1. How do you prevent community loss in the event of a natural disaster? In a study done by the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS), San Francisco will leave 200,000 of its residents with inhabitable homes in a 7.2 magnitude San Andreas earthquake scenario. With its high density and limited space, San Francisco does not have the capacity to shelter these many residents. As seen in recent natural disasters, cities are at risk to losing their communities when residents leave the affected area. There are social and economic losses associated with residents leaving the community. In order to become community resilient, cities must take preventative measures to avoid community loss that will ultimately save its economic and social well being. This research found that the most effective measures for community resiliency are to amend the Stafford Act, strengthen the role of NGOs and to increase the percentage of insured homes. How to Create a Resilient City Preventing Community Loss in the Event of a Natural Disaster BACKGROUND As seen in recent natural disasters such as the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand and the devastating hurricane in New Orleans, Louisiana, cities are at risk to losing their communities when natural disasters strike. In the event of a natural disaster, homes become inhabitable and residents are forced to relocate. Once they relocate it is difficult for them to return to their hometown due to reasons such as economic hardships, psychological effects, and risk concerns. Cities that are prone to natural disasters are at risk of experiencing damages repeatedly. It is known which types of cities are prone to natural disasters which may be due to their location, climate, or geographical profile. However, it is unknown which types of cities are resilient to natural disasters. Therefore it is important to research the measures a city can take to lead it towards community resiliency. Case Studies RESEARCH METHODS Abstract Introduction There are three measures needed to create a resilient city. The first is to amend the Stafford Act to adequately provide assistance to communities in the event of a natural disaster. Amending the Stafford Act will provide a clearer definition of emergencies and major disasters, a more formal structure for governmental assistance, and a better preparedness plan for future disasters. The second measure is to strengthen the role of NGOs in disaster planning. A strong connection with NGOs to the community can provide community resilience through preparedness and awareness, through addressing community specific needs and through action plans that will help communities build resilience over time. The third measure needed is to increase the number of disaster insured homes. While NGOs can prepare the community for a natural disaster, only insurance companies have the capital to support reparations after an event of an earthquake. Increasing the number of insured homes will streamline the recovery efforts of a community, invest residents to stay resided in the community and assure the community with reparations following a natural disaster. Analysis of Results RESULTS Major natural disasters in the U.S include the Northridge Earthquake of 1994 and Hurricane Katrina of 2005. These landmark events have shown how cities are unprepared for natural disasters. With the recent events of natural disasters occurring across the globe, it is important for communities to be aware of their neighborhood vulnerabilities and how they can better prepare themselves in the event of a emergency. Early research on community resiliency has shown the implications of public policy for natural disaster and those still exist today. We may know how to create a resilient city but there is still the obstacle of enacting this knowledge around public policy. Conclusion John Quoc Pham (j3pham@ucsd.edu) University of California: San Diego, Urban Studies and Planning, 2011-2012j3pham@ucsd.edu San Francisco 1989 New Orleans 2005 Christchurch 2010/2011 Prevention measuresEarthquake Hazard Reduction Act 1977 Hurricane relief plan however did not account for levee breach Building codes showed a significant amount of damages were mitigated Governmental assistance Financial assistance through loans to those affected by the earthquake Did not provide physical assistance until 5 days after the hurricane Quick governmental assistance within days of the event to assess building safety levels Public perception of preparedness Californians were mentally prepared but their properties were not Limited understanding of the levee risks The public’s perception of safety in Christchurch was detrimental due to the reoccurring earthquakes RecommendationsAction plans such as the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) A clear post hurricane recover plan to create a safer city Recommendations at this point in time is too early to assess Cost in damages$6 Billion$81.2 Billion$12 Billion (US) Findings NGO Involvement Insured Homes Preparedness/Prevention Community Loss