Measuring earthquake risk concentration for hazard mitigation

One of the biggest impacts of a disaster is the effect it can have on community and regional housing and the ability of people, communities and regions to recover from the damages. Policy decisions involving investments in loss reduction measures and response and recovery are best informed by the integration of scientific and socioeconomic information. Natural scientists develop hazard scenarios for stakeholders and emergency officials to assess the impacts of a particular disaster outcome. Social scientists have found that housing losses and recovery affect individuals in lower socioeconomic status disproportionately. By combining socioeconomic status data from the US Census with an earthquake scenario for southern California, an event-driven conditional distribution of earthquake risk is used to prioritize investment decisions for earthquake hazard mitigation. Simulation of the damages in the scenario showed a statistically significant risk concentration in census tracts with large numbers of residents of lower socioeconomic status living in multi-family housing and mobile homes. An application of the approach is demonstrated in Los Angeles County as a decision criterion in a building retrofit program. The earthquake scenario was used to evaluate the economic benefits of a program for voluntary mitigation and a combined program of voluntary mitigation and regulated mitigation based on socioeconomic status (mandate requiring mitigation in census tracts meeting specific damage and income thresholds). Although the analysis is a hypothetical scenario based on a simulation of a great earthquake, the results and potential outcomes show that a regulated program with a socioeconomic decision criterion would have significant benefits to vulnerable populations.

[1]  Rachel A. Davidson,et al.  Optimizing Regional Earthquake Mitigation Investment Strategies , 2005 .

[2]  J. Bommer,et al.  Modelling Seismic Hazard in Earthquake Loss Models with Spatially Distributed Exposure , 2006 .

[3]  Omar D. Cardona,et al.  UPDATING THE INDICATORS OF DISASTER RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE AMERICAS , 2011 .

[4]  Kenneth A Froot.  Front matter to "The Financing of Catastrophe Risk" , 1999 .

[5]  S. Brody,et al.  Social vulnerability and the natural and built environment: a model of flood casualties in Texas. , 2008, Disasters.

[6]  B. English.  Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability , 1991 .

[7]  Susan L. Cutter,et al.  Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest , 2010 .

[8]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  The hidden costs of coastal hazards: Implications for risk assessment and mitigation , 2000 .

[9]  Michael Cahill,et al.  Housing and urban development , 2018, The Environment and Social Policy.

[10]  D. Kellenberg,et al.  Does rising income increase or decrease damage risk from natural disasters , 2008 .

[11]  W. L. Shirley,et al.  Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards , 2003 .

[12]  Victoria Lynn Packard,et al.  Earthquake Hazards Program , 2013 .

[13]  Carlos Sousa Oliveira,et al.  SIRIUS, Seismic Risk Indicator in Urban Space , 2013 .

[14]  N. Kakwani.  Income Inequality, Welfare, and Poverty: An Illustration Using Ukrainian Data , 1995 .

[15]  C. Kerchner,et al.  Distribution of impacts of natural disasters across income groups: A case study of New Orleans , 2007 .

[16]  N. Myers.  Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability , 1992 .

[17]  Kenneth A. Froot.  The Financing of Catastrophe Risk , 1999 .

[18]  Alec Cairncross.  The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development , 1959 .

[19]  Sohan Kumar Karna,et al.  Analyzing Health Equity Using Household Survey Data: A Guide to Techniques and Their Implementation , 2009 .

[20]  Richard Bernknopf,et al.  Recovering from the ShakeOut Earthquake , 2011 .

[21]  D. Champernowne,et al.  Economic Inequality and Income Distribution , 1999 .

[22]  M. L. Carreño,et al.  A disaster risk management performance index , 2007 .

[23]  A. Heshmati.  Inequalities and Their Measurement , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[24]  Pantea Vaziri.  EARTHQUAKE RISK MITIGATION: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION , 2008 .

[25]  Jacob L. Vigdor.  The Economic Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina , 2008 .

[26]  Irasema Alcántara-Ayala,et al.  Geomorphological Hazards and Disaster Prevention , 2014 .

[27]  Nejat Anbarci,et al.  Earthquake Fatalities: The Interaction of Nature and Political Economy , 2005 .

[28]  Kenneth W. Hudnut,et al.  The Shakeout scenario , 2008 .

[29]  L. Peek,et al.  Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent Sociological Findings , 2004 .

[30]  Tony E. Smith,et al.  1 A SPATIAL MODELING FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING POTENTIAL EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE : AN APPLICATION TO MEMPHIS , 2010 .

[31]  Thomas Glade,et al.  Review and future challenges in snow avalanche risk analysis , 2010 .

[32]  N. Kakwani,et al.  Socioeconomic inequalities in health: Measurement, computation, and statistical inference , 1997 .

[33]  Mahmood Hosseini,et al.  Resource allocation for regional earthquake risk mitigation: a case study of Tehran, Iran , 2010 .

[34]  Laurie A. Johnson,et al.  Rebuilding Communities Following Disaster: Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles , 2006 .

[35]  S. Cutter,et al.  Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  Catastrophe modeling : a new approach to managing risk , 2013 .

[37]  S. Brody,et al.  Mapping social vulnerability to enhance housing and neighborhood resilience , 2012 .