The Study Design

Rossi, Peter H.; Wright, James; Weber-Burdin, Eleanor

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-598220-7.50007-6

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earthquakes are not high on the political agenda because they occur infrequently and are overshadowed by more immediate, visible issues. Even where citizens are aware of seismic risks, taking action to improve seismic safety is difficult because costs are immediate and benefits uncertain, public safety is not visible, benefits may not occur during the tenure of current elected officials, and seismic safety lacks a significant public constituency (Olshansky and Kartez 1998, Lambright 1984, Drabek et al 1983, Rossi et al 1982, Wyner and Mann 1986, Alesch and Petak 1986, Berke and Beatley 1992.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making a Difference: Stories of Successful Seismic Safety Advocates

Olshansky

2005

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making a Difference: Stories of Successful Seismic Safety Advocates

Olshansky

2005

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This conflict arises because it is relatively improbable that an incident will occur in any given year or, more directly to the point, during the tenure in office of those local officials who must allocate resources [6,88]. Consequently, resources usually are assigned to immediately pressing jurisdictional demands such as routine police patrols, parks, and social services [42,62,97,111].…”

Section: Key Issues Identified By the Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

Community innovation in hazardous materials management: progress in implementing SARA Title III in the United States

Lindell

Perry

2001

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III) established a new federal approach to managing toxic chemical hazards. This legislation required industry to disclose the type and quantity of such chemicals and also required the establishment of state and local government organizations to receive those data, evaluate community vulnerability, develop local emergency response plans, and communicate with the public. This paper reviews the law's historical context and empirical studies of its implementation. The available evidence suggests that significant progress has been made in reducing chemical hazards but there is considerable variation across jurisdictions in the effectiveness of the law's implementation. The research results reviewed here suggest a variety of ways in which SARA Title III implementation can be improved.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it is difficult to separate the effects of the hazards from those of public relief and rehabilitation activities policies in the wake of the hazard (Rossi et al 1981). The estimates for a long-term hazard effort include recovery funds and the accompanying endogenous recovery efforts, aid given by political units and private organizations originating outside the hazard-stricken areas, and the financial repercussions to the housing market for both rental and owner-occupied units.…”

Section: Natural Hazard As An Exogenous Shock Of Neighborhood Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Neighborhood Change Induced by Natural Hazards

Lee

2017

Journal of Planning Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article seeks to understand neighborhood change induced by natural hazards in the context of neighborhood change dynamics. Based on the underlying systematic mechanism of neighborhood change, it suggests conceptual and methodological models in which a natural hazard, as a “transient, exogenous shock,” affects neighborhood change trends over time. The models also consider that natural hazards alter neighborhoods differentially according to their basic characteristics. After a natural hazard, two factors exogenous to neighborhoods, physical damages and rehabilitation process, are important to understand the rebuilding process and the shift in the neighborhood change pattern.

show abstract

The Study Design

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Making a Difference: Stories of Successful Seismic Safety Advocates

Making a Difference: Stories of Successful Seismic Safety Advocates

Community innovation in hazardous materials management: progress in implementing SARA Title III in the United States

Neighborhood Change Induced by Natural Hazards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About