 |
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Earth Sciences Sector > Priorities > Canadian Hazards Information Service > Earthquakes Canada |
PROVISOS (the fine print)
Although we judge Dr. Swan's analysis to be reasonable, we note, as he does, that there are large uncertainties in the analysis. Some of the uncertainties in his initial report were addressed and reduced where ever possible. However, we believe he made some notably conservative choices in his analysis and the large benefit in relation to cost makes it virtually certain that the economic return is much larger than current expenditures.
For example, we note that the Munich Re report assessed infrastructure losses, but Swan did not include these amounts in his analysis. Both the Vancouver scenario and experience in the last few large Californian earthquakes indicate that infrastructure losses (bridges, sewers, etc) are a large fraction of total losses; they must also be repaired entirely by government monies. By limiting his analysis to buildings and contents Swan does not consider these losses, and additional role NRCan has had in reducing them (the National Building Code is not applicable to infrastructure, but its earthquake hazard levels are commonly considered in their structural design).
Other roles of the earthquake program (e.g. informing the media, support of a comprehensive nuclear test ban), reduce the costs against which to assign the benefits.
References:
Adams, J. (1989) Seismicity and seismotectonics of southeastern Canada. in Jacobs, K.H., and Turkstra, C.J. (eds.) "Earthquake hazards and the design of constructed facilities in the eastern United States". New York Academy of Sciences, Annals, v. 558, p. 40-53.
Neil Swan (1999) "Benefits from expenditures on earthquake research at Natural Resources Canada" Geological Survey of Canada Open File 3764.
Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada (1992) "A study of the economic impact of a severe earthquake in the lower mainland of British Columbia".
comments by John Adams
adams@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca
