the art and science of identifying and eliminating vulnerabilities to earthquakes in a community’s...

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF IDENTIFYING AND ELIMINATING

VULNERABILITIES TO EARTHQUAKES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT

ENVIRONMENT

Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, University of

North Carolina, USA

OUR WORLD IS AT RISK• FLOODS

• SEVERE WINDSTORMS

• EARTHQUAKES

• TSUNAMIS

• DROUGHTS

• VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS

• LANDSLIDES

• WILDFIRES

HAZARDSHAZARDSHAZARDSHAZARDS

VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE

RISKRISK

VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE

RISKRISK

EXPOSUREEXPOSUREEXPOSUREEXPOSURE

VULNERABILITYVULNERABILITYVULNERABILITYVULNERABILITY LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION

RISKRISKRISKRISK

A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTUREBUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTUREBUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

WHAT HISTORY TEACHESWHAT HISTORY TEACHES

• CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT AND MAN’S CAPACITY TO ELIMINATE THE VULNERABILITIES

• CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT AND MAN’S CAPACITY TO ELIMINATE THE VULNERABILITIES

INADEQUATE SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS (I.E., BUILDING CODES AND LIFELINE

STANDARDS)

MEAN 1) INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING2) COLLAPSE OF BUILDINGS AND LOSS OF FUNCTION OF LIFELINES

INJURIES AND INJURIES AND DEATHSDEATHS

INJURIES AND INJURIES AND DEATHSDEATHS

CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIESVULNERABILITIES

CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIESVULNERABILITIES

DAMAGE AND DAMAGE AND COLLAPSE COLLAPSE

DAMAGE AND DAMAGE AND COLLAPSE COLLAPSE

LOSS OF LOSS OF FUNCTIONFUNCTIONLOSS OF LOSS OF FUNCTIONFUNCTION ECONOMIC LOSSECONOMIC LOSSECONOMIC LOSSECONOMIC LOSS

RISKRISKRISKRISK

SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

• A UTILITY CORRIDOR IS VULNERABLE TO LOSS OF FUNCTION WHEN ROUTED THROUGH SOILS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION.

• A UTILITY CORRIDOR IS VULNERABLE TO LOSS OF FUNCTION WHEN ROUTED THROUGH SOILS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION.

THE REALITY CHECK PROVIDED BY PAST

DISASTERS Source: Munich Re and

many others

INADEQUATE BUILDING CODES

EARTHQUAKESEARTHQUAKES

INADEQUATE LIFELINE STANDARDS

SITING IN LOCATIONS OF SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND FAILURE

IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION AND PLAN

INADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

SITING ON SOFT SOILS

INADEQUATE ANCHORAGE OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

CAUSES OF VULNER-ABILITIES

CAUSES OF VULNER-ABILITIES

“DISASTER LABORATORIES”

“DISASTER LABORATORIES”

NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS

• SAN FRANCISCO • 1906

EARTHQUAKE & FIRE

• 3,000 CASUALTIES

• $ 524 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 180 M INSURED LOSS

NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS

• TOKYO • 1923

EARTHQUAKE & FIRE

• 142,807 CASUALTIES

• $ 2,800 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 590 M INSURED LOSS

NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS

• MANAGUA • 1972

EARTHQUAKE

• 11,000 CASUALTIES

• $ 800 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 100 M INSURED LOSS

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• TANGSHAN • 1976

EARTHQUAKE

• 240,000 + CASUALTIES

• $ 5,600 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ ---0 M INSURED LOSS

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• MEXICO CITY • 1985

EARTHQUAKE

• 9,500 CASUALTIES

• $ 4,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 275 M INSURED LOSS

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• LOMA PRIETA (SAN FRANCISCO)

• 1989 EARTHQUAKE

• 61 CASUALTIES

• $ 5,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 1,000 M INSURED LOSS

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA

• 1994 EARTHQUAKE

• 61 CASUALTIES

• $ 44,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 15,300 M INSURED LOSS

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• KOBE, JAPAN• 1995

EARTHQUAKE

• 6,400 CASUALTIES

• $ 100,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 3,000 M INSURED LOSS

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• IZMET, TURKEY• 1999

EARTHQUAKE

• 17,200 CASUALTIES

• $ 12,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ 600 M INSURED LOSS

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• BAM, IRAN • 2003

EARTHQUAKE

• 40,000 CASUALTIES

• $ ?000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ --00 M INSURED LOSS

2003 Bam, Iran Earthquake

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• BANDA ACHE, INDONESIA

• 2004 EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI

• 240,000 CASUALTIES

• $ 4,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ ?--00 M INSURED LOSS

2004 BANDA ACHE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI

2004 BANDA ACHE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI

PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS

• SICHUAN PROVINCE, CHINA

• 2008 EARTHQUAKE

• 80,000 CASUALTIES

• $ 13,300 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES)

• $ --00 M INSURED LOSS

SICHUAN, CHINA EARTHQUAKE INADEQUATE BUILDING CODE

TWENTY-ONE DAYS LATER

45,690,000 people were affected by the disaster.

HAITI EARTHQUAKE: INADEQUATE BUILDING CODE; JANUARY 12, 2010

TSUNAMI: JAPANMARCH 12, 2011

EVERY COMMUNITY CAN MAKE ITS FUTURE BETTER

THAN ITS PAST

GOAL 1: LEARN FROM THE PAST

GOAL 2: REDUCE COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIES THAT INCREASE

RISK FOR PEOPLE, PROPERTY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE

REALITY CHECK

•The CEO is the only individual in the community who can bring all the stakeholders to the table to develop a realistic action plan and ensure its implementation.

REALITY CHECK

•Professionals have to assist the CEO develop a book of knowledge on past and potential disasters affecting the community and an action plan for vulnerability reduction.

STEPS

•Key Component 1: Identification of Hazards and the Vulnerabilities of the Community’s Built Environment

STEPS

•Key Component 2: Loss Estimation that can be Correlated with specific Vulnerabilities

STEPS

•Key Component 3: A Prevention/Mitigation Plan for: a) Life Safety Protection, b) the Prevention of Physical Damage, and c) the Reduction of Financial Loss

STEPS

•Key Component 4: A Reliable Communications Network

STEPS

•Key Component 5: A Chain of Command

THE ULTIMATE REALITY

•The brunt of the expense and hardship of most disasters is borne by households, local businesses, and local governments, NOT insurance.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF FACT

• WHAT LEVEL OF CASUALTIES SHOULD BE EXPECTED IN A FUTURE EVENT?

• WHAT LEVEL OF ECONOMIC LOSSES SHOULD BE EXPECTED IN A FUTURE EVENT?

MAKING THE FUTURE BETTER THAN THE PAST

UNDER-STAND

UNDER-STAND

IDENT-IFY

IDENT-IFY

HEARHEAR

PERSON-ALIZE

PERSON-ALIZE ACTACT

PERIOD OF PERIOD OF INTEGRATIONINTEGRATION

WINDOW OF WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITYOPPORTUNITY

PERIOD OF PERIOD OF IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION