The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Business Impacts of the Northridge Earthquake
Open accessAbstract
The Northridge earthquake of 17 January 1994, killed 57 people and injured an estimated 10,000 persons. The earthquake is the most costly disaster in U.S. history, in terms of dollar loss; costs continue to rise as more damage is uncovered, repairs are made, and disaster‐related claims are paid out. Recently‐issued government estimates place the losses due to direct earthquake damage at approximately $25 billion (Governor's Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996), and researchers who are tracking Northridge‐related losses believe ‘it is quite possible that total losses, excluding indirect effects, could reach as much as $40 billion’ (Eguchi, et al, 1996) The number of households and businesses that were affected by the earthquake far exceeded the size of the victim population in other recent major disasters in the U.S., including Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and the assistance effort that was launched was the largest ever undertaken for a U.S. disaster. By the end of 1995, 681,710 applications for state and federal assistance had been received, which was more than double the amount filed for any other single disaster event (Governer's Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996). Applications for the housing assistance programs operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency totalled well over half a million, and nearly 200,000 households applied to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for loans to rebuild or repair their homes. Additionally, approximately 39,000 businesses applied to the Small Business Administration for disaster loans (EQE International, 1995). This paper focuses on the immediate and longer‐term impacts the earthquake had on businesses in the Greater Los Angeles region. The data reported here are based on a survey that the Disaster Research Center, at the University of Delaware, conducted with a representative, randomly‐selected sample of businesses in the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, two jurisdictions that were particularly hard‐hit by the earthquake. The material presented here is primarily descriptive. The goal of this paper is not to develop or test complex analytic models, although the paper does refer to other more quantitative analyses that have been performed on these data. Rather, the objective is to outline for readers empirical findings on the various ways that the earthquake affected the operations and viability of businesses on the impact area. Few studies exist that document the range of impacts that disasters can have on businesses and business sectors, and even fewer are based on detailed data from large representative samples. The paper addresses the following research questions: (1) What direct impacts and losses did businesses experience in the earthquake? (2) In what ways did the earthquake affect the operations of the businesses studied? If they experienced business interruption, why were they forced to close? What other kinds of problems did business have to cope with following the earthquake? (3) What earthquake preparedness measures had businesses undertaken prior to the disaster, and what have they done subsequently to prepare? and (4) To what extent have business operations returned to pre‐earthquake levels, and which businesses appear to be experiencing the most difficulty with recovery?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bonanno, G. A., Brewin, C. R., Kaniasty, K., & Greca, A. M. L. (2010) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100610387086 · Cited by 1,289
Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F. H., & Galea, S. (2010) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9576-9 · Cited by 846
Hallegatte, S. (2008) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01046.x · Cited by 696
State of the research in community resilience: progress and challenges
Koliou, M., van de Lindt, J. W., McAllister, T. P., Ellingwood, B. R., Dillard, M., & Cutler, H. (2020) · Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure · doi:10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547 · Cited by 502
Review article: Assessing the costs of natural hazards – state of the art and knowledge gaps
Meyer, V., Becker, N., Markantonis, V., Schwarze, R., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Bouwer, L. M., Bubeck, P., Ciavola, P., Genovese, E., Green, C., et al. (2013) · Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/nhess-13-1351-2013 · Cited by 431
Metadata
- Authors
- Tierney, K. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 87-97
- ISSN
- 0966-0879 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-5973
- OpenAlex
- W2159967556
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Business Impacts of the Northridge Earthquake. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1468-5973.00040
- The paper
- Tierney, K. J. (1997). Business Impacts of the Northridge Earthquake. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.00040
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.