2. THE ART AND SCIENCE OF IDENTIFYING AND ELIMINATING VULNERABILITIES TO EARTHQUAKES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, University of North Carolina, USA

3. OUR WORLD IS AT RISK FLOODS SEVERE WINDSTORMS EARTHQUAKES TSUNAMIS DROUGHTS VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS LANDSLIDES WILDFIRES

4. HAZARDSHAZARDS VULNERABILITIES IN A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT CONTROLS THE RISK EXPOSUREEXPOSURE VULNERABILITYVULNERABILITY LOCATIONLOCATION RISKRISK

5. A COMMUNITY’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT: BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

6. WHAT HISTORY TEACHES CITIES AND MEGACITIES EXIST BY GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND ATMOSPHERIC CONSENT AND MAN’S CAPACITY TO ELIMINATE THE VULNERABILITIES

7. INADEQUATE SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS (I.E., BUILDING CODES AND LIFELINE STANDARDS ) MEAN 1) INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING 2) COLLAPSE OF BUILDINGS AND LOSS OF FUNCTION OF LIFELINES

8. INJURIES AND DEATHS CONSEQUENCES OF COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIES DAMAGE AND COLLAPSE LOSS OF FUNCTION ECONOMIC LOSS RISKRISK

9. SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

10. SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

11. SOME VULNERABILITIES ARE OBVIOUS

12. A UTILITY CORRIDOR IS VULNERABLE TO LOSS OF FUNCTION WHEN ROUTED THROUGH SOILS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION.

13. THE REALITY CHECK PROVIDED BY PAST DISASTERS Source: Munich Re and many others

14. INADEQUATE BUILDING CODES EARTHQUAKES INADEQUATE LIFELINE STANDARDS SITING IN LOCATIONS OF SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND FAILURE IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION AND PLAN INADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SITING ON SOFT SOILS INADEQUATE ANCHORAGE OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS CAUSES OF VULNER- ABILITIES “DISASTER LABORATORIES”

15. NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS SAN FRANCISCO 1906 EARTHQUAKE & FIRE 3,000 CASUALTIES $ 524 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 180 M INSURED LOSS

17. NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS TOKYO 1923 EARTHQUAKE & FIRE 142,807 CASUALTIES $ 2,800 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 590 M INSURED LOSS

19. NOTABLE PAST DISASTERS MANAGUA 1972 EARTHQUAKE 11,000 CASUALTIES $ 800 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 100 M INSURED LOSS

21. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS TANGSHAN 1976 EARTHQUAKE 240,000 + CASUALTIES $ 5,600 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ ---0 M INSURED LOSS

23. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS MEXICO CITY 1985 EARTHQUAKE 9,500 CASUALTIES $ 4,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 275 M INSURED LOSS

26. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS LOMA PRIETA (SAN FRANCISCO) 1989 EARTHQUAKE 61 CASUALTIES $ 5,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 1,000 M INSURED LOSS

30. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA 1994 EARTHQUAKE 61 CASUALTIES $ 44,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 15,300 M INSURED LOSS

36. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS KOBE, JAPAN 1995 EARTHQUAKE 6,400 CASUALTIES $ 100,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 3,000 M INSURED LOSS

41. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS IZMET, TURKEY 1999 EARTHQUAKE 17,200 CASUALTIES $ 12,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ 600 M INSURED LOSS

43. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS BAM, IRAN 2003 EARTHQUAKE 40,000 CASUALTIES $ ?000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ --00 M INSURED LOSS

44. 2003 Bam, Iran Earthquake

45. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS BANDA ACHE, INDONESIA 2004 EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI 240,000 CASUALTIES $ 4,000 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ ?--00 M INSURED LOSS

46. 2004 BANDA ACHE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI

48. PAST NOTABLE DISASTERS SICHUAN PROVINCE, CHINA 2008 EARTHQUAKE 80,000 CASUALTIES $ 13,300 M LOSS (ORIGINAL VALUES) $ --00 M INSURED LOSS

49. SICHUAN, CHINA EARTHQUAKE INADEQUATE BUILDING CODE

50. TWENTY-ONE DAYS LATER 45,690,000 people were affected by the disaster.

51. HAITI EARTHQUAKE: INADEQUATE BUILDING CODE; JANUARY 12, 2010

52. TSUNAMI: JAPAN MARCH 12, 2011

53. EVERY COMMUNITY CAN MAKE ITS FUTURE BETTER THAN ITS PAST GOAL 1: LEARN FROM THE PAST GOAL 2: REDUCE COMMUNITY VULNERABILITIES THAT INCREASE RISK FOR PEOPLE, PROPERTY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE

54. REALITY CHECK The CEO is the only individual in the community who can bring all the stakeholders to the table to develop a realistic action plan and ensure its implementation.

55. REALITY CHECK Professionals have to assist the CEO develop a book of knowledge on past and potential disasters affecting the community and an action plan for vulnerability reduction.

56. STEPS Key Component 1: Identification of Hazards and the Vulnerabilities of the Community’s Built Environment

57. STEPS Key Component 2: Loss Estimation that can be Correlated with specific Vulnerabilities

58. STEPS Key Component 3: A Prevention/Mitigation Plan for: a) Life Safety Protection, b) the Prevention of Physical Damage, and c) the Reduction of Financial Loss

59. STEPS Key Component 4: A Reliable Communications Network

60. STEPS Key Component 5: A Chain of Command

61. THE ULTIMATE REALITY The brunt of the expense and hardship of most disasters is borne by households, local businesses, and local governments, NOT insurance.

62. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF FACT WHAT LEVEL OF CASUALTIES SHOULD BE EXPECTED IN A FUTURE EVENT? WHAT LEVEL OF ECONOMIC LOSSES SHOULD BE EXPECTED IN A FUTURE EVENT?

63. MAKING THE FUTURE BETTER THAN THE PAST UNDER- STAND IDENT- IFY HEAR PERSON- ALIZE ACT PERIOD OF INTEGRATION WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY PERIOD OF IMPLEMENTATION