Public support for earthquake risk mitigation in Portland, Oregon

Citation
J. Flynn et al., Public support for earthquake risk mitigation in Portland, Oregon, RISK ANAL, 19(2), 1999, pp. 205-216
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Sociology & Antropology
Journal title
RISK ANALYSIS
ISSN journal
02724332 → ACNP
Volume
19
Issue
2
Year of publication
1999
Pages
205 - 216
Database
ISI
SICI code
0272-4332(199904)19:2<205:PSFERM>2.0.ZU;2-Y
Abstract
During the 1980s, seismic research suggested that Oregon and the City of Po rtland had a higher risk of a major earthquake than had previously been ass umed. In 1993, the State of Oregon adopted a new version of the Oregon Stru ctural Specialty Code, which changed the designation of western Oregon from seismic zone 2b to seismic zone 3. The City of Portland established a prog ram and a Task Force on Seismic Strengthening of Buildings to recommend act ions that would encourage upgrading of city buildings. A survey of adult ci ty residents was conducted in April, 1996 to determine public attitudes and opinions about earthquake risks, management and mitigation of earthquake h azards, priorities for protection by strengthening buildings, evaluations o f strategies far informing the public about earthquake risks, and support f or specific options the city might take to protect citizens against earthqu ake events. Social and demographic information on individuals and household s was also collected. Respondents provided ratings for a wide range of soci al and environmental risks, provided information on priorities for strength ening key buildings and infrastructure facilities, and answered hypothetica l questions about voting for bond measures to pay for city earthquake-mitig ation programs. Respondents recognized significant risk from earthquakes an d supported programs to protect people, especially vulnerable residents suc h as children and the sick. There was strong support for protecting emergen cy response capabilities. There was much less support for using public fund s to reduce the risks associated with privately owned buildings. There were also some strong pockets of resistance to publicly funded mitigation progr ams in response to the hypothetical bond measures.