zoback 2014 04 risk resilience_cw_ufinal
DESCRIPTION
April 4, 2014 Keynote address by Dr. Zoback Cascadia Hazards Institute @CWU Seismic Hazards & the Built EnvironmentTRANSCRIPT
REDUCING NATURAL HAZARD RISK AND INCREASING RESLIENCE
Mary Lou ZobackConsulting Prof., Geophysics
1SEISMIC HAZARDS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT-Cascadia Hazards Institute, Central WA Univ., April 4, 2014
Natural Hazard Assessment
1. Size, location, and likelihood of future events
Bay Area Earthquake Likelihood Forecast:Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
Paleoseismology
Size and frequency of past earthquakes
D. P. Schwartz, USGS
Natural Hazard Assessment
1. Size, location, and likelihood of future events
2. Quantification of their impacts/secondary hazards
Bay Area Earthquake Forecast;Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities
Probabilistic hazard assessments
National Seismic Hazard Map2% chance of exceedance in 50 years(2475 yr return period)
30 yr probability of tsunami runup exceeding 0.5 m Parsons and Geist (2009)
What politicians are interested in
A couple of decades ago, a California congressman asked a seismologist three simple questions:
What is the scope of the earthquake problem in California?
What can we do about it?
How much will it cost?
Risk – occurrence of an event and its consequences
Hazard Exposure Risk
$ losses
#
fatalities
#
displaced
Social and
economic
disruption
Vulnerability
Physical event, its impacts, and collateral (secondary) hazards
Assets at Risk- population, buildings, infrastructure, ecosystems
Susceptibility to damage, disruption and other adverse consequences due to physical impacts
What is Resilience?
“The ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, or more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse events”
Photo: Cedar Rapids, Iowa during the 2008 flooding
Source: AP photo/Jeff Robertson
2012, Free PDF available at National Academies Press, www.nap.edu
Components of resilience
Physical resilience- The foundation:
Zoning/bldg. codesRetrofitsLevees
Social resilience - The engine:
Personal responsibilityCommunity engagementStrong social networksStrong & diverse economyGood governance and political will
Resilience
A TALE OF RESILIENCE …
Disasters
from
around
the world
Bold Leadership
Heroes and a Villain
Creative Solutions
Community Activism
The CAPSS Project – and a true hero
CAPSS = Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety for San Francisco
Brainchild of Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector
Saw 1995 Kobe, Japan EQ first-hand and recognized it as his worst nightmare
Purpose: To help San Franciscans make good decisions to reduce the City’s earthquake risk
The CAPSS Project – a tale of three mayors
CAPSS - a project of the San Francisco Dept. of Building Inspection, overseen by Building Inspection Commission
Included a Citizen’s Advisory Committee Started 2001 to 2003 – CANCELLED! Resumed 2008 to 2010
“There will be no earthquakes while I am Mayor of SF”
Mayor Willie Brown
Mayors Newsome and Ed Lee
Jason Elliott
CAPSS: Unique undertaking – vulnerability assessment at neighborhood scale
Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety
Used HAZUS software on neighborhood scale inventory with specific vulnerability functions for SF buildings
Examined 4 earthquake scenarios
San Andreas M6.5San Andreas M7.2San Andreas M7.9
Hayward M6.9
Maps of shaking intensity for the 4 CAPSS scenarios
All produce shaking throughout SF 2-4 times stronger than shaking in Marina during 1989 Loma Prieta quake
Exposure: Building Use & Type, total = 160,000
Building Use
Sin-gle-fam-ily
69%
2 unit res.12%
3+ unit res.14%
Other res.0%
Comm.3% Indust.
1%
Structural type
WF SS res
53%Conc. <1980
2%
WF nonSS res43%
Mod. Conc.0%
Steel Mom.1%
Unref. Mason.
1%
WF = Wood FrameSS = Soft StoryRes = ResidentialComm = CommercialInd = Industrial
96% Residential 55% of Concern
San Francisco’s special vulnerability
SF second only to NYC in % of households that rent, ~66%
~70% subject to rent control
50% residential structures built prior to 1930
84% residential structures built prior to 1970
Extensive soft-story construction
Post-Earthquake Functionality of Dwelling Units after M7.2
Usable, light
damage
Usable, moderate damage
Repairable, cannot be occupied
Not repairable, cannot be occupied
120,000 130,000 74,000 11,000
85,000 units unusable X 2.31 people/household = 196,300 homeless
THSan Francisco Planning and Urban Research
1906 Centennial commemorationKatrina shelters
TH
Goals : establish performance goals for the "expected"
earthquake that support resilience define transparent performance measures to reach
performance goals suggest next steps for San Francisco's new buildings,
existing buildings and lifelines.
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
1906 Centennial commemoration
Katrina shelters
21
22
GOALS
1. Residents will be able to stay in their homes
2. Residents quickly have access to privately-run community services
3. No building will collapse catastrophically
4. Businesses and the economy will quickly return to functionality
5. City’s sense of place preserved
CAPSS Policy Recommendations
Estimated share of housing units unoccupiable, by structural types - M 7.2 San Andreas scenario
1 & 2 unit wood frame soft-story residences, 22%
3 & 4 unit wood frame soft-story residences; 34%
5 & more unit wood frame res-idences with 3 or
more stories; 33%
Concrete build-ings built before
1980; 6%
All other types of build-ings; 5%
3 step strategy to reduce risk to all privately-owned buildings
Step 1: Encourage retrofits, facilitate market in which EQ performance valued
Step 2: Require evaluations & notification
Step 3: Require retrofits
A generational program to address all vulnerable building types
Building Categories 2010-2015
2015-2020
2020- 2025
2025-2030
2030-2035
2035-2040
Wood frame residential buildings with three or more stories and five or more units** Concrete tilt-up buildings Residential buildings with three and four units Private K-12 schools and private universities Assisted living facilities Concrete residential buildings built before 1980 Other types of residential buildings with more than five units Hotels and motels serving tourists Critical retail stores and suppliers Single family homes and two unit residences Concrete non-residential buildings built before 1980 Houses of worship Preschools and daycare centers Buildings used by large audiences Historic buildings Large buildings with welded steel moment frames built before 1994 Early retrofitted buildings All other building types Color key Step 1: Facilitate a market in which earthquake performance is valued Step 2a: Nudge market by requiring evaluation upon sale Step 2b: Nudge market by requiring evaluation by a deadline Step 3: Implementation period to require retrofit by a deadline
Success!!
April 18, 2013 Mayor Lee signs into law, new ordinance for mandatory inspection and retrofit for 5+ units, 3+ story soft-story buildings permitted for construction prior to Jan. 1, 1978
Patrick Otellini – Earthquake Safety Implementation Program, SF’s Chief Resilience Officer
Retrofit Solution Enforcement
“Earthquake Warning
This building is in violation of the requirements of the San
Francisco Building Code regarding earthquake
safety."
Posted on the building, can not be removed until building is in compliance
Recorded with the title of the building
Disappointment: Annual tenant notification not required
Approach – “My grandmother lives in the building and my uncle owns it.”
Simple template inspection to determine soft-story condition, ~$500
Strengthening on ground floor only
30
Critical infrastructure – impetus from 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
31
In the 25 years since Loma Prieta ….
Infrastructure provider
Number clients served
Scope of upgrades Total cost/source of funding
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
15M throughout N CA
System upgrade of underground gas, electrical components, substations, and admin building.
$2.5Brate payers
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
400,000 daily ridership
Retrofit core system-aerial structures, stations, transbay tube (completion system 2018, tube 2023)
$1.3Bbonds & taxpayers/
$3M from FEMA
East Bay Municipal Utilities District(EBMUDD)
1.3M in East Bay
Entire system upgrade: pipelines, fault crossings, dams, admin building, pumping and treatment plants (completed 1999?)
$0.19Brate payers
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
38.3M state-wide
Structurally upgraded and seismically retrofit over 2000 bridges and overpasses, new E span Bay Bridge
$13.08BCA taxpayers
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission(SFPUC)
2.6 M residential, commercial, and industrial
Upgrade of 100+ yr old Hetch Hetchy water system-pipelines, fault crossings treatment facilities, and reservoirs (2016 completion)
$4.6Bbond measure
Total Investment $21.6B
Five step resilience strategy
Assess vulnerabilities to expected earthquakes
Set performance goals for the systems after the earthquake
Communicate risks/benefits and secure funding
Develop creative and innovative solutions for these complex problems. – Include redundancy into the system
Continue to reassess system performance as upgrades proceed. – Develop real-time damage assessment
capability using USGS ShakeMaps overlain by system fragility functions.
b 8+00
b 9+00
V A ULT
`
V A ULTTRA N SITIO N
V A ULTTRA N SITIO N
b 8+00
b 9+00
V A ULT
`
V A ULTTRA N SITIO N
V A ULTTRA N SITIO N
carrier pipei.d: 6ft; length: 85ft
Key element’s SF’s resilience success
Widespread risk awareness– USGS forecast
– Loma Prieta, Kobe, Katrina
Champions!
Detailed vulnerability assessment
Engagement of stakeholders– CAPSS Citizen Adv. Comm.
– SPUR policy think tank
Plain English resilience performance objectives
Creative solutions and equity – a plan all vulnerable buildings in city
“Chance favors the prepared mind”
Bold leadership, citzenry willing to tax themselves for public good
Step 1: Encourage retrofits
Step 2: Require evaluations & notification
Step 3: Require retrofits
Final comments
Earth Scientists are convinced if they just explain the hazards to public, then they will take responsible action
At best, we assume if they can demonstrate cost-effectiveness, then policy makers will act
…
Risk reduction and resilience requires a truly interdisciplinary approach
Resilience is community-based and involves a number of critical elements
Insurance as a resilience strategy
Typically, homeowner or business pays a premium annually for coverage for loss
For floods, fires have thousands of claims annually, easy to determine premium
For rare natural hazards, rely on “catastrophe models” of risk and loss
Payout for claim is always less a “deductible”, typically 15% for natural hazards, policy may cover temporary living expenses
Even if home unlivable, owner still responsible for mortgage
Earthquake insurance – does the math make sense?
2500 square foot home Construction price in Bay
Area $400/square foot Home value = $1 million CA EQ Authority premium
in 94305 = $4000K/yr Earthquake after 10 years:
– $40K in premium
– 15% deductible = $150K
Home must sustain $190K in damage before you get anything back from insurance!