Advertisement

The Case for Not Letting San Francisco Collapse

  • Charlotte Mazel-Cabasse
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses the work of the Earthquake Junkies over the last several decades. Taking the opposite view to that of Mike Davis, and his famous essay “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn” (Davis, Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disasters, Vintage Books, New York, 1998), the chapter describes how experts and scientists in the Bay Area have joined forces to—they hope—save San Francisco from a large-scale earthquake. This chapter focuses on the anthropology exploration of the expert’s definition of earthquakes as an object of science, its translation into public policy and scientific experimentation. We will explore how the improvement of mitigation projects lie in the articulation of different existences of earthquakes. Finally, we will see how decades of work have addressed earthquake risk in the Bay Area and have, despite sometimes mixed results, laid the foundation for solid risk awareness for all residents in this seismically volatile region.

References

  1. ABAG. (2013a). Resilience initiative—Building a disaster resilient Bay Area. Retrieved from http://quake.abag.ca.gov/projects/resilience_initiative/.
  2. ABAG. (2013b). Soft story buildings. Retrieved from http://quake.abag.ca.gov/housing/softstory/.
  3. Alinsky, S. (1989). Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage; a edition.Google Scholar
  4. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/index.aspx.
  5. Bonowitz, D. (2009). The dilemma of existing buildings: Private property, public risk. Retrieved from http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/dilemma-existing-buildings.
  6. Bourque, L., & Russell, L. (1994). Experiences during and responses to the Loma Prieta earthquake. Sacramento: California Seismic Safety Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Bradford, D. (2006). Earthquake: The other insurance crisis.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, J., & Eisner, R. (1986). Marketing earthquake preparedness: Community campaigns that get results. Diane Publishing. Google Scholar
  9. Burby, R., & May, P. (1998). Making building codes an effective tool for earthquake hazard mitigation (College of Urban and Public Affairs (CUPA)—Working Paper, 1991–2000, Paper 3). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=cupa_wp.
  10. California Seismic Safety Commission. (2001). Findings and recommendations on hospital seismic safety. Sacramento: State of California Seismic Safety Commission.Google Scholar
  11. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint-Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chakos, A. (2006). Message to locals in California disasters: YOYO-You’re on your own.Google Scholar
  13. Chakos, A. (2010). Getting a jump on the next big disaster. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arrietta-chakos/getting-a-jump-on-the-nex_b_588990.html?.
  14. Chakos, A. (2011). Toward a resilient future: A review of Palo Alto’s emergency readiness.Google Scholar
  15. Chakos, A., Schulz, P., & Tobin, T. (2002). Making it work in Berkeley: Investing in community sustainability. Natural Hazard Review, 3, 55–67.Google Scholar
  16. Coen, D. (2013). The earthquake observers: Disaster science from Lisbon to Richter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disasters. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  18. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture: An essay and the selection of technological environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fante, J. (1939). Ask the dust (Modern Cla). New York: HarperPerenial.Google Scholar
  20. Fehr, I. (2006). The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire: Perspectives on a modern super cat.Google Scholar
  21. Filson, J., McCarthy, J., Ellsworth, W., & Zorback, M.-L. (2003). The USGS earthquake hazard program in NEHRP—Investing in a safer future. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2003/fs017-03/.
  22. Frankel, H. (2012). The continental drift controversy: Evolution into plate tectonics (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geschwind, C.-H. (2001). California earthquake, science, risk and the politic of hazard mitigation. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grossi, P., & Zoback, M. L. (2009). Catastrophe modeling and California earthquake risk: A 20-year perspective.Google Scholar
  25. Grossi, P., & Zoback, M. L. (2010). 1868 Hayward earthquake: 140 year retrospective. Menlo Park: Risk Management Solutions.Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, G. (1989). Denial of disaster: The untold story and photographs of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. San Francisco: Cameron.Google Scholar
  27. Heller, A. (2006). Re-creating the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake. Retrieved from https://www.llnl.gov/str/Sep06/Rodgers.html.
  28. Hinman, E., & Hutchinson, D. A. (2005). San Francisco’s earthquake risk.Google Scholar
  29. Hutchings Mieler, D., & Brechwald, D. (2013). Regional resilience initiative.Google Scholar
  30. James, W. (1906). On some mental effects of the earthquake: The Youth’s Companion. Reprinted in James, H. Jr., 1911, Memories and studies (H. James, Jr.). Longmans, Green, & Co. (Vol. June). New York.Google Scholar
  31. Kircher, C. A., Seligson, H. A., Bouabid, J., & Morrow, G. C. (2006). When the big one strikes again—Estinated losses due to a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 297–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis, J. (2008, October 21). The coming quake: Is Los Angeles ready for the Big One? High Country News. Retrieved from https://www.hcn.org/issues/40.19/the-coming-quake/?b_start:int=1.
  33. Lynch, M. (2012). Self-exemplifying revolutions? Notes on Kuhn and Latour. Social Studies of Science, 42(3), 449–455.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712439120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maffei, J. (2010). The coming Bay Area earthquake, 2010 update of scenario for a magnitude 7.0 on the Hayward fault.Google Scholar
  35. Main, I., Bell, A., Meredith, P., Geiger, S., & Touati, S. (2012). The dilatancy-diffusion hypothesis and earthquake predictability. Geological Society of London, 367, 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayor Lee & Supervisors Sign City’s Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program for Soft Story Buildings. (2013). San Francisco. Retrieved from Mayor Lee & Supervisors Sign City’s Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program for Soft Story Buildings.Google Scholar
  37. Mileti, D. S., & DeRouen Darlington, J. (1995). Societal response to revised earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Area. International Journal of Mass Emergencies Disasters, 13(2), 119–145.Google Scholar
  38. Min, L., & Perkins, J. B. (2008). Long-Term Disaster Recovery Planning by Local Governments in the San Francisco Bay Area.Google Scholar
  39. November, V., Penelas, M., & Viot, P. (2009). When flood risk transforms a territory: The Lully effect. Geography, 94, 189–197.Google Scholar
  40. Obama, B. (2008). Why organize? Retrieved from http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2008/09/whyorg.html.
  41. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming (Reprint edition). New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  42. Paxton, J. (2004, August). Earthquakes: San Francisco at risk. Spur NewsLetter.Google Scholar
  43. Perkins, J. B. (2005). Taming natural disasters, multi-jurisdictional local government hazard mitigation plan for the San Francisco Bay Area.Google Scholar
  44. Perkins, J. B., Chakos, A., Olson, R. A., Tobin, L. T., & Turner, F. (2006). A retrospective on the 1906 earthquake’s impact on Bay Area and California public policy. Earthquake Spectra, 22(S2), S237.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2181527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perkins, J., & Hutchings, D. (2010). Taming natural disasters: Multi-jurisdictional local hazard mitigation plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2010 update of 2005 plan. Oakland.Google Scholar
  46. Petersen, M. D., Frankel, A. D., Harmsen, S. C., Mueller, C. S., Haller, K. M., Wheeler, R. L., … Luco, N. (2011). Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States, 2008.Google Scholar
  47. Poland, C. (2009). The resilient city: Defining what San Francisco needs from its seismic mitigation policies.Google Scholar
  48. Reisner, M. (2003). A dangerous place. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  49. Society, S. H. (2006). Palo Alto, Stanford, and the 1906 earthquake. Sandstone & Tile, 30(1), 40.Google Scholar
  50. Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. London: Viking.Google Scholar
  51. Souriau, E. (2009). Les différents modes d’existence. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SPUR. (2013). On solid ground. San Francisco. Retrieved from http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_On_Solid_Ground.pdf.
  53. Stallings, R. A. (1995). Promoting risk: Constructing the earthquake threat (social problems and social issues). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  54. Steinbrugge, K. (1968). Earthquake hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Continuing problem in public policy. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
  55. Sunstein, C. (2002). Hazardous heuristic. The Law School of the University of Chicago, Public Law. Retrieved from http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/33.crs_.hazardous.pdf.
  56. Thatcher, W., Ward, P., Wald, D., Hendley, J. I., & Stauffer, P. (2001). When will the next great quake strike Northern California?Google Scholar
  57. The Post and Courrier with A.P. (1992). Town gets quake warning. The Post and Courier. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2482&dat=19921021&id=wlZSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1DYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6194,1792815.
  58. Tierney, K. J. (2000). Public support and priorities for seismic rehabilitation in the East Bay region of Northern California (No. #296).Google Scholar
  59. Tobriner, S. (2006). Bracing for disaster: Earthquake-resistant architecture and engineering in San Francisco, 1838–1933. Berkeley: The Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
  60. Turner, F. (2004). Seventy years of the riley act and its effect on California’s building stock. In 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver.Google Scholar
  61. U.S. Geological Survey. (2016). When could the next large earthquake occur along the San Andreas fault?Google Scholar
  62. Von Winterfieldt, D., Roselund, N., & Kisuse, A. (2000). Framing earthquake retrofitting decisions: The case of hillside home in Los Angeles. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Retrieved from http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2000/0003.pdf.
  63. Wikipedia Contributors. (2018a). Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stafford_Disaster_Relief_and_Emergency_Assistance_Act&oldid=827132167.
  64. Wikipedia Contributors. (2018b). Unreinforced masonry building. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreinforced_masonry_building
  65. Wikipedia Contributors. (2019). Soft story building. Retrieved May 15, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soft_story_building&oldid=885792427.
  66. Winchester, S. (2011, March 13). The scariest earthquake is yet to come. Newsweek Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/03/13/the-scariest-earthquake-is-yet-to-come.html.
  67. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. (1999). Are Earthquakes really on the increase?Google Scholar
  68. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. (2003). Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002–2031. Open-file report 03-214. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-214/.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte Mazel-Cabasse
    • 1
  1. 1.Data ScienceBerkeley Institute for Data ScienceBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations