This study uses complexity theory to examine the local response to the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. The aim is to reveal how the structure and dynamical behavior of the central city’s primary sub-systems at a small and large scale both enhanced and inhibited relief efforts. Not only does this provide a (comparative) basis for re-evaluating the causes of the relative successes and failings of more recent disaster recovery efforts, e.g. Hurricane Katrina, it also may highlight how the structure other contemporary cities may or may not be well matched to the complexity and scale of natural disasters. One of the significant focuses in the study of complex systems is in the description of the complexity profile. Complexity profile places emphasis on the scale at which a given behavior of a system is observable and the extent of the impact on its environment. According to Bar-Yam (1997), the complexity profile counts the number of independent behaviors that are visible at a particular scale and includes all of the behaviors that have impact on larger scales. A formal definition of scale considers the spatial extent, time duration, momentum and energy of a behavior. In other words, Scale refers to the size of a system or property or to the precision of observation or description. In the second step, we decided the interrelationships of the agents. As shown in figure 1, agents were considered as nodes and interrelationships were considered as links. We connected the agents by an arrow if they interdependent. In the next step, we agreed upon the scale at which we were interested in describing complexity (or Shannon entropy/information) of the system/city. Scale in our study was restricted to aggregate behavior of each of the agents. References Bar-Yam, Yaneer, 1997, Dynamics of Complex Systems, Westview Press, 864 pp. James, William, 1911, Memories and studies, New York, Longmans, Green. San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 1907, Municipal Reports on THE SAN FRANCISCO EARTHQUAKE AND FIRE OF APRIL 18,1906.

1. San Francisco 1906 Earthquake and FIRE
San Francisco 1906 Earthquake and
FIRE
A study of the disaster response in the context of complexity theoryA study of the disaster response in the context of complexity theory
Maisam Abbasi
Lisa Arnaud
Max Boddy
Wei Bi
Jovita De Loatch
June 15, 2013
NECSI Summer School 2013

2. The Disaster
Dead - More than 3,000
• A report of U.S. Army relief operations (Greely, 1906) recorded:
◦ 498 deaths in San Francisco
◦ 64 deaths in Santa Rosa
◦ 102 deaths in and near San Jose
• A 1972 NOAA report suggested that 700-800 was a reasonable figure.
• Gladys Hansen and Emmet Condon, after extensive research, estimated that over 3000 deaths were
caused directly or indirectly by the catastrophe. The population of San Francisco at the time was about
400,000.
Homeless - 225,000
• 225,000 from a population of about 400,000.
Buildings Destroyed - 28,000
• "The 3-day conflagration following the earthquake caused substantially more damage than did the
earthquake. The area of the burned district covered 4.7 square mile..." (NOAA report). By one count:
◦ Wood buildings lost = 24,671
Brick buildings lost = 3,168

3. Copyright: Laura Hartman Maestro

4. Defining the Complexity Profile
Scale
Scale
-Cluster of agents (divided by occupation)
Miners (M)
Sailors/Argonauts (A)
Providers of illicit services (I)
Bankers (B)
Port officials/workers (P)
Food producers (Farmers/Fishers) (F)
Commodity providers (e.g. equipment, materials) (D)
Tradespeople working in the building and construction industry (C),
Members of government US Federal (U) and SF local (G).

5. System components
Fine scale description of the network
Fine scale description of the network
Miners (M)
geographical remoteness and
small size, mining colonies were
linked into a vast transportation,
communications, demographic,
and economic network on a
national and international scale
(Hardesty 1988:1).
As a collective, highly connected to
other industries including banking,
personal (illicit) services, port
operations and commodity retailers.
Formed a highly flexible, adaptable
and self-organising network, with
minimal legal structures and absence of
practical enforcement mechanisms.

6. System components
Fine scale description of the network
Fine scale description of the network
Sailors/Argonauts(A), The famous
Barbary Coast of the mid to late 1800s
and its associated saloons, boarding
houses, and gambling parlors was the
home to a shifting population of
stevedores, sailors, merchant marines,
etc.
Mariners themselves upon leaving their
vessels were not subject to the same level of
regulation, allowing for more random and
frequent interactions with other agents/sub-
systems, particularly the service providers and
miners.
Outside of the shipping company regime,
sailors were almost completely independent,
with extensive freedom in their activities.
The Port (P) as an industry was
naturally a central hub of the city
and its operations would have
been subject to considerable
coordination.

7. System components
Fine scale description of the network
Fine scale description of the network
Providers of Illicit Services(I), Nearly all drinking and dancing establishments in the
area were destroyed in the fire that followed the 1906 earthquake. Prior to the quake their
activities they sought extensive freedom in their activities of prostitution, and gambling.
However, in response to the calamity the banded together and within months a dozen or
so were rebuilt and back in business.

8. System components
Fine scale description of the network
Fine scale description of the network
Food producers (farmers and fishermen)(F), were highly independent and diversified

9. System components
Fine scale description of the network
Fine scale description of the network
Commodity providers (e.g. equipment, materials) (D) and Tradespeople (C)
working in the building and construction industry were highly independent and
diversified.

10. System components
Fine scale description of the network
Fine scale description of the network
Bankers (B), The 1906 San Francisco earthquake shook the financial markets
of the West Coast and briefly shut down the Pacific Stock Exchange. They were
also highly independent and diversified of each other but were hiearchically organized
by their funding source.

11. System components
Fine scale description of the network
Fine scale description of the network
Government (G), the army was brought in to control the fires (which they did with dynamite and
even artillery barrages) and stop the looting. In all, 500 presumed looters were shot. Some
destruction and loss of life occurred outside San Francisco, but the bulk of the 3.000 casualties
were to be regretted in the Golden Gate city itself. Three quarters of its population of 400.000 were
made homeless. Half of those fled across the Bay to Oakland and Berkeley, others took up
residence in massive camps of shacks and tents at Golden Gate Park and the Presidio, among other
places.

12. Disaster Response
At large scale –
•Minimal organization/low complexity
•8 member committee appointed; federal gvt funding
•Under-resourced city emergency services
•Federal govt – funding and army services.
•Fires caused by failed army response!
Fine scale –
•highly self-organising, high complexity
•Citizens required to work in cooperation ; communal soup kitchens
•Citizens response was rapid and directly responded to diverse needs (shelter, food)
•BUT: Looting and riots; racism (Chinese excluded from city/community efforts)

13. Recovery not Transformation
Return to (semi) equilibrium
∀
2 years for major recovery effort – city system weakened but no collapse
∀
Strategic objective - fast return to “Bus. As usual”
∀
Strategic ‘cover up’ process - minimize loss of investment
∀
Building standards relaxed – short term goals prioritized
∀
Engineered resilience (return to equilibrium ASAP)
∀
System stays in same basin of attraction, but future vulnerability

14. How complex is the system?
Shannon Entropy - Impact on the City
-We looked upon the interrelationships

15. LABOR - Before the Earthquake

16. LABOR - The Earthquake

17. labor - During the Fire

18. labor - Beginning the Recovery

19. labor - Restoration from the Earthquake

20. Economy - Before the Earthquake

21. Economy - During the Earthquake

22. Economy - During the Fire

23. Economy - Beginning the Restoration

24. Economy - Restoration

25. Conclusion
"http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ryF9p-nqsWw" f