What (Sociotechnical) Resilience Is Made Of: Personal Trajectories and Earthquake Risk Mitigation in the San Francisco Bay Area

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the slow emergence of sociotechnical infrastructures designed to improve earthquake risk resilience in the San Francisco Bay Area. Building on in-depth interviews with experts and following their professional and personal trajectories, the chapter describes resilience as a syncretic social process: the potential result of years of hard work and risk mitigation policies. In an STS approach, and focusing on the modus operandi that connect together different key elements and stakeholders involved in earthquake risk mitigation, the chapter proposes a pragmatic exploration on the nature of resilience. To do so, 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 complex 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.

Keywords

Earthquake preparedness Expertise Experience Organization Infrastructure 

References

  1. ABAG. (2013). Resilience Initiative- Building a Disaster Resilient Bay Area. Retrieved from http://quake.abag.ca.gov/projects/resilience_initiative/
  2. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2017, from https://quake06.stanford.edu/centennial/tour/stop9.html
  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. Ahn, J., Guarnieri, F., & Furuta, K. (2017). Resilience: A New Paradigm of Nuclear Safety. From Accident Mitigation to Resilient Society Facing Extreme Situations. Resilience: A New Paradigm of Nuclear Safety. From Accident Mitigation to Resilient Society Facing Extreme Situations. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58768-4
  5. Alinsky, S. (1989). Rules for Radicals. Vintage; a edition.Google Scholar
  6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/index.aspx
  7. Amir, S., & Kant, V. (2018). Sociotechnical Resilience: A Preliminary Concept. Risk Analysis, 38(1): 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, J. (2004). The Agency of Assemblages and the North American Blackout. Public Culture, 17(3), 445–466. Retrieved from uake.usgs.gov/research/pager/prodandref/WaldEtAlECEESDYFI.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blume, J. A. (n.d.). John A. Blume—trailblazing earthquake engineer. Retrieved from https://engineering.stanford.edu/about/heroes/john-blume
  10. 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
  11. Bossu, R., Gilles, S., Mazet-Roux, G., Roussel, F., Frobert, L., & Kamb, L. (2011). Flash sourcing, or rapid detection and characterization of earthquake effects through website traffic analysis. Annals of Geophysics, 54(6), 716–727.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-5265 Google Scholar
  12. Boudia, S., & Jas, N. (2007). Risk and Risk society in Historical Perspective. History and Technology, 4, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourque, L., & Russell, L. (1994). Experiences During and Responses to the Loma Prieta Earthquake.Google Scholar
  14. Brechin, G. (2006). Imperial San Francisco, Urban Power, Earthly Ruin. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. California Seismic Safety Commission. (2001). Findings and Recommendations on Hospital Seismic Safety. 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, T. (2002). Making it Work in Berkeley: investing in Community Sustainability. Natural Hazard Review, 1.Google Scholar
  19. Coen, D. (2013). The Earthquake Observers- Disaster Science from Lisbon to Richter. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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 Google Scholar
  21. Comfort, L. K., Boin, A., & Demchak, Chris C. (2010). Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events. University of Pittsburgh Press; 1 edition.Google Scholar
  22. Contributors, W. (n.d.-a). “Bruce Bolt.” In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bolt
  23. Contributors, W. (n.d.-b). “Henry J. Degenkolb.” In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Degenkolb
  24. Contributors, W. (n.d.-c). “Unreinforced Masonry Building.” In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreinforced_masonry_building
  25. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of Fear. Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disasters. Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Frickel, S., & Bess, V. (2007). Katrina, Contamination, and the Unintended Organization of Ignorance. Technology in Society, 29, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geschwind, C.-H. (2001). California Earthquake, Science, Risk and the politic of Hazard Mitigation. The Johns Hopkins university Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gomart, E., & Hennion, A. (1999). A sociology of attachment: music amateurs, drug users. The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03490.x
  30. Gorney, C. (2009). Remebering the Surgery Inside the Freeway Collapse. Retrieved from http://oaklandnorth.net/2009/10/17/remembering-the-surgery-inside-the-freeway-collapse/
  31. Grossi, P., & Muir-Wood, R. (2006). The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire: Perspectives on a Modern Super Cat.Google Scholar
  32. 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). Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58768-4 Google Scholar
  33. Hall, P., & Lamont, M. (2013). Social resilience in the neoliberal era. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hoffman, S. M., & Oliver-Smith, A. (2002). Catastrophe and Culture. The Anthropology of Disasters. (S. M. Hoffman & A. Oliver-Smith, Eds.). School of American Research Press, James Curry.Google Scholar
  35. 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/
  36. Jasanoff, S. (2014). Genealogies of STS. Social Studies of Science, 42(3), 435–441.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712440174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, L. (2011). Insuring Climate Change: Science, fear, and value in reinsurance markets. University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
  38. Juraku, K. (2015). Why Is It So Difficult to Learn from Accidents? In International Workshop on Nuclear Safety: From Accident Mitigation to Resilient Society Facing Extreme Situations. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  39. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=WFEeib0Q9L0C&pgis=1
  40. Knowles, S. (2011). The Disaster Experts: Mastering Risk in Modern America. The University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lagorio, H. J. (n.d.). Henry J. Lagorio.Google Scholar
  42. Lane, S., Odoni, N., Landstrom, C., Whatmore, S., Ward, N., & Bardley, S. (2010). Doing flood risk science differently: an experiment in radical scientific method. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., & Wynne, B. (1996). Risk Environment and Modernity. Toward a New Ecology. (L, Ed.) (Published). SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. (2005). What Is Given in Experience? Boundary 2, 32(1), 223–237.  https://doi.org/10.1215/01903659-32-1-223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 Google Scholar
  46. Law, J. (1990). Introduction: monsters, machines and sociotechnical relations. The Sociological Review, 38(1 S), 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03346.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Lussault, M. (2007). L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain. Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  49. Mahony, M., & Hulme, M. (2016). Epistemic geographies of climate change. Progress in Human Geography, 30913251668148.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516681485
  50. 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). Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58768-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Myers, D., & Wee, D. F. (2005). Disaster, Mental Health Services: A Primer for Practitioners. Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Nigg, J. M., & Mileti, D. S. (1998). The Loma Prieta California Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Recovery, Mitigation and Reconstruction (USGS Professional Paper No. 1553–D).Google Scholar
  53. November, V., & Leanza, Y. (2015). Risk, Disaster and Crisis Reduction. Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08542-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olson, R. A. (n.d.). Robert A. Olson. Retrieved from http://www.olsonassoc.com/utility/about.html
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. Quarantelli, E. L. (1998). What is a Disaster?: A Dozen Perspectives on the Question. Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Reghezza-Zitt, M., & Rufat, S. (2015). Resilience Imperative: Uncertainty, Risks and Disasters. (ISTE Press—Elsevier, Ed.).Google Scholar
  59. Reghezza-Zitt, M., Rufat, S., & Djament-Tran, G. (2012). What Resilience Is Not: Uses and Abuses. Retrieved from http://cybergeo.revues.org/25554
  60. Solnit, R. (2009). A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. Viking.Google Scholar
  61. Steinbrugge, K. (1968). Earthquake hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area: a Continuing Problem in Public olicy. Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
  62. Steinbrugge, K. V. (n.d.). Karl V. Steinbrugge.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Taira, T., Silver, P. G., Niu, F., & Nadeau, R. M. (2009). Remote triggering of fault-strength changes on the San Andreas fault at Parkfield. Nature, 461(7264), 636–639.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tierney, K. J. (2001). How will Social Science Help us Deal with Earthquake? University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Tobriner, S. (2006). Bracing for Disaster. Earthquake-Resistant Architecture and Engineering in San Francisco, 1838–1933. The Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
  68. Tubbesing, S., & Mileti, D. S. (1994). The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Loss Estimation and Procedure. Washington. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_E3wAAAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=SL4-PA3&dq=Conducting+earthquake+preparedness+campaigns:+A+marketing+approach+%28BAREPP%29+&ots=IsskiLJyN6&sig=xbcbigVAp-ftRZaI0A-wseTWhks#v=onepage&q&f=false
  69. 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
  70. Walker, R. (1990). The PlayGround for US Capitalism? The Political Economy of San Francisco Bay Area in the 80’s. In M. Davis, S. Hiatt, M. Kennedy, S. Ruddick, & M. Sprinker (Eds.), Fire in Hearth, The Radical Politics of Place in America. Verso.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. White, G. (1945). Human adjustment to floods – A geographical approach to the flood problem in the United-States. The University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/gfw/images/Human_Adj_Floods.pdf
  73. Wilshire, H. (n.d.). Collapsed Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland, from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:022srUSGSCyprusVia.jpg
  74. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2006). At Risk. Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations