Policy development and uncertainty in earthquake risk in the New Madrid seismic zone

Special Paper of the Geological Society of America

Volumn 425, Issue , 2007, Pages 375-386

  Crandell, Jay H ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Disaster; Earthquake; New Madrid; Policy; Regulation; Risk

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DISASTERS; EMERGENCY SERVICES; HAZARDS; LOSSES; PUBLIC POLICY; RISKS;

INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING; INSURANCE MARKETS; NEW MADRID; NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONES; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; POLICY IMPLICATIONS; REGULATION; UNREINFORCED MASONRY;

EARTHQUAKES;

DISASTER; EARTHQUAKE; HAZARD MANAGEMENT; MARKET; MASONRY; MITIGATION; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC ZONE; VULNERABILITY;

EID: 75749121923     PISSN: 00721077     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1130/2007.2425(25)     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anient, J., 1998, Earthquake insurance: Public policy analysis: Palo Alto, California, Public Policy Perspectives from the Western United States Earthquake Insurance Summit, Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC), www.wsspc.org (last accessed 12/29/2004).
2. American Re, 2003, Annual review of North American natural catastrophes 2003: Princeton, New Jersey, American Re-Insurance Company, 44 p.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2002, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures: ASCE Standard 7-02: Reston, Virginia, American Society of Civil Engineers, 376 p.
4. Atkinson, G., et al., 2000, Reassessing the New Madrid seismic zone: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 81, no. 35, p. 397, 402-403.
5. Bakun, W.H., and Hopper, M.G., 2004, Magnitudes and Locations of the 18111812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina Earthquakes: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 94, no. 1, p. 64-75, doi: 10.1785/0120020122.
6. California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), 2004, Findings and Recommendations from the San Simeon Earthquake of December 22, 2003: California Seismic Safety Commission report 04-02, 7 p.
7. CATO Institute, 2001, CATO Handbook for Congress, Policy recommendations for the 107th Congress: Washington, D.C., CATO Institute, 680 p.
8. CATO Institute, 2004, CATO Handbook for Congress, Policy recommendations for the 108th Congress: Washington, D.C., CATO Institute, Chapter 37, p. 385-396.
9. Crandell, J.H., 1996, Assessment of Damage to Homes Caused by Hurricane Opal: Upper Marlboro, Maryland, NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) Research Center, Inc, 39 p.
10. Crandell, J.H., 2002, Housing Performance Assessment Report: F-4 La Plata Tornado of April 28, 2002: Upper Marlboro, Maryland, NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) Research Center, Inc, 26 p.
11. Crandell, J.H., 2004, Using system-based design principles for affordable, durable, and disaster-resistant housing, in Conference on Wood-Frame Housing Durability and Disaster Issues, Las Vegas, Nevada (October 4-6, 2004): Madison, Wisconsin, Forest Products Society, 29 p.
12. Crandell, J.H., and Kochkin, V.G., 2003, Common engineering issues in conventional construction: Wood Design Focus, v. 13, no. 3, p. 13-23.
13. Crandell, J.H. and Kochkin, V.G., 2005, Scientific Damage Assessment Methodology and Practical Applications, Proceedings of the 2005 Structures Congress and the 2005 Forensic Engineering Symposium, New York, 20-24 April 2005: Reston, Virginia, American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute.
14. Cummins, J.D., 2002, Deregulating Property-Liability Insurance: Restoring Competition and Increasing Market Efficiency: Washington, D.C., AEI- Brookings Joint Center, www.aei-brookings.org.
15. DeLollis, B., 2000, Court rejects challenge to storm rates: Wind insurance could skyrocket if ruling stands: The Miami Herald, 17 June 2000, www. newslibrary.com (last accessed 22 June 2000).
16. Dunmoyer, D., 1998, Earthquake hazards and insurance, in Earthquake Insurance: Public Policy Perspectives from the Western United States Earthquake Insurance Summit: Palo Alto, California, Western States Seismic Policy Council, www.wsspc.org (last accessed 29 December 2004).
17. Dutton, C.E., 1890 (reprinted 1979), The Charleston earthquake of August 31, 1886: Washington, D.C., U.S. Geological Survey Ninth Annual Report, 1887-88, p. 203-528.
18. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 366, 2001, HazUS 99 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States: Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, February 2001, 33 p.
19. FEMA 368, 2001, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (Part I-Provisions): Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 374 p.
20. FEMA 369, 2001, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (Part II-Commentary): Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 444 p.
21. FEMA 383, 2003, Expanding and Using Knowledge to Reduce Earthquake Losses: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Strategic Plan 2001-2005: Washington, D.C., Federal Emergency Management Agency, 66 p.
22. Galambos, T.V., Ellingwood, B., MacGregor, J.G., and Cornell, C.A., 1982, Probability based load criteria: Assessment of current design practice: Journal of the Structural Division, v. 108, no. ST5, p. 959-977.
23. Ginsburg, T.B., and Stark, T.D., 2002, The law and policy of earthquake hazard in the central United States: Champaign-Urbana, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of IL, http://www.igpa.uiuc.edu (last accessed January 2005).
24. Hamburger, R.O., 1998, Earthquake insurance-Incentive or disincentive for mitigation?, in Earthquake Insurance: Public Policy Perspectives from the Western United States Earthquake Insurance Summit: Palo Alto, California, Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC), www.wsspc.org (last accessed 12/29/2004).
25. Harlan, M.R., and Lindbergh, C., 1988, An earthquake vulnerability analysis of the Charleston, South Carolina, Area,: Charleston, South Carolina, The Citadel, Department of the Civil Engineering Report CE-88-1.
26. Hough, S.E., Armbruster, J.G., Seeber, L., and Hough, J.F., 2000, On the modified Mercalli intensities and magnitudes of the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 105, no. B10, p. 23,839-23,864, doi: 10.1029/2000JB900110.
27. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 1993, Assessment of Damage to Single-Family Homes Caused by Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 112 p.
28. HUD, 1994, Assessment of Damage to Residential Buildings Caused by the Northridge Earthquake: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 76 p.
29. HUD, 2000, Residential Structural Design Guide: 2000 Edition: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 396 p.
30. HUD, 2001, Studies on Probability-Based Design for Residential Construction: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 34 p.
31. HUD, 2003, New Madrid Seismic Zone: Overview of Earthquake Hazard and Magnitude Assessment based on Fragility of Historic Structures: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 2003, 48 p.
32. International Code Council (ICC), 2003, International Building Code: Falls Church, Virginia, International Code Council, 656 p. Insurance Information Institute (III), 2005, Earthquakes: Risk and Insurance Issues: New York, New York, Insurance Information Institute, http:// iiidev.iii.org/media/hotttopics/ insurance/earthquake (last accessed 29 January 2005).
33. Klein, R.W., 1998, Regulating catastrophe insurance: Issues and options: Palo Alto, California, Earthquake Insurance: Public Policy Perspectives from the Western United States Earthquake Insurance Summit, Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC), www.wsspc.org (last accessed 29 December 2004).
34. Kochkin, V.G., and Crandell, J.H., 2004, Survey of historic buildings predating the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes and magnitude estimation based on structural fragility: Seismological Research Letters, v. 72, no. 6, p. 22-35.
35. Kochkin, V.G., and Mays, T., 2005, Estimation of Ground Motions during the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake based on the Performance of Structures: Upper Marlboro, Maryland, NAHB Research Center, Inc., www.nahbrc.org (last accessed January 2005).
36. Kunreuther, H., 1998, Insurance as an integrating policy tool for disaster management: The role of public-private partnerships, in Earthquake Insurance:
37. Public Policy Perspectives from the Western United States Earthquake Insurance Summit: Palo Alto, California, Western States Seismic Policy Council, www.wsspc.org (last accessed 29 December 2004).
38. May, P.J., Feeley, T.J., Wood, R., and Burby, R.J., 1999, Adoption and enforcement of earthquake risk-reduction measures: Berkeley, California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, 84 p.
39. McKee, S.P., and Crandell, J.H., 1999, Evaluation of Housing Performance and Seismic Design Implications in the Northridge Earthquake: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 13 p.
40. Melchers, R.E., 1999, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction: New York, John Wiley &Sons, 437 p.
41. MSSC, 1997, A Strategic Plan for Earthquake Safety in Missouri, Missouri Seismic Safety Commission (MSSC): Jefferson City, Missouri, State Emergency Management Agency, 24 p.
42. Newman, A., Stein, S., Weber, J., Engeln, J., Mao, A., and Dixon, T., 1999, Slow deformation and low seismic hazard at the New Madrid seismic zone: Science, v. 284, p. 619-621, doi: 10.1126/science.284.5414.619.
43. Newman, A., Schneider, J., Stein, S., and Mendez, A., 2001, Uncertainties in seismic hazard maps for the New Madrid seismic zone and implications for seismic hazard communication: Seismological Research Letters, v. 72, no. 6, p. 647-663.
44. Olasky, M., 2005, Disasters R Us, A history of disaster relief: World Magazine, v. 20, no. 46, p 19.
45. Otway, H.J., Battat, M.E., Lohrding, R.K., Turner, R.D., and Cubit, R.L., 1970, A risk analysis of the Omega West reactor: Los Alamos, New Mexico, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report No. LA 4449, 34 p.
46. Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC), 2001, Can California Survive the Next Major Earthquake?: Sacramento, California, Personal Insurance Federation of California, www.pifc.org (last accessed 17 May 2007).
47. Pielke, R.A., and Landsea, C.W., 1998, Normalized hurricane damages in the United States: 1925-1995: Weather and Forecasting, v. 13, p. 621-631, doi: 10.1175/1520-0434(1998)013<0621:NHDITU>2.0.CO;2.
48. Somin, I., 2004, When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy: Washington, D.C., Policy Analysis, no. 525, CATO Institute, 27 p.
49. Stein, S., and Wysession, M., 2003, An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure: Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishing, 498 p.
50. Stein, S., Tomasello, J., and Newman, A., 2003, Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes?: Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union), v. 84, no. 19, p. 13, doi: 10.1029/2003EO190002.
51. Stelzer, C.D., 1999, On Shaky Ground: Riverfront Times, December 15, 1999: www.riverfronttimes.com (last accessed 29 January 2005).
52. Sylves, R., 2004, Floods and Presidential Declarations of Disaster: Washington, D.C., Disaster Roundtable No. 10, March 2, 2004, The National Academies, http://dels.nas.edu/dr/docs/dr10/sylves.ppt (last accessed 17 May 2005).
53. Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC), 1998, Earthquake Insurance: Public Policy Perspectives from the Western United States Earthquake Insurance Summit: Palo Alto, California, Western States Seismic Policy Council, www.wsspc.org (last accessed 29 December 2004).
54. Wilson, R., 2000, Regulating environmental hazards: Regulation, v. 23, no. 1, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n1/reg23n1.html (last accessed January 2005).