Making a Difference: Stories of Successful Seismic Safety Advocates

Abstract

Promoting seismic safety is difficult. Earthquakes are not high on the political agenda, because they occur infrequently and are overshadowed by more immediate, visible issues. Nevertheless, seismic safety policies do get adopted and implemented by state and local governments. One important reason is the presence of effective advocates. This paper summarizes a study that reviewed eight examples of successful seismic safety advocacy throughout the United States. These stories exhibit a number of common themes. All of them show the importance of persistence (and patience) and the value of seeking partnerships. Personal contacts are crucial. The cases also show the importance of post-earthquake windows of opportunity. In several of the cases, community actions for seismic safety emanate from concerns about school safety. Finally, several of the cases demonstrate how initial efforts and seed funding provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey can catalyze substantial community actions. The important lesson is that individuals can make a difference, especially if they are persistent, yet patient; have a clear message; understand the big picture; and work with others.

Digging through Disaster Rubble in Search of the Determinants of Organizational Mitigation and Preparedness

“…Information on earthquake risks can induce households to take preparatory action (Jackson and Mukerjee 1974;Sullivan et al 1977;Palm 1981;Turner 1983;Russell et al 1995;Flynn et al 1999;Atwood and Major 2000;Celsi et al 2005). Researchers have documented the pivotal role policy entrepreneurs or champions play in the policymaking process (e.g., Kingdon 1984;Prater and Lindell 2000;Wood 2004;Olshansky 2005). These entrepreneurs are willing to, among other strategies, mobilize support for their issues if necessary (Berke and Beatley 1992).…”

Obstacles and Disaster Risk Reduction: Survey of Memphis Organizations

“…From a broader perspective, researchers have documented the pivotal role policy entrepreneurs or champions play in the policymaking process (e.g., Kingdon 1984;Prater and Lindell 2000;Wood 2004;Olshansky 2005). These entrepreneurs are willing to, among other strategies, mobilize support for the issue if necessary (Berke and Beatley 1992).…”

Incorporating societal expectations into seismic performance objectives in building codes

“…Populations in earthquake-prone regions may be generally aware of a seismic hazard, but this rarely translates into sustained public demand for government action (May and Feeley, 2000). Earthquake risk reduction policy, when enacted, typically arises from the concerted efforts of individual “champions” rather than broad-based pressure by an informed public (Olshansky, 2005). Furthermore, low public interest is accompanied by poor interpretations of low probability events (Kunreuther et al, 2001; Slovic et al, 1977).…”