Natural Hazards

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 1341–1355 | Cite as

Social vulnerability assessment for mitigation of local earthquake risk in Los Angeles County

Original Paper
  • 753 Downloads

Abstract

Comprehensive hazard mitigation involves (1) understanding natural systems, (2) assessment of interactions within and between social systems and the built environment, and (3) understanding geo-spatial processes. To achieve this, local emergency managers must recognize variability in vulnerable populations exposed to hazards and develop place-based emergency plans accordingly. In this study, we assess whether cities in Los Angeles County are subject to disproportionally greater earthquake losses modeled from a M7.8 earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Furthermore, we analyze whether the variation in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics across cities is associated with the earthquake losses. We were able to explain 23.2 % of variance in economic losses by looking at the percentage of minority residents, income, and renter residents in a city [F(3,84) = 8.47; p < .001]. Cities with primarily minority residents had greater economic losses when compared to cities with primarily White residents (b = 1.01; p < .001). When looking at the association between demographic predictors and potential casualty rate, the percentage of Hispanic residents was positively associated with the potential casualty rate. We argue that knowledge of the relationship between earthquake hazard and the demographic characteristics of people in the area at risk is essential to mitigate the local impact from earthquakes. In other words, we apply social vulnerability assessment as part of a comprehensive risk management framework to accelerate recovery after an event. Local policy makers and the private sector can use this approach to gain a better understanding of a city’s social vulnerability and adapt their preparedness efforts accordingly.

Keywords

Social vulnerability Earthquake risk HAZUS Emergency management Hazard mitigation 

References

  1. Bertens J, Bruschi VM, Weichselgartner J (2000) Natural risk assessment in environmental policy-making. In: Proceedings of the second Euroconference on global change and catastrophe risk management: earthquake risks in Europe. IIASA Luxemburg, Austria, 6–9 July 2000Google Scholar
  2. Borden KA, Cutter SL (2008) Spatial patterns of natural hazards mortality in the United States. Int J Health Geogr 7:64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borden KA, Schmidtlein MC, Emrich CT, Piegorsch WW, Cutter SL (2007) Vulnerability of US cities to environmental hazards. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 4:2Google Scholar
  4. Burby RJ, Steinberg LJ, Basolo V (2003) The tenure trap-the vulnerability of renters to joint natural and technological disasters. Urban Aff Rev 39(1):32–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cutter SL (2010) Social science perspectives on hazards and vulnerability science. In: Beer T (ed) Geophysical hazards: minimizing risk maximizing awareness. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 17–30Google Scholar
  6. Cutter SL, Finch G (2008) Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(7):2301–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Mitchell JT, Boruff BJ, Gall M, Schmidtlein MC, Burton CG, Melton G (2006) The long road home: race, class, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Environment 48(2):8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunno CH (2011) Measuring social vulnerability to natural hazards: an examination of the United States Virgin Islands. PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at GreensboroGoogle Scholar
  10. Fothergill A, Maestas EGM, Darlington JD (1999) Race, ethnicity and disasters in the United States: a review of the literature. Disasters 23(2):156–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones LM, Bernknopf R, Cox D, Goltz J, Hudnut K, Mileti D, Perry S, Ponti D, Porter K, Reichle M, Seligson H, Shoaf K, Treiman J, Wein A (2008) The ShakeOut scenario. US geological survey open-file report 2008-1150 and California geological survey preliminary report 25. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/. Accessed 22 May 2009
  12. King D (2008) Reduced hazard vulnerability through local government engagement and action. Nat Hazards 47:497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leonard HBD, Howitt AM (2010) Acting in time against disaster: a comprehensive risk management framework. In: Kunreuther H, Useen M (eds) Learning from catastrophes: strategies for reaction and response. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  14. Los Angeles County (2011) Overview http://portal.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/lac/home. Accessed 9 June 2011
  15. HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual (2003) Department of Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and ResponseGoogle Scholar
  16. Mileti DS (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Mileti DS, Gailus JL (2005) Sustainable development and hazards mitigation in the United States: disasters by design revisited. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 10:491–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rahsed T, Weeks J (2003) Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis or urban areas. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17(6):549–576Google Scholar
  19. Rhodes EL (2003) Environmental justice in America: a new paradigm. Indiana University Press, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlosberg D (2003) The justice of environmental justice: reconciling equity, recognition, and participation in a political movement. In: Light A, de-Shalit A (eds) Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice. MIT Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  21. Schlosberg D (2004) Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories. Environ Polit 13(3):517–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlosberg D (2007) Defining environmental justice: theories, movements, and nature. University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seligson HA (2008) HAZUS enhancements and implementation for the shakeOut scenario earthquake. MMI Engineering, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. United States Census (2009) American fact finder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed 5 Nov 2009
  25. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2008). The uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2): US geological survey open-file report 2007-1437 and California geological survey special report 203. http://pibs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1091. Accessed 4 June 2009

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Analysis and Design, School of Social EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.California Institute for Hazards ResearchIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Program in Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations