processes and outcomes at different levels of analysis (e.g.,
households, neighborhoods, firms, communities, and regions). NEHRP-
funded projects have helped to refine general conceptions of disaster
recovery, made important contributions in understanding the recovery of
households and communities (primarily) and businesses (more recently),
and contributed to the development of statistically based community and
regional models of post-disaster losses and recovery processes.
• Research on resilience has been a major theme of the NSF-
supported earthquake research centers. The Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) sponsored research provid-
ing operational definitions of resilience, measuring its cost and effective -
ness, and designing policies to implement it at the level of the individual
household, business, government, and nongovernment institution. The
Mid-American Earthquake Center (MAE) sponsored research on the pro-
motion of earthquake-resilient regions.
ROADMAP CONTEXT—
THE EERI REPORT AND NEHRP STRATEGIC PLAN
The 2008 NEHRP Strategic Plan calls for an accelerated effort to develop
community resilience. The plan defines a vision of “a nation that is earth-
quake resilient in public safety, economic strength, and national security,”
and articulates the NEHRP mission “to develop, disseminate, and promote
knowledge, tools, and practices for earthquake risk reduction—through
coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency partnerships among NEHRP
agencies and their stakeholders—that improve the Nation’s earthquake
resilience in public safety, economic, strength, and national security.” The
plan identifies three goals with fourteen objectives (listed below), plus nine
strategic priorities (presented in Appendix A).
Goal A: Improve understanding of earthquake processes and impacts.
Objective 1: Advance understanding of earthquake phenomena and
generation processes.
Objective 2: Advance understanding of earthquake effects on the built
environment.
Objective 3: Advance understanding of the social, behavioral, and
economic factors linked to implementing risk reduction and mitigation
strategies in the public and private sectors.
Objective 4: Improve post-earthquake information acquisition and
management.
OCR for page 23
23
INTRODUCTION
Goal B: Develop cost-effective measures to reduce earthquake impacts on
individuals, the built environment, and society-at-large.
Objective 5: Assess earthquake hazards for research and practical
application.
Objective 6: Develop advanced loss estimation and risk assessment
tools.
Objective 7: Develop tools that improve the seismic performance of
buildings and other structures.
Objective 8: Develop tools that improve the seismic performance of
critical infrastructure.
Goal C: Improve the earthquake resilience of communities nationwide.
Objective 9: Improve the accuracy, timeliness, and content of earth-
quake information products.
Objective 10: Develop comprehensive earthquake risk scenarios and
risk assessments.
Objective 11: Support development of seismic standards and building
codes and advocate their adoption and enforcement.
Objective 12: Promote the implementation of earthquake-resilient
measures in professional practice and in private and public policies.
Objective 13: Increase public awareness of earthquake hazards and
risks.
Objective 14: Develop the nation’s human resource base in earth-
quake safety fields.
Although the Strategic Plan does not specify the activities that would
be required to reach its goals, in the initial briefing to the committee NIST,
the NEHRP lead agency, described the 2003 report by the EERI, Securing
Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses, as at least a starting point.
The EERI report lists specific activities—and estimates costs—for a range
of research programs (presented in Appendix B) that are in broad accord
with the goals laid out in the 2008 NEHRP Strategic Plan. The committee
was asked to review, update, and validate the programs and cost estimates
laid out in the EERI report.
COMMITTEE CHARGE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
The National Institute of Standards and Technology—the lead NEHRP
agency—commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to undertake
a study to assess the activities, and their costs, that would be required for
the nation to achieve earthquake resilience in 20 years (Box 1.2). The charge
OCR for page 24
24 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE
BOX 1.2
Statement of Task
A National Research Council committee will develop a roadmap for
earthquake hazard and risk reduction in the United States. The committee
will frame the road map around the goals and objectives for achieving
national earthquake resilience in public safety and economic security stated
in the current strategic plan of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduc-
tion Program (NEHRP) submitted to Congress in 2008. This roadmap will
be based on an analysis of what will be required to realize the strategic
plan’s major technical goals for earthquake resilience within 20 years. In
particular, the committee will:
• Host a national workshop focused on assessing the basic and pplied
a
research, seismic monitoring, knowledge transfer, implementation, educa-
tion, and outreach activities needed to achieve national earthquake resil-
ience over a twenty-year period.
• Estimate program costs, on an annual basis, that will be required to
implement the roadmap.
• Describe the future sustained activities, such as earthquake monitor-
ing (both for research and for warning), education, and public outreach,
which should continue following the 20-year period.
to the committee recognized that there would be a requirement for some
sustained activities under the NEHRP program after this 20-year period.
To address the charge, the NRC assembled a committee of 12 experts
with disciplinary expertise spanning earthquake and structural engineer-
ing; seismology, engineering geology, and earth system science; disaster
and emergency management; and the social and economic components
of resilience and disaster recovery. Committee biographic information is
presented in Appendix C.
The committee held four meetings between May and December, 2009,
convening twice in Washington, DC; and also in Irvine, CA; and Chicago,
IL (see Appendix D). The major focal point for community input to the
committee was a 2-day open workshop held in August 2009, where con -
current breakout sessions interspersed with plenary addresses enabled the
committee to gain a thorough understanding of community perspectives
regarding program needs and priorities. Additional briefings by NEHRP
agency representatives were presented during open sessions at the initial
and final committee meetings.
OCR for page 25
25
INTRODUCTION
Report Structure
Building on the 2008 NEHRP Strategic Plan and the EERI report, this
report analyses the critical issues affecting resilience, identifies challenges
and opportunities in achieving that goal, and recommends specific actions
that would comprise a roadmap to community resilience. Because the con-
cept of “resilience” is a fundamental tenet of the roadmap for realizing the
major technical goals of the NEHRP Strategic Plan, Chapter 2 presents an
analysis of the concept of resilience, a description of the characteristics of
a resilient community, resilience metrics, and a description of the benefits
to the nation of a resilience-based approach to hazard mitigation. Chapter
3 contains descriptions of the 18 broad, integrated tasks comprising the
elements of a roadmap to achieve national earthquake resilience focusing
on the specific outcomes that could be achieved in a 20-year timeframe,
and the elements realizable within 5 years. These tasks are described in
terms of the proposed activity and actions, existing knowledge and current
capabilities, enabling requirements, and implementation issues. Costs to
implement these 18 tasks are presented in Chapter 4, in as much detail as
possible within the constraint that some components have been the sub-
ject of specific, detailed costing exercises whereas others are necessarily
broad-brush estimates at this stage. The final chapter briefly summarizes
the major elements of the roadmap.
OCR for page 26
