 |
Estimation of Future Earthquake
Losses in California
B. Rowshandel, M. Reichle, C.
Wills, T. Cao, M. Petersen(*), D.
Branum, and J. Davis
California Geological Survey
Executive Summary
Using the latest information on
earthquake hazard in California and the publicly
available demographic data, we have made estimations
of expected future earthquake economic losses in the
State. The estimates presented in this paper are for
two categories: scenario earthquake loss, and
annualized earthquake loss.
For scenario earthquake loss, we
quantified the damage and loss expected in ten
counties in the San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) and in
ten counties in Southern California, due to possible
earthquakes on known faults in the two regions. To
accomplish this task, we used scenario ground
motions, or shake-maps of 50 potential earthquakes
published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Of these 50 scenario shake-maps, 34 represent the
expected ground motion hazard in the SFBA counties
and 16 represent the expected ground motion hazard
in the southern region. For annualized earthquake
loss, we estimated the overall long-term damage and
loss using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
(PSHA) maps for the State of California, prepared
and published by the California Geological Survey
(CGS) and the USGS. These PSHA maps show the
expected ground motions of specified annual chance
of occurrence at any location within the State. The
effect on ground motions on the soils at the site
are taken into account for both the shake-maps and
the PSHA maps, through the use of appropriate ground
motion attenuation relations and soil correction
factors. Liquefaction effect was taken into account
for the annualized loss study, but not for the
scenario loss study. Due to the non-existent or
incomplete data on other earthquake hazards and
effects, including ground rupture, landslide and
fire, these potential hazards were not considered in
either the study of scenario earthquake loss or the
annualized earthquake loss.
We used the latest version of the
HAZUS software package, Service Release 2 (SR2) for
the estimation of the damage and economic loss. The
earthquake hazard data, obtained from the scenario
shake-maps or the PSHA maps, and the liquefaction
data (for the case of annualized loss) were then
analyzed and supplied into the HAZUS package.
HAZUS-SR2 default data was used for the information
on the built environment and the demographics. This
information in HAZUS-SR2 is, for the most part,
derived from 1990 national census data.
The estimates presented in this
paper are limited to ground motion-induced losses to
buildings only. In other words, the losses to other
elements of the built environment, such as
transportation, lifeline and communication
facilities are not reported here. Furthermore, the
losses reported in this paper are only the direct
economic losses due to building damage, which
consist of capital stock loss and income loss.
Indirect economic losses, representing the losses
due to various forms of post-earthquake
socioeconomic disruptions (such as employment and
income, insurance and financial aids, construction,
production and import-export of goods and services)
are not included in the estimates reported. This is
because of the higher level of uncertainty
associated with the indirect losses, as compared to
the direct losses. Therefore, it is expected that
once the indirect building economic losses, the
economic losses to non-building facilities, and the
contributions of all earthquake hazards are taken
into account, the estimated economic losses would be
several times the numbers presented in this paper.
We present the estimated losses
in three forms: losses in dollars for individual
counties, losses in dollars for individual census
tracts, and Loss Ratios (LR) - the loss as a
percentage of the building replacement value. For
illustration and as sample cases, the results for
three scenario earthquakes in the SFBA and for three
scenario earthquakes in Southern California are
presented in tabular and graphical form. The results
of all 50 scenarios are also summarized in this
paper. Detailed results for all scenario earthquakes
and for the State-wide annual losses are placed on
the CGS website (bottom of this page).
Among the 34 scenario earthquakes
of the SFBA, a repeat of the1906 earthquake results
in the largest economic loss for the ten SFBA
counties. It would rupture four segments of the San
Andreas fault and would cause approximately $54
billion economic loss due to building damage. A
number of other earthquakes on the San Andreas
fault, rupturing different combinations of these
four segments are also feasible. Should one occur,
it would result in an estimated loss ranging from a
few billion dollars to $50 billion. Other
potentially damaging earthquakes in the SFBA are: a
magnitude 6.9 event rupturing the entire Hayward
fault causing $23 billion in losses; and a magnitude
7.3 earthquake rupturing the entire Hayward fault
and the Rodgers Creek fault causing $34 billion in
losses.
For the ten-counties in Southern
California, the most damaging potential earthquake
for which a scenario has been computed turns out to
be a magnitude 7.1 event on the Puente Hills fault,
which would bring an estimated loss of $69 billion.
Another major potential, damaging earthquake would
be a magnitude 6.9 event on the Newport-Inglewood
fault, resulting in about $49 billion expected loss.
Other significant potential, damaging earthquakes
are a magnitude 7.1 event on Palos Verdes fault, a
magnitude 6.8 event on Whittier fault, and a
magnitude 6.7 event on Verdugo fault with $30
billion, $29 billion, and $24 billion expected
losses, respectively.
In order to take into
consideration the effect of the building inventory
value, scenario losses were computed in terms of the
LR. This is simply the ratio of the expected loss to
the dollar value of the building, expressed as
percentage in this paper. Since it is normalized by
the building replacement value, LR can be
meaningfully used to compare the relative risk in
different geographical areas. In terms of this
parameter, the results indicate that a large part of
the area affected by scenario earthquakes undergo an
LR of a few percent. However, the zones neighboring
faults experience loss ratios exceeding 20 percent.
The extent and the distribution of large LR zones
around faults vary from event to event. The LR
results for the six scenario earthquakes presented
in this paper are sown in graphical form. Loss ratio
maps for all scenario earthquakes can be seen on the
CGS website.
The second set of results we
present in this paper are our estimates of the
annualized direct economic losses due to building
damage for the entire State. Annualized losses
represent the long term, average losses due to
potential ground motion hazards of all expected
earthquakes in the region. These estimates are based
on the latest CGS-USGS PSHA maps, the National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) soil
correction factors, and including the liquefaction
effects. Results are presented in terms of total
annual loss, annual per-capita loss, and
annual loss
ratio (ALR).
The estimated annual economic
loss due to building damage for the State is $2.2
billion. Of this, approximately 5% ($100 million) is
due to the liquefaction effect. However, since the
existing data on liquefaction is not complete, the
estimated loss and particularly this percentage
could be significantly higher. Specifically, for
many areas in the SFBA this effect exceeds 20%. The
areas of highest expected annual loss are the Los
Angeles area in the south and the SFBA in the north.
Reported losses due to major earthquakes in California since 1971.
| Earthquake | Date |
Magnitude | Total Loss(1) |
| San Fernando | February 9, 1971 |
6.6 | 2,200(2) |
| Imperial Valley | October 15, 1979 |
6.5 | 70(2) |
| Coalinga | May 2, 1983 |
6.4 | 18(2) |
| Whittier Narrows | October 1, 1987 |
6.0 | 522(3) |
| Loma Prieta | October 17, 1989 |
6.9 | 10,000(4) |
| Petrolia | April 25, 1992 |
7.2 | 80(3) |
| Landers | June 28, 1992 |
7.3 | 120(3) |
| Northridge | January 17, 1994 |
6.7 | 46,000(5) |
| Hector Mine | October 16, 1999 |
7.1 | Minor |
(1)Estimates are in (2000) millions dollars
(2)Estimate is from FEMA (1997)
(3)Estimate is from U.S. Office of Technology Assessment
(4)Estimate is from NRC (1994)
(5)Estimate is from California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
|
In terms of the total annual
loss, the county of Los Angeles exceeds the rest of
the counties, with an estimated expected annual loss
of approximately $740 million - about one-third of
the state-wide estimate. The counties with the next
largest estimated annual losses are Alameda with
about $200 million, and Orange, San Bernardino and
San Francisco, with estimated losses in the range of
$140-155 million each.
We have also considered the role
of population density in the distribution of
expected annual losses by computing and plotting the
per-capita loss. Based on our results, the three
counties with the highest expected annual per-capita
losses are San Francisco with $195, Alameda with
$155 and San Mateo with $120. The state-wide average
for the expected per-capita annual loss is $104.
In terms of ALR, the estimated
state-wide average is 0.15%. This means that,
state-wide and on average, earthquake ground motions
are expected to cause damage to buildings equal to
0.15% of their dollar values, each year. In terms of
this indicator, Alameda with ALR=0.264% followed by
San Francisco with ALR=0.240% are the two highly
impacted counties within the State.
There are a large number of
sources of uncertainty in earthquake loss
estimations. Uncertainties are associated with the
methodologies, assumptions and data-bases used to
estimate the ground motion, modeling of building
responses and correlating expected losses to the
estimated damages. Some of the most significant
sources of such uncertainties in earthquake loss
estimation studies in general and the study
summarized here in particular are discussed. The
effects of such uncertainties on the estimated
losses and their implications in the use of such
estimates for risk reduction and response planning
are pointed out.
The estimates made in this study
have been compared with estimates made by other
studies, using other loss estimation software and
building inventory and demographic data. It is found
that, the results of this study are in general
agreement with the findings of other studies.
(*) Now at the
USGS, Denver, CO.
PDFs of scenario results for Northern and Southern
California
(Requires Acrobat Reader to view. Click here to download)
Download:
Scenario Earthquakes and associated losses for ten-county Northern California.
Click on Scenario name to
download/view associated figures(PDF).
Scenario Earthquake (USGS Scenario Name) |
M | Estimated Building Damage Economic Loss ($M) |
San Andreas Fault: Repeat of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (SAS+SAP+SAN+SAO) |
7.9 | 54,000 |
San Andreas Fault: Santa Cruz + Peninsula + North Coast segments (SAS+SAP+SAN) |
7.8 | 50,000 |
San Andreas Fault: Peninsula + North Coast + Offshore segments (SAP+SAN+SAO) |
7.8 | 47,000 |
San Andreas Fault: Santa Cruz + Peninsula segments (SAS+SAP) |
7.4 | 30,000 |
San Andreas Fault: Santa Cruz segment (SAS) |
7.0 | 5,900 |
San Andreas Fault: Peninsula segment (SAP) |
7.2 | 24,000 |
San Andreas Fault: North Coast + Offshore (SAN+SAO) |
7.7 | 16,000 |
San Andreas Fault: North Coast segment (SAN) |
7.5 | 15,000 |
San Andreas Fault: Offshore segment (SAO) |
7.3 | Shake-Map Not Available |
Southern Hayward: Repeat of the 1868 Earthquake (HS) |
6.7 | 15,000 |
| Northern Hayward (HN) |
6.5 | 9,000 |
| Southern Hayward + Northern Hayward (HS+HN) |
6.9 | 23,000 |
| Rodgers Creek (RC) |
7.0 | 8,000 |
| Northern Hayward + Rodgers Creek (HN+RC) |
7.1 | 20,000 |
| Southern Hayward + Northern Hayward + Rodgers Creek (HS+HN+RC) |
7.3 | 34,000 |
| Southern Calaveras (CS) |
5.8 | 100 |
| Central Calaveras (CC) |
6.2 | 2,700 |
| Southern Calaveras + Central Calaveras (CS+CC) |
6.4 | 3,200 |
| Northern Calaveras (CN) |
6.8 | 10,000 |
| Central Calaveras + Northern Calaveras (CC+CN) |
6.9 | 12,600 |
| Southern + Central + Northern Calaveras (CS+CC+CN) |
6.9 | 13,000 |
| Concord (CON) |
6.2 | 2,800 |
| Southern Green Valley (GVS) |
6.2 | 2,100 |
| Concord + Southern Green Valley (CON+GVS) |
6.6 | 7,000 |
| Northern Green Valley (GVN) |
6.0 | 600 |
| Southern + Northern Green Valley (GVS+GVN) |
6.5 | 3,200 |
| Concord + Southern + Northern Green Valley (CON+GVS+GVN) |
6.7 | 6,800 |
| Southern Greenville (GS) |
6.6 | 1,800 |
| Northern Greenville (GN) |
6.7 | 3,200 |
| Southern + Northern Greenville (GS+GN) |
6.9 | 5,000 |
| Southern San Gregorio (SGS) |
7.0 | 300 |
| Northern San Gregorio (SGN) |
7.2 | 13,000 |
| Southern + Northern San Gregorio (SGS+SGN) |
7.4 | 15,000 |
| Mount Diablo thrust (MTD) |
6.7 | 7,000 |
Scenario Earthquakes and associated losses for ten-county Southern California.
Click on Scenario name to
download/view associated figures.
Scenario Earthquake (USGS Scenario Name) |
M | Estimated Building Damage Economic Loss ($M) |
| Puente Hills |
7.1 | 69,000 |
| Newport-Inglewood |
6.9 | 49,000 |
| Palos Verdes |
7.1 | 30,000 |
| Whittier Fault |
6.8 | 29,000 |
| Verdugo Fault |
6.7 | 24,000 |
San Andreas Fault: Southern Rupture |
7.4 | 18,000 |
San Andreas Fault: Repeat of the 1857 Earthquake |
7.8 | 17,000 |
| Santa Monica |
6.6 | 17,000 |
| Raymond Fault |
6.5 | 17,000 |
| San Joaquin Hills |
6.6 | 15,000 |
| Rose Canyon |
6.9 | 14,000 |
| San Jacinto |
6.7 | 7,000 |
| North Channel Slope |
7.4 | 4,000 |
| Elsinore Fault |
6.8 | 4,000 |
| Coachella Valley |
7.1 | 3,000 |
| Imperial |
7.0 | 1,000 |
|