The Multiple Existences of Earthquake Risk

  • Charlotte Mazel-Cabasse


Looking at how risk and disaster have been defined to articulate scientific knowledge and living experience, this chapter explores the of the two concepts are interwoven with the question of individual and collective responses to threats in a post-Second World War context. The chapter goes on to detail how these definitions have been a constant preoccupation of researchers, who are trying to define both the scope of this particular object of research and its changing relationships with others actants. In an attempt to follow William James’ steps, I recompose the various ways in which the dimensions of earthquakes can be articulated, from scientific definitions to personal experience. Following actor-network theory provides the necessary theoretical backbone to describe the nature of an earthquake, and what a future “Big One” could look like for Bay Area residents.


  1. Amador, F. (2004). The causes of 1755 Lisbon earthquake on Kant. Actas VIII Congreso de La Sociedad Espanola de Historia de Las Ciencias Y de Los Tecnicos, 485–495. Retrieved from
  2. American Red Cross, B. A. C., Association of Bay Area Governments, California Earthquake Authority, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, … U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.). Putting down roots in earthquake country—Your handbook for the San Francisco Bay region. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from
  3. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society, toward a new modernity (M. Ritter, Ed.), Nation (Vol. 2). Sage. Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (2009). Critical theory of world risk society: A cosmopolitan vision. Constellations, 16(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglund, B. (2007). Making San Francisco America: Cultural frontiers in the urban west, 1846–1906. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  6. Bessy, C., & Chateauraynaud, F. (1995). Experts et Faussaires. Paris: Métailié.Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, J. (2014). An early warning device of earthquakes (and other maladies) for everyone. Retrieved from
  8. Borraz, O. (2008). Les Politiques du Risque (Sciences P). Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  9. Bourg, D., Joly, P.-B., & Kaufmann, A. (2013). Du risque à la Menace (D. Bourg, P.-B. Joly, & A. Kaufmann, Eds.) (Ecologie e). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  10. Brechin, G. (2006). Imperial San Francisco, urban power, earthly ruin. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burress, C. (1998). Quaking at Berkeley—New study of Northern Hayward fault forces UC to revise damage estimates read more. Retrieved from
  12. Burton, I., Kates, R., & Whites, G. (1993). The environment as hazard (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cabane, L. (2012). Gouverner les catastrophes. Politiques, savoirs et organisation de la gestion des catastrophes en Afrique du Sud. CSO.Google Scholar
  14. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technological democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Charvolin, F. (1997). La Naissance du Domaine de l’Environnement. Strates [Online], 9. Retrieved from
  16. Clark, L. (2006). Worst cases, terror and catastrophe in the popular imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Clavandier, G. (2004). La mort collective (CNRS Socio). Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  18. Coen, D. (2013). The Earthquake observers: Disaster science from Lisbon to Richter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Collectif. (2008a). Catastrophe(s)? Le Portique, 2ème semes(22).Google Scholar
  20. Collectif. (2008b). Le temps des Catastrophes (M.-O. Padis, Ed.), Esprit (Esprits, Vol. Mars–Avril).Google Scholar
  21. Creton-Cazanave, L. (2010). Penser l’Alerte par les Distances. Entre Planification et Emancipation, l’Exemple du Processus d’Alerte aux Crues Rapides sur le Bassin Versant du Vidourle. Université de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  22. Curtis, G. H. (2008). Emeritus professor of geology weighs in on memorial stadium. The Berkeley Daily Planet.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disasters. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  24. Deleuze, G. (1987). Leibniz. Logique de l’évènement. Retrieved from
  25. Demuth, J. L. (2002). Countering terrorism: Lessons learned from natural and technological disasters. In National Academy of Sciences (p. 36). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. D’Ercole, R., Gluski, P., Hardy, S., & Sierra, A. (2009). Vulnérabilités urbaines dans les pays du sud. Cybergeo: Journal of Geography, 1, 95–98.Google Scholar
  27. Dupuy, J.-P. (2002). Pour un catastrophisme éclairé. Quand l’impossible est certain (Point Essa). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  28. Dynes, R. R. (1997). The Lisbon earthquake in 1755: Contested meaning in the first modern disaster (No. #255).Google Scholar
  29. Favier, R., & Granet-Abisset, A.-M. (2009). Society and natural risk in France, 1500–2000: Changing historical perspectives. In C. Mauch & C. Pfister (Eds.), Natural disasters cultural response (pp. 103–136). Lanham: Lexington Book.Google Scholar
  30. Fressoz, J. (2012). L’apocalypse joyeuse: Une histoire du risque technologique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  31. Gaar, G., & Miller, R. W. (2006). San Francisco: A natural history (Image of A). San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Gorney, C. (2009). Remembering the surgery inside the freeway collapse. Retrieved from
  33. Gralepois, M. (2008). Les risques collectifs dans les agglomérations françaises. Contours et limites d’une approache territoriale de prévention et de gestion des risques à travers le parcours des agents administratifs locaux. Universite de Paris Est.Google Scholar
  34. Grossi, P., & Muir-Wood, R. (2006). The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire: Perspectives on a modern super cat. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  35. Grossi, P., & Zoback, M. Lou. (2010). 1868 Hayward earthquake: 140 year retrospective. Menlo Park: Risk Management Solutions.Google Scholar
  36. Groth, P., & Bressi, T. (1997). Understanding ordinary landscapes. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Haas, P. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hansson, S. O. (2012). Risk. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University.
  40. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henry, D. (2005). Anthropology and disasters. In D. McEntire & W. Blanchard (Eds.), Disciplines, disasters and emergency management: The convergence and divergence of concepts, issues and trends from the research literature (p. 1). Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  42. Hinman, E., & Hutchinson, D. A. (2005). San Francisco’s earthquake risk.Google Scholar
  43. Hoffman, S. (1994). Up from the embers: A disaster survivor’s story. NCP Clinical Quarterly, 4(2), 15–16.Google Scholar
  44. Hoffman, S. (1998). Eve and Adam among the embers: Gender patterns after the Oakland Berkeley firestorm. In E. Enarson & B. Hern Morrow (Eds.), The gendered terrain of disaster: Through women’s eyes (pp. 55–61). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. 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 and James Currey. Google Scholar
  46. Houdart, S. (2008). La cour des miracles: Ethnologie d’un laboratoire japonais (Sociologie). Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  47. Houdart, S., & Thiery, O. (2011). Humains non humains. Comment repeupler les sciences sociales? Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  48. Ingold, T. (2005). Learning through doing and understanding in practices. Retrieved from
  49. Issues Answer. (2009). San Francisco Bay Area preparedness—executive summary.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Jasanoff, S. (1986). Risk management and political culture (Social Res). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  52. Jasanoff, S. (2010). Beyond calculation: A democratic response to risk. In Disaster and the politic of intervention (pp. 14–41). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Jonas, H. (1995). Le principe de responsabilité (Champs Ess). Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  54. Jones, C. (2007, February 20). Tree-sitters say site near stadium may be Native American burial ground. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from
  55. Jones, C. (2008, September 25). Retrofit plan to ride out quake at Cal stadium. SFGates. Retrieved from
  56. King, J. (2011). Cityscapes: San Francisco and its buildings. Berkeley: Heyday.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Knobel, L. (2014). Cal prof Joshua Bloom makes earthquake alert kit for $110. Retrieved from
  59. Lagadec, P. (1987). Le risque technologique majeur. In Universalia. Paris: Encyclopedia Universalis.Google Scholar
  60. Langumier, J. (2008). Survivre à l’innondation. Pour une ethnologie de la catastrophe. Lyon: ENS éditions.Google Scholar
  61. Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., & Wynne, B. (1996). Risk Environment and Modernity: Toward a New Ecology (L, Ed.) (Published). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Latour, B. (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique (Poche). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  63. Latour, B. (2004). Whose cosmos? Which cosmopolitics? A commentary on Ulrich Beck’s peace proposal? Common Knowledge, 10(3), 450–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Lupton, D. (1999a). Risk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Lupton, D. (1999b). Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Lussault, M. (2007). L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  68. Mialet, H. (2012). Hawking incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the anthropology of the knowing subject. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., … Nelson, D. (2010). Resilience and vulnerability: Complementary or conflicting concepts? Retrieved from
  70. Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  71. Montgomery, D. (2004). King of fish: The thousand year run of salmon. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  72. Myers, D., & Wee, D. F. (2005). Disaster, mental health services: A primer for practitioners. New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Neyrat, F. (2008). Bio-politique des catastrophes (Dehors). Paris: Editions MF.Google Scholar
  74. November, V., Camacho-Hübner, E., & Latour, B. (2010). Entering a risky territory: Space in the age of digital navigation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(4), 581–599. Scholar
  75. November, V., Penelas, M., & Viot, P. (2009). When flood risk transforms a territory: The Lully effect. Geography, 94, 189–197.Google Scholar
  76. Oliver-Smith, A., & Hoffman, S. M. (1999). In A. Oliver-Smith & S. M. Hoffman (Eds.), The angry earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Pattaroni, L., & Pedrazzini, Y. (2010). Insecurity and segregation: Rejecting an urbanism of fear. In P. Jacquet, R. Pachauri, & L. Tubina (Eds.), Cities: Steering towards sustainability (pp. 177–187). Delhi: TERI Press.Google Scholar
  78. Pelling, M. (2003). Tracing the roots of urban risk and vulnerability. In The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience (p. 224). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. 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. Scholar
  80. Quarantelli, E. L. (1999). Disaster related social behavior: Summary of 50 years of research findings.Google Scholar
  81. Quarantelli, E. L., & Perry, R. (2005). What is a disaster. Xlibris: Bloomington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Quenet, G. (2005). Les Tremblements de terre aux dix-septième et dix-huitième siècles. La naissance d’un risque. Seyssel: Champ Vallon.Google Scholar
  83. Reghezza-Zitt, M. (2013). Utiliser la polysémie de la résilience pour comprendre les différentes approches du risque et leur possible articulation. EchoGéo [En Ligne], 24.
  84. Reinhold, R., Navarro, M., & Rabinovitz, J. (1989). The freeway dead: Portraits from Oakland—A special report. 11 whose lives ended as quake crushed I-880. Retrieved from
  85. Reisner, M. (2003). A dangerous place. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  86. Revet, S. (2007). Anthropologie d’une catastrophe. Les coulées de boue de 1999 au Venezuela. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
  87. Schwartz, R. (2009, December). Eccentrics, heroes and cutthroats of old Berkeley. SF Gate. Retrieved from
  88. Serres, M. (2009). Temps des crises (Manifestes). Paris: Le Pommier.Google Scholar
  89. Solnit, R. (2010). Infinite city: A San Francisco atlas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  90. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translation”, and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Sciences, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stengers, I. (2009). Au temps des catastrophes; résister a la barbarie qui vient (les empêch). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  92. Thatcher, W., Ward, P., Wald, D., Hendley, J. I., & Stauffer, P. (2001). When will the next great quake strike Northern California?Google Scholar
  93. Tierney, K. J. (1994). Sociology unique contributions to the study of risk (No. #204).Google Scholar
  94. 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
  95. Tulloch, J., & Lupton, D. (2003). Risk and everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  96. University of Buffalo. (2008). Jack London and the 1906 earthquake. Retrieved from
  97. VonWinterfeldt, D., Roselund, N., & Kitsuse, A. (2000). Framing earthquake retrofitting decisions: The case of hillside homes in Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  98. Walker, R. (1995). Landscape and city life: Four ecologies of residence in San Francisco Bay Area. Cultural Geographies, 2(1), 33–64. Retrieved from
  99. Walker, R. (1998). An Appetite for the City. In J. Brook, C. Carlsson, & N. J. Peters (Eds.), Reclaiming San Francisco, history, politics, culture (p. 355). San Francisco: A City Lights Anthology.Google Scholar
  100. Walker, R., & Thomas, S. (2010). Blinded by history: The geographic dimension of environment and society. In D. Cazaux Sackman (Ed.), A companion to American environmental history (pp. 553–578). Blackwell Publishing. Scholar
  101. Walter, F. (2008). Catastrophes. Une histoire culturelle XVI-XXIème siècle. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  102. Watts, M. J., & Bohle, H. G. (1993). The space of vulnerability: The causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress in Human Geography, 17(43), 43–67. Scholar
  103. Wiener, J. B. (2010). The real pattern of precaution. Washington, DC: Future Press.Google Scholar
  104. Wiener, J. B., & Rogers, M. D. (2002). Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), 317–349. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations