Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Scenarios of potential earthquake damage have been prepared and used in California for over 50 years. We investigated the effectiveness of earthquake scenarios in motivating, supporting, and guiding earthquake risk mitigation through semi-structured interviews and literature review. As part of California’s earthquake resilience ecosystem, scenarios have had a significant role in the development or adoption of major mitigation programs for buildings and infrastructure. Scenarios were often paired with damage from real events to advocate for mitigation measures, with the role of scenarios being to communicate the potential for future losses. Scenario processes and findings were used to build community and political support. Interviews in particular point to the often complex and interdependent relationships between scenarios, other significant sources of influence, and contextual factors in motivating, supporting, or guiding subsequent mitigation actions. Significant, focused effort building on a foundation of sustained advocacy by the professional community and a supportive policy context are required to move from even the best-prepared scenarios to actual implementation of mitigation measures. Future scenario projects should have adequately funded stakeholder engagement and a component to create a pathway to implementation for scenario findings, such as a mitigation planning process.

Keywords

Resilience risk mitigation mitigation planning scenarios interviews Net Promoter Score decision-making risk communication co-production

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

106th Congress (2000) Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. 106–390. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/fema_disaster-mitigation-act-of-2000_10-30-2000.pdf (accessed 29 March 2022).

ABAG (2014) LP25 Policy Actions (Loma Prieta 25 Symposium). Oakland, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.

Alesch

May

Olshansky

Petak

Tierney

(2004) Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates (MCEER 04-SP02). Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

Alesch

Petak

(1986) The politics and economics of earthquake hazard mitigation: Unreinforced masonry buildings in Southern California. Program on Environment and Behavior Monograph #43. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado.

Alexander

(2000) Scenario methodology for teaching principles of emergency management. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 9(2): 89–97.

Algermissen

Hopper

Campbell

Rinehart

Perkins

Steinbrugge

Lagorlo

Moran

Cluff

Degenkolb

Duke

Gates

Jacobson

Olson

Allan

(1973) A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Los Angeles, California Area. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Report prepared for the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Algermissen

Rinehart

Dewey

(1972) A Study of Earthquake Losses in the San Francisco Bay Area: Data and Analysis. Washington, DC: Office of Emergency Preparedness, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Alquist

(1986) SB-547 unreinforced masonry building law. California Government Code, Section 8875. Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov (Accessed 29 March 2022)

Anagnos

Comerio

Stewart

(2016) Earthquake loss estimates and policy implications for nonductile concrete buildings in Los Angeles. Earthquake Spectra 32(4): 1951–1973.

10.

ATC (2010) Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco, A Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (ATC 52-2). Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

11.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) (2021a) Earthquake safety program. Available at: https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/eqs#anchor1 (accessed 26 March 2022).

12.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) (2021b) Earthquake safety program technical information. Available at: https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/eqs/technical (accessed 26 March 2022).

13.

Birkland

(1998) Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy 18(1): 53–74.

14.

Bonowitz

(2009) The dilemma of existing buildings: Private property, public risk. SPUR Report. Oakland, CA: San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association. Available at: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/the_dilemma_of_existing_buildings.pdf (accessed 15 April 2021).

15.

Bonowitz

(2017) Soft Story Model Ordinance and Handbook (Resilience Policy Guidance Document). San Francisco, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.

16.

Bonowitz

(2024) San José“soft story” mitigation program phase 1 report: Background studies and policy recommendations, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/110849/638509325218470000 (accessed 1 June 2024).

17.

Bonstrom

Corotis

Porter

(2012) Overcoming public and political challenges for natural hazard risk investment decisions. IDRiM Journal 2(1): 26–48.

18.

Brechwald

(2018) Bay Area Earthquake Residential Building Damage & Displacement White Paper. Oakland, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.

19.

Brocher

Gefeke

Boatwright

Knudsen

(2018) Reported Investments in Earthquake Mitigation Top $73 to $80 Billion in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, Since the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (Open File Report 2018-1168). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

20.

Campbell

Sarpy

Rodgers

(2021) Characteristics of effective California earthquake scenarios. Earthquake Spectra. DOI: 10.1177/87552930241312707

21.

Campbell

Sarpy

Rodgers

(2024) Interview instruments for scenario developers and decision-makers. Next Generation Scenarios and Scenario-Based Planning to Motivate Mitigation DesignSafe-CI. https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-tdd4-y395.

22.

Casuso

(2022) City Poised to Enforce Seismic Retrofit Law. Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Lookout.

23.

C&CSF (2010) 2010 Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco.

24.

C&CSF (2013) Ordinance No. 66-13 Building Code—mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program—woodframe Buildings; Optional Evaluation Form Fee. San Francisco, CA: Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco.

25.

C&CSF (2014a) 2014 Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond: Safeguarding San Francisco. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco.

26.

C&CSF (2014b) Ordinance No. 202—14—Building Code—Earthquake Performance Evaluation of Private School Structures. San Francisco, CA: Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco.

27.

C&CSF (2018) Seawall Earthquake Safety Program Bond Report. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco, Port of San Francisco.

28.

C&CSF (2020) Lifelines Restoration Performance Improvement Plan. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Lifelines Council and City and County of San Francisco.

29.

C&CSF (2024) Facade maintenance program. SFGOV. Available at: https://sfgov.org/sfc/esip/facade-maintenance-program (accessed 25 January 2024).

30.

CGS (2009) HAZUS loss estimation for California scenario earthquakes. CGS Project Report. San Francisco, CA: California Geological Survey.

31.

Chakos

Zoback

(2018) California’s San Francisco Bay Area: An epicenter of community resilience. In: Bohland

(ed.) The Disaster Resiliency Challenge: Transforming Theory to Action. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, pp. 211–240.

32.

Chakos

Schulz

Tobin

(2002) Making it work in Berkeley: Investing in community sustainability. Natural Hazards Review 3(2): 55–67.

33.

Chen

Branum

Wills

(2011) HAZUS scenario and annualized earthquake loss estimation for California. Special Report 222. Sacramento, CA: California Geological Survey.

34.

City of Los Angeles (2014) Resilience by Design. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles.

35.

City of Los Angeles (2015) Ordinance No. 183893—Amending Division 93 and 95 of Article I of Chapter IX of the LAMC to Establish Mandatory Standards for Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood-frame Buildings with Soft, Weak, or Open-front Walls and Existing Non-ductile Concrete Buildings, and Amending Sections 152.02, 152.04, 152.05 and 152.08 of Article 2 of Chapter XV of the LAMC to Grant Authority to the Rental Adjustment Commission to Modify Tenant Habitability Program Requirements for Purposes of Implementing Seismic Retrofit Mandates. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles.

36.

City of Santa Monica (2022) Seismic retrofit program. Available at: https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Programs/Seismic-Retrofit/ (accessed 1 April 2022).

37.

CoLA (2015) Report RE: Draft ordinance amending divisions 93 and 95 of Article 1, Chapter IX of the Los Angeles municipal code to establish mandatory standards for earthquake hazard reduction in existing wood-frame buildings with soft, weak or open-from walls and existing non-ductile concrete buildings; and amending sections 152.04, 152.05 AND 152.08 of Article 2 of Chapter XV of the Los Angeles municipal code to authorize the rent adjustment commission to modify tenant habitability program requirements for purposes of implementing seismic retrofit mandates. Council File 14-1697-S1 R15-0255, 2 October. Los Angeles, CA: Office of the City Attorney, City of Los Angeles.

38.

Comerio

(2000) The economic benefits of a disaster resistant university: Earthquake loss estimation for UC Berkeley. IURD Working Paper No. 2000-2, April. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

39.

Comerio

Tobriner

Fehrenkamp

(2006) Bracing Berkeley: A guide to seismic safety on the UC Berkeley campus. PEER 2006/01. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

40.

CoreLogic (2018) Financial implications of the HayWired scenario. Special Report. Irvine, CA: CoreLogic, Inc.

41.

CoSJ (2024) Soft story retrofit ordinance & program. Available at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/building-division/soft-story-retrofit (accessed 3 June 2024).

42.

Court

(2015) 011 HAZUS scenario study, San Diego region. EERI San Diego-Tijuana Earthquake Planning Scenario Workshop. San Diego, CA: EERI.

43.

CREW (2013) Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes: A magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 116. Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_ic116_csz_scenario_update.pdf (accessed 4 December 2020).

44.

CSSC (1995) Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law: 1995 Annual Report to the Legislature (SSC 95-05). Sacramento, CA: California Seismic Safety Commission.

45.

CSSC (1999) Earthquake Risk Management: Mitigation Success Stories. Sacramento, CA: California Seismic Safety Commission.

46.

CSSC (2006) Report on the Significance of Changes in the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) With Respect to Public Health And Safety. Sacramento, California: California Seismic Safety Commission.

47.

Davis

(2015) Implementing a water system seismic resilience and sustainability program in Los Angeles. In: Proceedings of the 9th US-Japan-Taiwan workshop on water system seismic practices, Sendai, Japan, 18 March.

48.

Davis

(2017) Developing a seismic resilient pipe network using performance based seismic design procedures. In: Proceedings of the 10th Taiwan-Japan-US workshop on water system seismic practices, Tainan, Taiwan, 18–20 October.

49.

Davis

(2018) Creating a seismic resilient pipe network for Los Angeles. Pipelines 2018, American Society of Civil Engineers 78: 425–432.

50.

Davis

O’Rourke

(2011) ShakeOut scenario: Water system impacts from a Mw 7.8 San Andreas earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 27(2): 459–476.

51.

Davis

Shamma

(2019) Improving the resilience of southern California water supply aqueduct systems to regional earthquake threats. The Bridge, National Academy of Engineering 49(2): 60–67.

52.

Davis

Scawthorn

Coles

Abostan

(2019) Fire following earthquake risk assessment: The City of Los Angeles’ efforts toward water system seismic resilience and sustainability. In: International conference on sustainable infrastructure 2019, Los Angeles, CA, 4 November, pp. 543–554. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Available at: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482650.058 (accessed 4 February 2024).

53.

Davis

Bennett

Borchardt

Kahle

Rice

Silva

(1982a) Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California (Special Publication 60). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

54.

Davis

Bennett

Borchardt

Kahle

Rice

Silva

(1982b) Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (Special Publication 61). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

55.

Degenkolb

(1984) Summary Report of Structural Hazards and Damage Patterns: Pre-Earthquake Planning for Post-earthquake Rebuilding. San Francisco, CA: Degenkolb Engineers.

56.

Dengler

(2001) Tsunami mitigation efforts on California’s North Coast. In: ITS Proceedings, National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program Review Session, Paper R-14, International Tsunami Symposium.

57.

Dengler

Nicolini

Larkin

Ozaki

(2008) Building tsunami-resilient communities in Humboldt County, California. In: Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2008, Turtle Bay, Oahu, HI, 28 March, pp. 178–191. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/40978%28313%2917 (accessed 1 October 2022).

58.

Detweiler

Wein

(2017) The HayWired earthquake scenario. Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013, USGS Numbered Series. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

59.

DHS (2011) Draft Analytical Baseline Study for the Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

60.

Dockerty

Lovett

Sünnenberg

Appleton

Parry

(2005) Visualising the potential impacts of climate change on rural landscapes. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29: 297–320.

61.

Dwelley-Samant

(2013) Earthquake risk and San Francisco’s private schools. Report. Earthquake Safety Implementation Program, 31 December. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco.

62.

Earle

Wald

Jaiswal

Allen

Hearne

Marano

Hotovec

Fee

(2009) Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER): A System for Rapidly Determining the Impact of Earthquakes Worldwide (Open File Report 2009-1131). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

63.

EBMUD (2017) Ready for the Big One: EBMUD’s constant focus on emergency preparedness, Press Release. Available at: https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/news/press-releases/ready-big-one-ebmuds-constant-focus-emergency-preparedness (accessed 19 March 2022).

64.

EBMUD (2019) Final Presentation, Long-Term Infrastructure Investment Workshop. Oakland, CA: EBMUD.

65.

EERI (1990) Buildings, Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 15, 1989: Reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra 6(Suppl. 1): 127–149.

66.

EERI (1996) Scenario for a M7.0 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

67.

EERI (2020) San Diego Earthquake Planning Scenario: Magnitude 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

68.

EQE (1993) San Jose Seismic Safety Housing Study. Oakland, CA: EQE International.

69.

FEMA (2008) Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

70.

FEMA (2024) Hazard mitigation plan status. FEMA.gov. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigation-planning/status (accessed 18 January 2024).

71.

Field

Seligson

Gupta

Jordan

Campbell

(2005) Loss estimates for a Puente Hills blind-thrust earthquake in Los Angeles, California. Earthquake Spectra 21(2): 329–338.

72.

Germeraad

Mieler

Brechwald

(2014) Cascading Failures: Earthquake Threats to Transportation and Utilities. San Francisco, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.

73.

Geschwind

C-H

(2001) California Earthquakes: Science, Risk, and the Politics of Hazard Mitigation. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.

74.

Graf

Seligson

(2011) Earthquake damage to wood-framed buildings in the ShakeOut scenario. Earthquake Spectra 27(2): 351–373.

75.

Grossi

Muir-Wood

(2006) The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire: Perspectives on a Modern Super Cat. Newark, CA: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

76.

Grossi

Zoback

(2013) 1868 Hayward earthquake: 145-year retrospective. RMS Special Report. Newark, CA: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

77.

Hancock

(2005) AB-304 building standards: Reconstruction. AB-304. Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB304 (accessed 29 March 2022).

78.

Hancock

(2006) AB-2140 general plans: Safety element. AB-2140. Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB2140 (accessed 29 March 2022).

79.

Housner

Thiel

(1990) Competing against time: Report of the governor’s board of inquiry on the 1989Loma Prieta earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 6(4): 681–711.

80.

Housner

Thiel

(1995) The continuing challenge: Report on the performance of state bridges in the Northridge earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 11(4): 607–636.

81.

Hudnut

(2023) Intersections: A Strategy for Increasing Seismic Infrastructure Resilience. Rosemead, CA: Southern California Edison.

82.

INTECH (1992) Collocation impacts on the vulnerability of lifelines during earthquakes with applications to the Cajon Pass, California. FEMA 226. Washington, DC: Report by INTECH, Inc. to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

83.

Jackson

H-B

(2015) SB-379 land use: General plan: Safety element. SB-379. Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB379 (accessed 29 March 2022).

84.

Jackson

H-B

(2018) SB-1035 general plans. SB-1035. Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1035 (accessed 29 March 2022).

85.

Jephcott

(1986) 50-year record of Field Act seismic building standards for California schools. Earthquake Spectra 2(3): 621–629.

86.

JHCHS (2019) The Event 201 scenario: A pandemic tabletop exercise. Available at: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html (accessed 3 May 2021).

87.

Johnson

(2014) Lifelines Interdependency Study Report. San Francisco, CA: The Lifelines Council, City and County of San Francisco.

88.

Jones

Aho

(2019) Resilience by design. The Bridge, National Academy of Engineering 49(2): 52–59.

89.

Jones

Benthien

(2011) Preparing for a “Big One”: The great Southern California ShakeOut. Earthquake Spectra 27(2): 575–595.

90.

Jones

Bernknopf

Cox

Goltz

Hudnut

Mileti

Perry

Ponti

Porter

Reichle

Seligson

Shoaf

Treiman

Wein

(2008) The Shakeout scenario: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1150 and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25.

91.

Kahane

(2012) Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

92.

Katayama

(1992) The technique and use of earthquake damage scenarios in the Tokyo metropolitan area. In: Tucker

(ed.) Uses of Earthquake Damage Scenarios, Proceedings of Special Theme Session Number 10. (pp. 62–65) Madrid: GeoHazards International.

93.

Key

N-T

Campbell

Carroll

Zhang

de Kok

Phillips

(2020) Local Adaptation and Resiliency Planning: SB 379 Survey Report. Sacramento, CA: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

94.

Kircher

Seligson

Bouabid

Morrow

(2006) When the big one strikes again—Estimated losses due to a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 22(Suppl. 2): 297–339.

95.

Kornfeld

Agrawal

Brechwald

Lall

Lam

(2011) CAPSS Earthquake Safety Implementation Program, Workplan 2012–2042. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco.

96.

LADBS (2024) Soft Story Retrofit Program Status as of February 1, 2024. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Department of Building Safety. Available at: https://www.ladbs.org/docs/default-source/publications/misc-publications/soft-story-compliance-report.pdf?Status=Temp&sfvrsn=bbe9f553_102 (accessed 18 January 2024).

97.

Lawson AC (Chairman) (1908) The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the California State Earthquake Investigation Commission (Pub. No. 87). Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

98.

le Roux

(1992) The Mont Fleur scenarios. Available at: https://reospartners.com/publications/the-mont-fleur-scenarios/ (accessed 13 December 2020).

99.

Lin

Siewert

Creelan

(1995) Preparing for the ‘Big One’: Saving Lives through Earthquake Mitigation in Los Angeles, California. Los Angeles, CA: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

100.

Lin

R-G

Ranoa

Schleuss

(2017) Santa Monica seeks to pass the nation’s most extensive earthquake retrofit plan. Los Angeles Times, 13 February.

101.

Lin

R-G

Xia

Smith

(2013a) Many older L.A. buildings could collapse in an earthquake. Los Angeles Times, 13 October. Available at: https://graphics.latimes.com/me-earthquake-concrete/ (accessed 25 March 2023).

102.

Lin

R-G

Xia

Smith

(2013b) Santa Monica offers L.A. a cautionary tale on quake vigilance. Los Angeles Times, 14 November. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-quake-santa-monica-20131111-story.html (accessed 1 April 2022).

103.

Lin

R-G

Xia

Smith

(2014) UC releases list of 1,500 buildings; big step for L.A. quake safety. Los Angeles Times, 25 January. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-concrete-buildings-list-20140125-story.html (accessed 25 March 2023).

104.

Maffei

(2010) The Coming Bay Area Earthquake: 2010 Update of Scenario for a Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault. Oakland, CA: Northern California Chapter, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

105.

Markhvida

Walsh

Hallegatte

Baker

(2020) Quantification of disaster impacts through household well-being losses. Nature Sustainability 3(7): 538–547.

106.

Mieler

(2014) Soft-story Housing Improvement Plan for the City of Oakland, Building Screening Phase. San Francisco, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.

107.

Miles

Gouran

(2010) Washington State Seismic Mitigation Policy Gap Analysis (Prepared for Washington State Division of Emergency Management). Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University.

108.

Monaghan

(2004) SARS: Down but Still a Threat. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92458/ (accessed 3 May 2021).

109.

MTC and ABAG (2020) Futures final report: Resilient and equitable strategies for the Bay Area’s future. Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, January. Available at: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Horz_Futures_Report.web_.pdf

110.

MTC and ABAG (2021) Plan Bay Area 2050: A Vision for the Future. San Francisco, CA: Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments.

111.

MWD (2020) Seismic resilience report: 2020 update. Report No. 1551-1, February. Los Angeles, CA: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

112.

Oakland City Council (2019) Ordinance No. 13516, Mandatory Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Certain Multi-Unit Residential Buildings. Oakland, CA: Oakland Municipal Code.

113.

Olshansky

(2005) Making a difference: Stories of successful seismic safety advocates. Earthquake Spectra 21(2): 441–464.

114.

Olson

(2003) Legislative politics and seismic safety: California’s early years and the “Field Act,” 1925–1933. Earthquake Spectra 19(1): 111–131.

115.

Olson

(2021) When Good Science Won (But It Wasn’t Easy): California’s Rise to Earthquake Safety Leadership. Orangevale, CA: Whispering Oak Publishing.

116.

Outsmart Disaster (2018) Meet a resilient business: San Jose Water. Outsmart Disaster. Available at: https://outsmartdisaster.com/be-informed/news/meet-a-resilient-business-san-jose-water/ (accessed 20 March 2022).

117.

Perkins

Chakos

Olson

Tobin

Turner

(2006) A retrospective on the 1906 earthquake’s impact on Bay Area and California public policy. Earthquake Spectra 22(Suppl. 2): 237–259.

118.

Perkins

Chuaqui

Harrald

Jeong

(1996) Shaken Awake! Estimates of Uninhabitable Dwelling Units and Peak Shelter Populations in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Region. Oakland, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.

119.

Perry

Jones

Cox

(2011) Developing a scenario for widespread use: Best practices, lessons learned. Earthquake Spectra 27(2): 263–272.

120.

Perry

Cox

Jones

Bernknopf

Goltz

Hudnut

Mileti

Ponti

Porter

Reichle

Seligson

Shoaf

Treiman

Wein

(2008) The ShakeOut earthquake scenario—A story that Southern Californians are writing. Circular 1324. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

121.

Poland

Barkley

Boatwright

Comerio

Dickinson

Dwelley-Samant

Eckroad

Friedman

Johnson

Knudsen

Kornfield

Maffei

Mieler

Paxton

Schwartz

Sieck

Walker

(2012) Safe Enough to Stay. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.

122.

Port of San Diego (2023) Port Master Plan, Final Draft. San Diego, CA: San Diego Unified Port District.

123.

R+C (2016) Seismic risk assessment study, Palo Alto, California. Final Report. San Francisco, CA: Rutherford+Chekene.

124.

Rabinovici

(2012) Motivating Private Precaution with Public Programs: Insights from a Local Earthquake Mitigation Ordinance. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

125.

Ramirez

Wilkinson

(2016) Strategic Reframing: The Oxford Scenario Planning Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

126.

Rao

Weatherill

Silva

Schneider

(2017) Beyond Button Pushing: Seismic Risk Assessment for California (CSSC 17-05). Sacramento, CA: Global Earthquake Model, Prepared for the California Seismic Safety Commission.

127.

Reichle

Kahle

(1990) Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area (Special Publication 100). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

128.

Reitherman

(2011) Earthquakes and Engineers: An International History. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

129.

RMS (1995a) What If a Major Earthquake Strikes the Los Angeles Area?Newark, CA: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

130.

RMS (1995b) What If the 1906 Earthquake Strikes Again? A San Francisco Bay Area Scenario, Executive Summary. Newark, CA: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

131.

RMS (2017) Workers’ Compensation Risk Assessment California Earthquake. Hoboken, NJ: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

132.

Rodgers

Campbell

Stenner

Ann Sarpy

Chakos

(2022) Effectiveness of past California earthquake scenarios in motivating mitigation: Final report. USGS External Research Grant G21AP10023. Pleasanton, CA: GeoHazards International.

133.

Rodgers

Chakos

Jomo

(2024) Advancing Scenario Practice to Build Resilience to Geologic Hazards. Pleasanton, CA: GeoHazards International.

134.

Rose

Star

(2013) Using Scenarios to Explore Climate Change: A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

135.

Rowshandel

Reichle

Wills

Cao

Davis

(2005) Estimation of Future Earthquake Losses in California. Sacramento, CA: California Geological Survey.

136.

Rozelle

Bausch

Seligson

(2019) Hazus Earthquake Model: FEMA Standard Operating Procedure for Hazus Earthquake Data Preparation and Scenario Analysis. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/fema_hazus_earthquake-sop.pdf (accessed 16 September 2022).

137.

Scawthorn

Gates

(1983) Estimation of Earthquake Losses in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Dames & Moore.

138.

SCE (2022) Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) Regarding Risk Assessment Mitigation Phase (RAMP). Los Angeles, CA: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California.

139.

Schwartz

(1996) The Art of the Long View: Paths to Strategic Insight for Yourself and Your Company. Toronto, ON, Canada: Doubleday.

140.

SFCJG (2019) Act Now before It Is Too Late: Aggressively Expand and Enhance Our High Pressure Emergency Firefighting Water System. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco 2018–2019 Civil Grand Jury.

141.

Smithhisler

Burkardt

(2023) The Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Scenario Retrospective 2006–21. Scientific Investigations Report 2023–5011. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

142.

Stannard

(2006) The great quake: 1906-2006 / The great catastrophe of 2006. San Francisco Chronicle, 16 April. Available at:https://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/The-Great-Quake-1906-2006-The-great-2520223.php (Accessed 8 January 2022)

143.

Steinbrugge

Algermissen

Lagorio

Cluff

Degenkolb

(1981) Metropolitan San Francisco and Los Angeles Earthquake Loss Studies: 1980 Assessment (Open-File Report 81-113). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

144.

Steinbrugge

Bennett

Lagorio

Davis

Borchardt

Toppozada

(1987) Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 7.5 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area (Special Publication 78). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

145.

Terentieff

Cicala

Irias

Moughamian

(2017) Mitigating risk to underwater crossings to improve water supply reliability: Two case studies. In: Proceedings of the 10th JWWA/WRF/CTWWA water system seismic conference, Tainan, Taiwan, 18–20 October. Available at: https://www.ncree.org/conference/UserData/0/I20171018A/Papers/7-27%20Terentieff%20(new).pdf (accessed 19 March 2022).

146.

Tobin

Turner

Goodfellow

Stoner

(1992) California at risk: Where do we go from here? Earthquake Spectra 8(1): 17–34.

147.

Toppozada

Bennett

Borchardt

Richard

Davis

Johnson

Lagorio

Steinbrugge

(1988) Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (Special Publication 99). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

148.

Toppozada

Borchardt

Hallstrom

(1993) Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the San Jacinto Fault in the San Bernardino Area (Special Publication 102). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

149.

Toppozada

Borchardt

Hallstrom

(1994) Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Rodgers Creek Fault in the Northern San Francisco Bay Area (Special Publication 112). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

150.

Toppozada

Borchardt

Haydon

Peterson

(1995) Planning Scenario in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, California, for a Great Earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone (Special Publication 115). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.

151.

Tyler

Gregory

(1990) Strengthening Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in Los Angeles: Land Use and Occupancy Impacts of the L. A. Seismic Ordinance. Portola Valley, CA: William Spangle and Associates, Inc.

152.

UNDRR (2017) Terminology, online glossary. Available at: https://www.undrr.org/terminology (accessed 11 March 2022).

153.

Van der Heijden

(1996) Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester and New York: John Wiley & Sons.

154.

Vukazich

(1998) The Apartment Owner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety: A Handbook for Owners to Identify Seismic Hazards in Low Rise Apartment Buildings. San Jose, CA: Residential Seismic Safety Program, City of San Jose.

155.

Wald

Worden

Goltz

(2003) ShakeMap, a Tool for Earthquake Response (Fact Sheet). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.

156.

Whitman

Anagnos

Kircher

Schneider

Lagorio

Lawson

(1997) Development of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology. Earthquake Spectra 13(4): 643–661.

157.

Wiley

(2000) Living Where the Earth Shakes, A History of the California Seismic Safety Commission. Sacramento, CA: California Senate Office of Research.

158.

WJE (2024) Seismic ordinances. Available at: https://seismicordinances.com (accessed 18 January 2024).

159.

Zepeda

Roi

Buckalew

(2017) One step closer to a seismically resilient community: Summary and comparison of the seismic retrofit ordinances of Southern California. In: 2017 SEAOC Convention Proceedings, San Diego, CA, 13–15 September.

160.

Zoback

Geist

Pallister

Hill

Young

McCausland

(2013) Advances in natural hazard science and assessment, 1963–2013. In: Bickford

(ed.) The Impact of the Geological Sciences on Society. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, pp. 81–154.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.40 MB

Effectiveness of California earthquake scenarios in motivating mitigation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material