Citation

Siegel GB. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 1989; 7(2): 168-182.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1989, International Sociological Association, International Research Committee on Disasters)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Analysis of three sources of information (a survey of seaport officials, an analysis of expert opinion, and a case study) on seismic mitigation management in U.S. Pacific Basin seaports revealed the following seven general conclusions. There is little evidence of risk analysis having been conducted for ports. There is need for extensive evaluation of sites and mitigation technology Older ports and facilities are most vulnerable to seismic events and, for the most part, have not been retrofitted to present day standards. Some form of geotechnical studies usually precede construction of newer facilities. Virtually all examples of technological innovations encountered were for new facilities. Local government building codes are relied upon as the primary source of seismic standards. The latter do not provide standards for many requirements of seaports. Risk avoidance through insurance is not extensively practiced by ports. There is need for public policy: to create incentives for evaluation and mitigation of hazards in vulnerable areas; to develop uniform guidelines for minimum mitigation criteria; to clarify legal responsibility and liability for damage; to establish enforcement agencies for seismic safety; and to promulgate conditions governing intergovernmental transfers of funds for mitigation, recovery, etc.