Advertisement

Resilience as a Socio Technical Process

  • Charlotte Mazel-Cabasse
Chapter

Abstract

Finally, the last chapter explores the slow emergence of socio-technical infrastructures designed to improve earthquake risk resilience in the San Francisco Bay Area. Focusing on the modus operandi that connects together different key elements and stakeholders involved in earthquake risk mitigation, it proposes a pragmatic exploration on the nature of resilience. We will explore some important factors such as of the role of amateur observations and lessons learned from other disasters, the impacts of building codes and progress in structural engineering, and finally the importance of the personal commitment of the risk mitigation experts. Following a historical perspective and building on some important moments of the earthquake risk prevention in the Bay Area of San Francisco, the chapter argues that resilience emerges from the collective development of a particular form of attention to the risk. In this context, it is the expert’s experiences of living with the earthquake—of waiting for it, fearing it, remembering it, and getting ready for the next one—that gives sense to these sets of actions, defining the contours of a collective space of risk and allowing for resilient sociotechnical infrastructure to emerge, or if forgotten, to collapse.

References

  1. ABAG. (2013). Resilience initiative—Building a disaster resilient Bay Area. Retrieved from http://quake.abag.ca.gov/projects/resilience_initiative/.
  2. Abe, Y. (2013). Why safecast matters: A case study in collective risk assessment. A STS forum on Fukushima. Berkeley. Retrieved from http://fukushimaforum.wordpress.com.
  3. Adger, N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.  https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alinsky, S. (1989). Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage; a edition.Google Scholar
  5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/index.aspx.
  6. Amir, S., & Kant, V. (2017). Sociotechnical resilience: A preliminary concept. Risk Analysis, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12816.Google Scholar
  7. AP. (2013). Gov. Brown signs bill to develop California earthquake early warning system. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-24/national/42352886_1_warning-system-earthquake-u-s-geological-survey.
  8. Arroyo, N. (2013). No one wants to go first: S.F.’s retrofit timeline. Retrieved from http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2012-12/no-one-wants-to-go-first-sfs-retrofit-timeline.
  9. Arroyo, N., & Grady, B. (2013). Earthquake retrofit delays leave thousands at risk. Retrieved from http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2012-12/earthquake-retrofit-delays-leave-thousands-at-risk.
  10. Audi, T. (2014, May 19). Several earthquakes are bigger threat to San Francisco Bay Area. Multiple major temblors, not a single huge one, pose a bigger risk, study says. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304422704579571972490977390.
  11. Boltanski, L., & Thevenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economy of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bonanno, G. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. BONDS. (2010). Proposition A: Earthquake retrofit bond. San Francisco County, CA.Google Scholar
  14. 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.
  15. California Seismic Safety Commission. (2001). Findings and recommendations on hospital seismic safety. Sacramento: State of California Seismic Safety Commission. Google Scholar
  16. Cantelli, F., Pattaroni, L., Roca, M., & Stavo-Debauge, J. (2009). Sensibilités pragmatiques. Enquêter sur l’action publique—Introduction. In Sensibilités pragmatiques. Enquêter sur l’action publique (p. 26). Bruxelles: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  17. Chakos, A. (2006). Message to locals in California disasters: YOYO-You’re on your own.Google Scholar
  18. Chakos, A., Schulz, P., & Tobin, L. T. (2002). Making it work in Berkeley: Investing in community sustainability. Natural Hazard Review, 3, 55–67. Google Scholar
  19. Comfort, L. K. (2006). City at risk: Hurricane Katrina and the drowning of New Orleans. Urban Affairs Review, XX(X), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087405284881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Comfort, L. K., Boin, A., & Demchak, Chris, C. (2010). Designing resilience: Preparing for extreme events (1st ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  21. Daston, L. (1991). Marvelous facts and miraculous evidence in early modern Europe. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 93–124. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frickel, S., & Bess, V. (2007). Katrina, contamination, and the unintended organization of ignorance. Technology in Society, 29, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frickel, S., Campanella, R., & Besse, V. (2009). Mapping knowledge investments in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A new approach for assessing regulatory agency responses to environmental disaster. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(2), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geschwind, C.-H. (2001). California earthquake, science, risk and the politic of hazard mitigation. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Guarnieri, F. (2017). The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident: Entering into resilience faced with an extreme situation. In J. Ahn, F. Guarnieri, & K. Furuta (Eds.), Resilience: A new paradigm of nuclear safety: From accident mitigation to resilient society facing extreme situations (pp. 1–17). Heidelberg and New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58768-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, P. A., & Lamont, M. (2013). Introduction. In P. A. Hall, & M. Lamont (Eds.), Social resilience in the neoliberal era (pp. 1–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hansson, S. O. (2012). Risk. In S. O. Hansson (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/risk/.
  29. Inventory of the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety Records. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf0290005q/.
  30. James, W. (1906). On some mental effects of the earthquake. The Youth’s Companion. Reprinted in James, H. Jr, 1911, Memories and Studies (Henry James, Jr.). Longmans, Green, & Co. (Vol. June). New York.Google Scholar
  31. Jasanoff, S. (2014). Genealogies of STS. Social Studies of Science, 42(3), 435–441.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712440174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latour, B. (2011). Reflections on Etienne Souriau’s Les differents modes d’existence. In G. Harman, L. Bryant, & N. Srnicek (Eds.), The speculative turn continental materialism and realism (Anamnesis, pp. 304–334). Melbourne: re.press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=coBDqJQeAQYC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=Latour+Souriau&source=bl&ots=wHqRXjOttu&sig=GjPBBQjrUsrgrRgvWeykV9m6Q7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XDFnUe_ZNoXmiwK7toDADQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=LatourSouriau&f=false.
  33. Latour, B. (2012). Enquête sur les modes d’existence. Une anthropologie des Modernes. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (2013). habit [hab], too, is a mode of existence in An inquiry into modes of existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 265.Google Scholar
  35. Latour. (2014). Habit. [hab]. Retrieved May 4, 2019, from http://modesofexistence.org/crossings//#/en/hab.
  36. Latour, B., & Girard Stark, M. (1999). Factures/fractures: From the concept of network to the concept of attachment. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 36(Autumn), 20–31. Retrieved from http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/downloads/76-FAKTURA-GB.pdf.
  37. Lin, R.-G. I. (2017, May 3). Earthquake early warning system nets $10.2 million in Congress’ budget deal. Los Angeles Time. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-earthquake-early-warning-20170502-story.html.
  38. Lynch, M. (2014). Genius, Hawking, and expertise. Social Studies of Science, 44, 793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mazel-Cabasse, C. (2017). Hybrid disasters—Hybrid knowledge. In J. Ahn, F. Guarnieri, & K. Furuta (Eds.), Resilience: A new paradigm of nuclear safety: From accident mitigation to resilient society facing extreme situations (pp. 337–351). Heidelberg and New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58768-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mialet, H. (2012). Hawking incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the anthropology of the knowing subject. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nye, R. (2014). The next big step. Retrieved from http://www.risanye.com/.
  42. Padilla, A. (2014). SB-135 earthquake early warning system. Senate.Google Scholar
  43. Perrow, C. (2006). The disaster after 9/11: The department of homeland security and the intelligence reorganization. Homeland Security Affairs, II(Article 3). Retrieved from https://www.hsaj.org/articles/174%0A%0A%0A%0A.
  44. Reghezza-Zitt, M., & Rufat, S. (2015). Resilience imperative: Uncertainty, risks and disasters. London and Oxford: ISTE Press and Elsevier.Google Scholar
  45. Reghezza-Zitt, M., Rufat, S., & Djament-Tran, G. (2012). What resilience is not: Uses and abuses. Retrieved from http://cybergeo.revues.org/25554.
  46. Seidman, S. (2008). Contested knowledge: Social theory today (4th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Stavo-Debauge, J. (2004). Le pragmatisme et son public à l’épreuve du terrain. Penser avec Dewey contreDewey. In L. Quere & B. Karensti (Eds.), Raisons Pratiques, 15 (Editions d, Vol. 15). Paris: Editions de l’EHESS. Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Stengers, I. (2009). Au temps des catastrophes; résister a la barbarie qui vient (les empêch). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  50. Strauss, J. A., & Allen, R. M. (2016). Benefits and costs of earthquake early warning. Seismological Research Letters, 87(3), 765–772.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Timmerman, P. (1981). Vulnerability, resilience and the collapse of society: A review of models and possible climatic applications. Environmental Monograph.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3370010412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. Weichselgartner, J., & Kelman, I. (2015). Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 249–267.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513518834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wikipedia Contributors. (2018). Unreinforced masonry building. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreinforced_masonry_building.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations