This paper examines the implementation of post-disaster US federal assistance programmes for residential reconstruction and investigates the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of places and access to residential assistance following the Northridge earthquake that hit Los Angeles in 1994. The paper also examines the effects of the distribution of assistance on long-term recovery outcomes. Findings suggest that areas with high levels of socially marginalised populations were at a disadvantage in accessing federal residential assistance. Findings also show that the long-term effects of the earthquake differed depending on levels of assistance relative to damage. Areas that received less assistance experienced losses in population and housing units. These findings indicate that post-disaster recovery programmes in the US do not adequately address the wide range of housing needs that emerge in the case of a major disaster in a large metropolitan area. Implications for post-disaster planning as well as for planning under everyday conditions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnold, C. (1993) Reconstruction after Earthquakes: Issues, Urban Design, and Case Studies. San Mateo, CA: Building Systems Development.
2.
Bates, F.L. and Peacock, W.G. (1989) Long Term Recovery, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 7(3), pp. 349-365.
3.
Berke, P. and Beatley, T. (1997) Planning for Earthquakes: Risk, Politics, and Policy . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
Berke, P., Kartez, J. and Wenger, D. (1993) Recovery after disaster: Achieving sustainable development, mitigation and equity, Disasters, 17(2), pp. 93-109.
5.
Bogard, W. (1989) The Bhopal Tragedy: Language, Logic, and Politics in the Production of a Hazard. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6.
Bolin, R.C. and Bolton, P. (1986) Race, Religion, and Ethnicity in Disaster Recovery . Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
7.
Bolin, R.C. and Stanford, L. (1998) The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster . New York: Routledge.
8.
City Of Los Angeles Ad Hoc Committee On Earthquake Recovery (1995) In the Wake of the Quake: A Prepared City Responds. Los Angeles, CA: Report to the Los Angeles City Council, Mayor's Office.
9.
Comerio, M.C. (1998) Disaster Hits Home: New Policy for Urban Housing Recovery. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10.
Comerio, M.C.Landis, J.D., Firpe, C.J. and Monzon, J.P. (1996) Residential earthquake recovery: improving California's post disaster rebuilding policies and programs. California Policy Seminar, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
11.
Cuny, F.C. (1983) Disasters and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
Dash, N., Peacock, W.G. and Morrow, B.H. (1997) And the poor get poorer: a neglected black community , in: W. G. Peacock, B. H. Morrow and H. Galdwin (Eds) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Race, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters, pp. 209-225. New York: Routledge.
13.
Davis, M. (1998) Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. New York: Metropolitan Books.
14.
Drabek, T.E. (1986) Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New York: Springer-Verlag.
15.
Drabek, T. (1989) Taxonomy and disaster: theoretical and applied issues, in: G. Kreps (Ed.) Social Structure and Disaster, pp. 317-345. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press.
16.
Drabek, T.E. (1990) Emergency Management: Strategies for Maintaining Organizational Integrity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
17.
Eqe International And The Geographic Information Systems Group Of The Governor'S Office Of Emergency Services (1994) The Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994: report of data collection and analysis. Governor's Office of Emergency Services.
18.
Galster, G., Herbig, C., Silver, J. and Valera, M. (1995) Documentation of L. A. earthquake disaster housing assistance policies and procedures. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
19.
Gilbert, C. (1998) Studying disaster: changes in the main conceptual tools, in: E. L. Quarantelli (Ed.) What Is a Disaster?: Perspectives on the Question, pp. 11-18. New York: Routledge.
20.
Girard, C. and Peacock, W.G. (1997) Ethnicity and segregation: post-hurricane relocation , in: W. G. Peacock, B. H. Morrow and H. Galdwin (Eds) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Race, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters, pp. 191-205. New York: Routledge.
21.
Haas, E., Kates, R. and Bowden, M. (1977) Reconstruction following Disaster. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Hewitt, K. (1998) Excluded perspectives in the social construction of disaster, in: E. L. Quarantelli (Ed.) What Is a Disaster?: Perspectives on the Question, pp. 75-91. New York: Routledge.
23.
Hirayama, Y. (2000) Collapse and reconstruction: housing recovery policy in Kobe after the Hanshin great earthquake, Housing Studies , 15(1), pp. 118-128.
24.
Jalali, R. (2002) Civil society and the state: Turkey after the earthquake , Disasters, 26, pp. 120-139.
25.
Los Angeles Times (1994) House unit acts to bar quake aid for illegal immigrants, 2 February, p. 1.
26.
Los Angeles Times (1995) 'Ghost towns' get infusion of loans, 22 November, p. 1.
27.
May, P.J. (1985) Recovering from Catastrophes: Federal Disaster Relief Policy and Politics. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
28.
May, P.J. and Deyle, R.E. (1998) Governing land use in hazardous areas wih a patchwork system, in: R. J. Burby (Ed.) Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-use planning for Sustainable Communities, pp. 57-82. Washington, DC : Joseph Henry Press.
29.
May, P.J., Burby, R.J., Ericksen, N.J. ET AL. (1996) Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and Sustainability. New York: Routledge.
30.
Morrow, B.H. (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability , Disasters, 23(1), pp. 1-18.
31.
Morrow, B.H. and Peacock, W.G. (1997) Disasters and social change: Hurricane Andrew and the reshaping of Miami, in: W. G. Peacock , B. H. Morrow and H. Galdwin (Eds) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Race, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters, pp. 226-242. New York: Routledge.
32.
Nahb (National Association Of Home Builders) ( 1994) Assessment of damage to residential buildings caused by the Northridge earthquake. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
33.
Oliver-Smith, A. (1990) Post-disaster housing reconstruction and social inequality: a challenge to policy and practice, Disasters , 14(1), pp. 7-19.
34.
Peacock, W.G. and Girard, C. (1997) Ethnic and racial inequalities in hurricane damage and insurance settlements, in: W. G. Peacock , B. H. Morrow and H. Galdwin (Eds) Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Race, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters, pp. 171-190. New York: Routledge.
35.
Platt, R.H. (1999) Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events. Washington, DC: Island Press.
36.
Quarantelli, E.L. (1989a) Conceptualizing disasters from a sociological perspective, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 7(3), pp. 243-251.
37.
Quarantelli, E.L. (1989b) A review of the literature in disaster recovery research. Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.
38.
Schwab, J., Topping, K.C., Deyle, R.E. ET AL. (1998) Planning for Post-disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
39.
State Of California Office Of Emergency Services (Oes) (1997) Residential damage and individual assistance database: 1997 update. OES.
40.
State Of California Seismic Safety Commission ( 1991) Planning for the next one: hearings of the California Seismic Safety Commission on the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989. Report No. SSC 91-02. Sacramento, CA: Seismic Safety Commission.
41.
State Of California Seismic Safety Commission ( 1995a) A compendium of background reports on the Northridge earthquake (January 17, 1994) for executive order W-78-94. Sacramento, CA: The Seismic Safety Commission.
42.
State Of California Seismic Safety Commission ( 1995b) Northridge earthquake, turning loss to gain: report to Governor Pete Wilson in response to Governor's executive order W-78-94 . Sacramento, CA: The Seismic Safety Commission.
43.
State Of California Senate Select Committee On The Northridge Earthquake (1996) Northridge earthquake recovery money. Sacramento, CA: Senate Publications .
44.
(Unfpa) United Nations Population Fund (1999 ) Population, poverty and vulnerability: mitigating the effects of natural disasters. Panel on ecological and social vulnerability , Stockholm, May.
45.
Us Bipartisan Task Force On Funding Disaster Relief (1995) Federal disaster assistance: report of the Senate Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief. Washington, DC: US GPO.
46.
Us Bureau Of The Census (1990, 2000) Decennial Census: 2000 and 1990 Summary Tape Files 1A and 3A. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census.
47.
Us Committee On Public Works And Transportation ( 1994) The Northridge earthquake: Extent of damage and federal response. Hearing before the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, April 11, 1994, in Los Angeles, CA. Washington, DC: US GPO.
48.
Us Department Of Housing And Urban Development ( 1995) Preparing for the 'big one': saving lives through earthquake mitigation in Los Angeles, California. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
49.
Wachs, M. and Kamel, N. (1996) Transportation decisionmaking under disaster conditions: the case of the Northridge earthquake, Access, 8(Spring), pp. 24-29.
50.
Wisner, B. (1998) Marginality and vulnerability: why the homeless of Tokyo don't 'count' in disaster preparations, Applied Geography , 18(1), pp. 25-33.
