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 100
Working Paper B
User Needs
IDENTIFICATION OF THE USER CO~IUNITY
Early in the panel's deliberations it became clear that one of the
most important considerations in exarn~ning the different methods
of estimating earthquake losses would be the users' needs. This
required defining who the users were so that their particular needs
could be reflected in the panel's assessment of different loss estimation
methods.
Many different groups and sectors potentially could have been
included as users. A subpanel developed several sampling strate-
gies, as well as research designs for a comprehensive study of user
groups. For example, the panel could have considered the needs of
such diverse elements as federal, state, and local adrn~nistrators and
officials, insurance companies, bonding companies, social scientists,
the engineering and scientific communities, public information insti-
tutes, and other groups. Indeed, the different user groups in each of
these sectors pose very complicated sampling and design problems.
After considerable discussion with FEMA and USGS representatives,
the user group was defined to include only state, county, and local
public officials.
Several factors led to this simple definition of users:
~ The scale of a study that would include all potential groups
would be large.
100
OCR for page 101
101
o The time frame of the pane} was relatively short, prohibiting
a large-scare study.
Funding for such a large-scale study was not possible within
the panel's budgetary constraints.
~ The funding agency's major clientele were public sector enti-
ties invested with protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
Given this user group the panel's goal was to determine needs
and to evaluate different methods in terms of meeting the users'
requirements. It was believed that the better such studies met the
requirements and needs of the user community the more likely the
studies would be utilized in planning for, responding to, mitigating
the effects of, and recovering from a major damaging earthquake.
Even with this limited definition of the user community, the selection
of state and local officials for inclusion in the study presented some
significant problems that limit the extent to which the subpanel's
recommendations may be generalized and that warrant discussion.
Options for obtaining the views of users included a questionnaire
survey based on a scientific national sample, a similar survey with
a smaller sample, in-depth discussions with some very experienced
users, and a workshop. The workshop option was selected primarily
on the basis of time and budget. The results of opinions solicited in
the workshop, presented later in this paper, should not be construed
to be statistically valid as a representation of state and local users.
The Method for Selecting Users
The first step was to obtain a list of users that could be used
in constructing an appropriate sample. After extensive consultation
with USGS, FEMA, and the COSMOS Corporation, consultant to
the panel, a user was defined to be an appointed or elected public
official who could be involved in developing data for use in loss esti-
mation studies or in making decisions, based on those studies, which
resulted in a lowered risk to the community. This definition, although
limited, included officials in such functional positions as mayors, city
managers, planners, directors of public works departments, building
code officios, county commissioners and managers, and emergency
service personnel at the local and state level. The geographic scope
of the list was limited to approximately a dozen higher seismic risk
areas of the United States (Table B-1~.
The panel could not develop what it considered an adequate list.
OCR for page 102
102
TABLE B-1 Participants in the Workshop, by Area and Level of Government
Level of Government
Area City County/Regional State
California 3 emergency 1 regional earthquake 1 state earthquake
services program manager program manager
officials
2 building code
officers
1 city manager
1 planner
Central 1 county commissioner 1 state emergency
United States services official
Northeast 3 emergency 1 state emergency
services services official
officals
. Puget Sound, 1 city council
Washington member
1 emergency
services
official
Utah 1 mayor 1 county residential 2 state emergency
supervisor services officials
Alaska 1 planner 1 state emergency
services official
Hawaii 1 state emergency
services official
South Carolina 1 state emergency
services official
Puerto Rico 1 state emergency
services official
Total 14 3 9
Eventually the list of local government users included some plan-
ners, building code officials, and a few council members, mayors, and
managers (Table B-1~. The state list of users was overrepresented by
emergency service managers. Finally, the list was overly representa-
tive of California users, which is not surprising given the fact that
over a dozen loss studies have been conducted there.
The workshop invitees were selected from lists of potential users
supplied by federal agencies, and very few actual users are present
in this pool at this time; there was a limited representation of the
functional positions at the state and local levels, and geographic affi~-
iations were not nationally representative. All of these factors make
it necessary to address briefly the limitations of the data collected.
OCR for page 103
103
Data Sources and [mutations
The pane! has relied on the results of the survey, the small group
discussions, and the presentations by technical and user community
members to suggest the users' needs. This information has been uti-
lized to broaden the perspective of the panel in its deliberations. The
workshop provided the key instruments for gathering data, and a few
factors require discussion. The pane! fully recognizes the Irritations
of these data sources and the fact that generalizing solely on the
basis of the workshop cannot be done with much certainty.
The major goal of the workshop held September 22, 1986 was not
to train or even educate the participants in loss estunation studies.
Rather, participants were invited to educate members of the pane]
about the requirements and needs of the community which would or
potentially could utilize loss studies once they were completed. The
workshop was designed to provide several different approaches and
methods by which panel members could determine user needs.
The survey instrument administered to participants was designed
to gain insight into participants' needs and familiarity with loss stud-
ies. The instrument was administered twice during the workshop, but
not to deterrn~ne the effectiveness of the workshop. The pane! was
far more interested in the responses to the first questionnaire prior
to participant exposure to the speakers, because of the focus on
determining what state and local users (or potential users) of loss
studies believed they needed to utilize such studies. Hence, the find-
ings below focus almost entirely on the users' responses to the first
questionnaire.
Finally, small group discussions addressed four questions, three
of which were common to all groups. The questions reflected issues
briefly covered in the questionnaire but requiring additional atten-
tion.
These data sources are utilized in this working paper and are
suggestive and informative. The pane! makes no claim that the
findings can be generalized to the larger user community.
If INDINGS
The discussion in this section is based on findings about user
needs from the three data sources discussed earlier.
OCR for page 104
104
Usefulness of Prior [ose Studies
A major concern of the panel and the federal agencies focused
on the widespread belief that previous loss studies were not being
adequately utilized by the user community. Many of the pane} mem-
bers who had been involved in some of these loss studies indicated
their disappointment over the lack of use. As a result, workshop
participants were asked about their exposure to such studies and the
usefulness to their agencies and units of government.
Twelve of the 26 workshop participants indicated either that they
had never seen the results of a loss study or that the study in which
they had participated was not yet completed. The remaining 14
participants were asked how useful the results of the studies were for
a variety of activities: mitigation efforts, planning and preparedness
efforts, response and recovery planning, land-use planning, building
code design, and efforts to educate the public and elected officials.
Participants did not indicate that the results were very useful for
any one activity, but a majority of participants found these studies
useful (either very or somewhat useful) for the spectrum of activities.
The most important use of these studies, according to small group
discussions and questionnaire results, was their use in educating
elected officials and the public about the seriousness of seismic threat
and the need to take action.
There was clear agreement that such studies have been and
should be used to advocate the unportance of seisrn~c programs
in order to obtain greater emphasis on actions that reduce the ef-
fects of an earthquake. Additional uses that received strong support
among participants were public awareness and education programs
and emergency response planning.
General Barriers to Utilization
Participants were asked why they believed loss studies were not
utilized in developing public policy. Most important, and a general
theme in the utilization issue, was the lack of involvement by state
and local officials and policymakers in the entire study process. Par-
ticipants indicated that too often the "experts" conducting the loss
studies proceeded without regard to whether the users would under-
stand what the results addressed or meant. In addition, some users
indicated that the conflicts and disagreements among professional
and technical experts had seriously undermined any efforts to utilize
such studies. Workshop participants also stated that some reports
OCR for page 105
105
were completed in an untimely fashion and, when delivered, were
written too technically.
All of these factors seem to contribute to the final barrier to
using these studies the lack of support among elected officials for
taking action and making policy. If the above-identified barriers were
removed it would not ensure greater support from policymakers,
but it would help. If these loss studies are to be used, in part
by advocates of seismic planning and policy, then officials must be
involved in the loss estunation study process and the reports must
be understandable, less technically presented, and timely.
Defining the Seimn;c Hazard: The Earthquake Scenario
An issue that has emerged in many loss studies emphasizes how
helpful it Is to policymakers and planners to have a loss study based
on the most damaging historical earthquake. Participants in the
workshop strongly indicated their desire to have studies focus on
major but likely earthquakes. In addition, participants (about two-
thirds) believed it was either very or somewhat important to have
different estimates of loss for different seasons of the year. Finally,
all of the participants believed it important that losses be estimated
for earthquakes occurring at different times of the day. In short,
if the users' needs are to be met, loss studies should include these
features: most likely earthquake to cause significant damage, seasonal
estimates of loss, and estimates for the event occurring at different
times of the day.
Geographic Focus of Study
Users at the state, region, county, and local level have differ-
ent needs and requirements. In addition, recent research indicates
that the key actors' functional positions influence their support for
seismic planning and policy (Mushkatel and Nigg, 1987~. Nowhere
are these different needs more manifest than in the data addressing
the geographic focus of the studies. The small group discussions
strongly indicated that the level of government one is employed by
influences the desired geographic focus. Hence state participants
wanted the loss studies to be for either states or regions, whereas
local government officials desired a local focus.
Local government participants used several examples of studies
that were of such large geographic focus that they were of little value
OCR for page 106
106
to localities, particularly when the loss estimates and data could not
be disaggregated to the local level. In addition, for individuals in
some functional positions the most valuable ciata and Toss estimates
would be site specific, which may be impossible or at a minimum
very costly.
Workshop participants also discussed some elements of the inven-
tory data used in loss studies. There was agreement that a multitude
of data from both public and private sources should be utilized in
such studies. Yet there was also the belief that too frequently the
data utilized were not maintained or accessible to the users and that
in new studies firms or governmental entities had to recollect or re-
discover much of the same data. Thus the users urged those doing
Toss studies to take steps to standardize the process for collection,
maintenance, and dissemination of inventory data.
Types of Formation m [ose Studies
Loss studies have produced much information about projected
losses for different types of structures serving various purposes. Par-
ticipants at the workshop were asked to rank the importance of loss
estimates to 19 different structures and facilities along a four-point
ordinal scale from very important to not at all ~rnportant. Over 90
percent of the participants indicated that estimates regarding emer-
gency public facilities (96 percent) and hospitals (92 percent) were
very important. Almost as vital were loss estimates for water dis-
tribution systems (88 percent), electric power systems (80 percent),
hazardous materials storage sites (80 percent), and highway systems
(76 percent). The least important information concerning losses ac-
cording to workshop participants were port facilities (14 percent)
and government buildings (32 percent).
These rankings are relative, and tests of statistical significance
are inappropriate given the data base and sample. They suggest,
however, that the participants seemed to focus on the response and
preparedness components of the disaster and the ability of authorities
to estimate losses to facilities critical for emergency response. This
focus may be a function of the makeup of the participants (functional
position) or of the fact that most loss estimate utilization has been
identified somewhat with emergency response and preparedness.
Specificity, Accuracy, and Credibility of [ose Estimates
An issue discussed at length by the pane! is the importance of
OCR for page 107
107
accuracy In loss estimates and the trade-offs between accuracy (cer-
tainty) and specificity. To the user community an important point
is the credibility of the estimates. A consistent theme was that the
earthquake scenario and the estimates of losses had to be generated
from a recognized and credible source and, most important, be plau-
sible. Small group discussions indicated that some estimates were
based on extreme events with such high loss estimates that they had
not been taken seriously. In some instances, public actors viewing the
expected losses were so overwhelmed they felt local and state action
would not be feasible or would not make any difference because the
problems were intractable in light of the estimates.
Given the amount of error loss studies potentially contain, steps
must be taken to ensure the greatest amount of credibility to loss
studies. The greater involvement of state and local authorities
throughout the loss estimate study process will increase the like-
lihood such estimates are taken seriously.
Ideally, these Toss estimates could be both certain (estimation
of total Tosses) and specific or detailed (Iosses to specific locations
or sites). When participants were asked to select between specificity
and certainty, a majority chose specificity (60 percent) as the more
important to them for utilizing the information. This is especially
important for hazard reduction programs. This desire for specificity
is not surprising but may cause some difficulty because of the state of
the art in loss estunates. Even more disturbing was the fact that of
those state and local users at the workshop who had some familiarity
with loss estimates, only 17 percent were very confident of the loss
predictions. Obviously this lack of confidence contributes negatively
to the credibility issue discussed above. One frequently mentioned
problem was that the ranges of predicted losses in life and property
were too great to be very useful for planning purposes.
Finally, participants were asked on the survey to indicate how
reliable different loss estimates must be for utilization. The results
are difficult to interpret since state and local users might be willing
to forego some information reliability if the type of structure or
its purpose is sufficiently important. Keeping this potential trade-
o~ in mind, participants indicated that it was most important to
have very reliable information for dams (48 percent), electric power
systems (44 percent), natural gas and water distribution systems (40
percent), and highway systems (36 percent). Participants indicated it
was least important to have very reliable information about airports
OCR for page 108
108
(4 percent), radio and television facilities (8 percent), government
buildings (12 percent), and residential structures (16 percent).
Obviously state and local officials want as much specific and cred-
ible information as possible. Yet these requirements, as reasonable
as they seem, involve real costs. It is in this light that the infor-
mation collected on users' ~nIlingness to spend takes on additional
· · -
slgnmcance.
Cost, Willingness, and Ability to Spend
The issue of the willingness and ability to spend scarce fiscal
resources on loss studies by the state and local user community has
several important dimensions. First, the proposed sharing of costs
between FEMA and state and local governments for other programs
may in the near future include the monies used to finance loss studies.
lIence, the pane! determined it would be appropriate to investigate
not only the needs of users, but also their willingness and ability
to spend monies to obtain loss estimates. Furthermore, it is often
thought that if a government spends some of its own resources for a
study it is more likely to use the results.
One of the questions included in the survey requested workshop
participants to indicate what amount their office or agency would
be willing to spend for an earthquake loss study. The most frequent
response category selected was less than $75,000. Because of the way
the question was worded it is impossible to deterrn~ne how many of
the 71 percent who indicated they would spend $75,000 or less would
spend nothing for such a study. Almost 20 percent of the participants
did not answer the question at all, and only 10 percent indicated they
would spend $225,000 or more.
In short, state and local users perceive a lack of willingness
or ability for their agencies and offices to expend monies for such
studies. In addition, more than 80 percent of the state and local
users indicated that their current budgets did not contain adequate
funds for such a study. Questions about future budgets were not
asked.
Finally, despite this apparent inability or unwillingness to fund
loss studies, users expressed support for sharing costs. When asked
what percentage their governmental units should be responsible for,
59 percent of the participants indicated between 41 and 50 percent,
16 percent signified less than 10 percent, and 11 percent noted more
than 50 percent.
OCR for page 109
109
Workshop ciata reveal support among state and local users for
cost sharing, but they also show that current budgets are not suf-
ficient to assume these costs. The last constraint on willingness to
spend involves the total cost of the studies. Workshop participants
(71 percent) indicated they would only spend less than $75,000 for
a loss study. Hence, there seems to be a strong desire to hold down
costs because current budgets are inadequate to finance the studies.
The [ose Study Report and its Dilation
One explanation for the lack of willingness and/or ability to
spend is the users' lack of satisfaction with such studies. The survey
data cannot test this explanation, but a consistent viewpoint that
emerged at the workshop was that current loss studies are understood
only with great difficulty by the user community. A major problem
is the results are not presented in a way that makes clear their
implications for seismic planning and policy development.
Users at the workshop also criticized the presentation of the re-
sults, most often citing them as being too technical. They supported
the presentation of technical materials in an appendix, rather than
in the body of the report. In addition, the problem associates} with
inventory and other data bases reemerged. Users want the data to
be accessible to them after the report is finished. Such accessibility
would permit Aggregation to lower units of government or to a
smaller geographic area.
The participants often shared the perception that once such
studies had been completed they were not disseminated adequately.
Too little attention was paid to disseminating the findings to the
potentially large community of users. Participants believed that
more attention should be given to dissemination in the loss study
process, and suggested that either state or local government agencies
be responsible for the dissemination of findings to the users. As
previously emphasized in this paper, participants strongly believed
that to ensure the clarity and dissemination of study results for
the largest possible user community, state and local representatives
should be involved in the loss study process from its inception.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The user needs subpane} concluded that some previous loss stud-
ies may not have sufficiently taken into account state and local users.
OCR for page 110
110
This lack of attention and focus has manifested itself in studies hav-
ing a geographic focus and an inventory data base that do not easily
permit utilization at the local level. ~ addition, reports have been
too technical to be readily understood by users. The earthquake
scenario on occasion has produced loss estimates that lacked credi-
bility and hence were not useful for planners or policymakers. Too
often it seems the producers of loss studies have incorrectly identi-
fied other producers of loss studies as being the users of their studies.
Too often users have neither received the types of information they
thought they were to obtain, nor have they received reports they
could understand and disseminate easily.
Data assembled from workshop discussions and the survey form
the base on which the pane} has based its recommendations. It is
important to reiterate that these data may not reflect the needs of
the larger state and local government user communities. The pane!
believes, however, they are suggestive of those needs. Within the
methodological limitations discussed earlier, the following recom-
mendations are offered.
1. Producers of loss estimation studies should involve their
state and local clientele (the users) in the entire loss estimate study
process.
Loss estimation should and can be a vehicle of understanding the
risk and potential losses from earthquakes. Therefore, the process
by which such studies are conducted becomes more important than
the actual results. The involvement of state and local users in the
entire process of loss estimating will increase the likelihood that
these important actors come to understand not only the manner in
which the study is carried out but also the nature and extent of the
seismic problem. Their involvement will facilitate the utilization and
dissemination of the findings as well as the use of such studies for the
purpose of advocating greater emphasis on seismic policy.
2. Loss estimate studies should clearly indicate the level of po-
tential error In the estimates as well as the confidence of the producers
of the estimates for the various components of loss estimates.
A consistent workshop theme among users was the desire for
credible loss estimates. The state of the art in such studies is not well
advanced, and predictions of loss may be in error by a factor of 10.
The user community needs to understand where error in prediction is
most likely. In addition, it is important for the user community to be
able to specify where the most accurate information is needed and to
OCR for page 111
111
know what accuracy is possible. When additional expenditures may
result in Tower error factors, this information should be presented.
It is also relevant when deciding if the Formation is sufficiently
valuable to warrant additional resources.
3. Producers of studies should build an inventory base for loss
estimates that can be d~saggregated to the smallest political and
geographical unit.
State or regional loss studies must present sufficient information
for local planning, preparedness, and mitigation activities. By com-
piling inventory data so that they can be d~saggregated and accessed
by local units, producers win provide the opportunity for smaller
units to use their studies. Furthermore, the computerization of data
would permit updating and multiple use. For example, if a loss study
identifies "suspects buildings in a regional area, each locale could be
provided a list of these buildings and their locations to determine if
local action is warranted.
4. Loss estunate studies should contain a scenario earthquake
that is relatively probable and yet large enough to cause serious
losses. Loss estunates should be provided for different seasons and
times of the day.
This recommendation is consistent with findings from workshop
discussions and survey instrument results. About 70 percent of the
users indicated these types of information are essential for planning
purposes.
The producers of loss studies should determune the impor-
tance to users of the estimates of loss to different types of structures
and functions. In addition, the importance of the certainty and re-
liability of the different estimates to the users should be identified,
and the studies should be oriented toward these needs.
The users at the workshop ranked the importance of 19 differ-
ent structures and functions and indicated how reliable loss estimate
predictions should be for each structure and function. It is impor-
tant to remember, however, that these rankings are only suggestive.
IdeaDy, state and local decision makers who are involved in the loss
study from its inception can provide producers with more refined
definitions of their needs.
6. The dissemination of loss study findings should have greater
OCR for page 112
112
emphasis. State and local users of such studies should be responsible
for dissemination to relevant agencies and the public.
Previous dissemination of studies appears to have been unsatis-
factory, and there is some indication that the dissemination process
has been a barrier to utilization. To increase the likelihood of access
and use the reports should be as nontechnical as possible. Method-
ologica] discussions should be included in appendixes. More emphasis
should be placed on the implications of the findings for set c plan-
ning and policy adoption. The loss study reports must be aimed
at the audience of users and not other producers. Methodological
appendixes wid provide the information necessary for replication and
validity checks. But the thrust of the report must be concentrated
on those who wiD apply the findings the users.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
loss estimates
