Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute 

Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage from the 

HayWired Earthquake Scenario

By Anne M. Wein, Dena Belzer, Cynthia Kroll, Carline Au, Jamie L. Jones, Laurie Johnson, Aksel Olsen, 

and Jeff Peters

Chapter V5 of

The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Edited by Shane T. Detweiler and Anne M. Wein

Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013–R–W

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS 

(1–888–275–8747).

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Wein, A.M., Belzer, D., Kroll, C., Au, C., Jones, J.L., Johnson, L., Olsen, A., and Peters, J., 2020, Spatial analysis of 

industries, employment, and commute flows in areas of concentrated damage from the HayWired earthquake scenario, 

chap. V5 of Detweiler, S.T., and Wein, A.M., eds., The HayWired earthquake scenario—Societal consequences: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013–R–W, 57 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175013v3.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract...................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................2

Disaster Literature on Spatial Aspects.............................................................................................................3

Analytical Framework ..........................................................................................................................................4

The Spatial Building Blocks in Hazus: Census Tracts ..........................................................................4

Building Damage States.............................................................................................................................4

Areas of Concentrated Damage...............................................................................................................6

Subareas .......................................................................................................................................................6

Building Occupancy Groups......................................................................................................................6

Industry Employment Groups....................................................................................................................6

Household and Workplace Relation ......................................................................................................10

Limitations and Knowledge Gaps of the Analytical Framework ......................................................10

Building Occupancy Damages.........................................................................................................................10

Regional.......................................................................................................................................................10

Concentrated-Damage Areas.................................................................................................................12

Subareas .....................................................................................................................................................12

Employment by Industry Group ........................................................................................................................16

Regional Employment ...............................................................................................................................16

Subarea Employment................................................................................................................................17

Employee Residence and Workplace Relation.............................................................................................19

Regional.......................................................................................................................................................19

Industry Segment.......................................................................................................................................20

Subarea and Industry Segment..............................................................................................................22

Employed Residents.........................................................................................................................22

Workers..............................................................................................................................................22

Employee Well-Being................................................................................................................................28

Summary and Discussion..................................................................................................................................28

Summary of Study Findings .....................................................................................................................28

Concentrated Damages..................................................................................................................28

Concentrated Damages and Building Occupancy....................................................................28

Concentrated Damages and Employment...................................................................................29

Home and Workplace Relations....................................................................................................29

Drawing Insights from other Regional Research and Experience ..................................................30

Policy Implications ....................................................................................................................................31

Concentrated Damages..................................................................................................................31

Concentrated Damages by Industry Sector...............................................................................32

Home-Workplace Relations Affected by Damage Concentrations .......................................33

Spatial Economic Demand Shifts..................................................................................................33

Stakeholder Considerations...........................................................................................................33

Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................................34

References Cited.................................................................................................................................................34

Appendix 1. Correspondence Tables ..............................................................................................................38

Appendix 2. Building Damages ........................................................................................................................39

Appendix 3. Employed Residents and Workers ............................................................................................50
iv

Figures

1. Map of the San Francisco Bay region, California, showing the percentage of building 

square footage that is extensively or completely damaged across all occupancy 

groups as a result of all HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock hazards ...................5

2. Map of the San Francisco Bay region, California, showing concentrated-damage areas 

and subareas as a result of hazards caused by the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock on the Hayward Fault ....................................................................................................7

3. Bar chart showing census tracts with concentrated damage by subarea in the San 

Francisco Bay region, California ....................................................................................................9

4. Bar chart showing building occupancy square footage damage for the HayWired 

earthquake scenario mainshock in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region, 

California.............................................................................................................................................11

5. Bar chart showing the percentage of building occupancy square footage damage for 

the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the nine-county San Francisco Bay 

region, California ..............................................................................................................................12

6. Bar chart showing the percentage of building occupancy square footage in concentrateddamage areas that is disruptive and less disruptive for the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region, California.........................................13

7. Bar charts showing building occupancy square footage in concentrated-damage 

areas by subarea for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San 

Francisco Bay region, California ..................................................................................................14

8. Bar charts showing the percentage of building occupancy square footage in 

concentrated-damage areas of subareas for the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.........................................................15

9. Pie diagrams showing employment by industry group for concentrated-damage areas 

for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, 

California.............................................................................................................................................17

10. Bar chart showing employment in concentrated-damage areas by industry group in 

subareas for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay 

region, California ...............................................................................................................................18

11. Bar chart showing the percentage of employment by industry group in concentrateddamage areas by subareas for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the 

San Francisco Bay region, California..........................................................................................18

12. Cartoon showing possible home-workplace relations associated with areas of 

concentrated and less-concentrated damage resulting from the HayWired earthquake 

scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California ..........................................19

13. Bar chart showing employed residents and workers in concentrated-damage areas by 

subarea for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay 

region, California ...............................................................................................................................21

14. Pie diagrams showing percentages of workers by industry segment in concentrateddamage areas resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San 

Francisco Bay region, California....................................................................................................22

15. Bar chart showing job locations of employed residents who live in concentrated-damage 

areas resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario in the San Francisco Bay region, 

California..............................................................................................................................................23
v

16. Bar chart showing job locations by employment segment of employed residents who

live in areas of concentrated damage from all hazards resulting from the HayWired

earthquake scenario in the San Francisco Bay region, California ......................................23

17. Bar chart showing residential locations of workers employed in areas of concentrated

damage from all hazards and earthquake hazards resulting from the HayWired

earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California ....................24

18. Bar chart showing residence locations of workers by employment segment in areas

of concentrated damage from all hazards resulting from the HayWired earthquake

scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California .......................................25

19. Map showing worker commute flow into areas of concentrated damage from all hazards

in the central Alameda County subarea, San Francisco Bay region, California .......................26

20. Map showing employed resident flow out of areas of concentrated damage from all

hazards in the central Alameda County subarea, San Francisco Bay region, California ..27

Tables

1. Hazus occupancy classification to occupancy group correspondence..............................8

2. U.S. Census Bureau industry classification to industry group correspondence ...............9

3. Disruptive building damage in concentrated-damage areas by occupancy group........13

4. Employees living and (or) working in concentrated-damage areas for the HayWired

earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.................20

The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Edited by Shane T. Detweiler and Anne M. Wein

Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013–R–W

[Also see https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175013v3 ]

Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute 

Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage from the 

HayWired Earthquake Scenario

Chapter V5

By Anne M. Wein,1 Dena Belzer,2 Cynthia Kroll,3 Carline Au,2 Jamie L. Jones,1 Laurie Johnson,4 Aksel Olsen,5

and Jeff Peters1

Abstract

After a large earthquake, heavily damaged areas face 

challenging recoveries and businesses and employees can be 

more impacted by their work and home surroundings than direct 

damages to the buildings they occupy. This spatial analysis 

explores how California’s San Francisco Bay region industries, 

jobs, and residence-workplace relations could be disrupted by 

concentrations of damages to homes and business establishments 

in census tracts (as a representation of neighborhoods). In the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock, building damages are 

caused by shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and fire following 

earthquake. These estimated building damages are used to define 

areas of concentrated damage where 20 percent or more of 

building square footage in census tracts would be extensively or 

completely damaged. Analyses show: (1) building occupancy 

square footage contained in areas of concentrated damage; (2) 

industry employment in areas of concentrated damage; and (3) 

relations between employees’ homes and (or) workplaces in areas 

of concentrated damage.

Results vary across geographical subareas and industry 

sectors. Areas of concentrated damage are largely determined 

by presence and vulnerability of industrial/warehouse, retail/

commercial, and multifamily or group-living buildings. 

The central Alameda County subarea is a focal point for 

concentrated damage that contains a large share of the region’s 

industrial/warehouse employment and residents working 

in these jobs. The concentration of vulnerable buildings 

could engender neighborhood effects that spread disruption 

to buildings that are otherwise still usable. For example, 

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

Strategic Economics.

3

Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area 

Governments, retired.

4

Laurie Johnson Consulting.

5

Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

population displacement from usable single-family/duplex 

buildings could be caused by neighborhood disruption of 

household services (such as schools). Neighborhood effects 

may be further spread through commute patterns if employees’ 

performance is adversely affected by the physical and 

psychological toll of living in concentrated-damage areas. 

Some of these employees would work in less-impacted areas 

of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, in San Francisco office 

jobs, and in Santa Clara County goods-producing jobs. On the 

other hand, employees with jobs in concentrated-damage areas 

could lose jobs and income, further affecting the communities 

where they live throughout the San Francisco Bay region. 

Overall, around 442,000 employees live and (or) work in areas 

of concentrated damage from earthquake hazards, which is 

about 10 percent of the nine-county San Francisco Bay region 

employment. These numbers increase to 595,000 employees 

and 14 percent of employment if damages from fire following 

earthquake hazards are included. Some of these employees 

would lose income for various periods of time, lose jobs, change 

workplaces, and (or) be displaced from their residences.6

Leveraging recent disaster literature and regional studies, 

analyses of concentrated-damage areas and the home-workplace 

relation raises a number of considerations for emergency 

managers, businesses, communities, cities, and regional entities to 

mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover from a large earthquake in 

the San Francisco Bay region. The spatial perspective of building 

damages reinforces the merits of systematic building retrofits to 

protect a neighborhood and planning for a quick recovery that 

is consistent with its community characteristics and its balance 

of residential and business functions. Potential cordons around 

heavily concentrated damage incites preparations for cordon 

implementation and the management of tensions between public 

safety and business resumption, and location or redundancy of 

critical assets outside potential cordons. The home-workplace 

6

Broad consequences of employment losses are addressed in the HayWired 

macroeconomic chapters by Kroll and others (this volume) and Sue Wing and 

others (in prep.; planned to be published as part of this volume).
2 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

relation prompts businesses to plan for stranded employees after 

a large earthquake; for incapacitated, less productive, or displaced 

employees during response and recovery; for transportation and 

communication barriers between the workplaces and homes; 

and for relocation of business premises. Across sectors, effects 

of concentrated building damage and home-workplace relations 

prompts consideration of organizational adaptation and where 

support and resources may need to be focused. For example, 

construction and goods-movement industries, an important 

source for middle income jobs, are disproportionately impacted, 

yet instrumental for recovery. Job and commute disruptions 

from a large earthquake on the Hayward Fault could affect the 

current industrial land uses by accelerating the exit of declining 

manufacturing and construction industries (in Alameda and Contra 

Costa Counties, respectively). This could exacerbate the already 

precarious position of specialized industrial clusters in older 

manufacturing districts, especially in the central Alameda County 

subarea, and move manufacturing to more affordable places, 

which would create ripple effects to suppliers, customers, research 

and development, and headquarter operations. Accelerating the 

gradual conversion of industrial to higher uses of mixed land 

uses and priority development areas (PDAs), would additionally 

dislocate jobs. After a large earthquake, spatial economic demand 

shifts of businesses and residences may boost and stress lessdamaged areas while recovery lags in the concentrated-damage 

areas and resource allocations would be a regional issue for the 

San Francisco Bay region and beyond. The findings also have 

broad implications for economic development policy in the region, 

suggesting value in focusing forward-looking resilience policies 

on geographies where key middle-wage industrial activities are 

concentrated in the region, so that they have more capacity to plan 

for and recover from a large earthquake. 

Introduction

The HayWired scenario examines a hypothetical earthquake 

(mainshock) with a moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.0 occurring 

on April 18, 2018, at 4:18 p.m. on the Hayward Fault in the east 

bay part of California’s San Francisco Bay region (Detweiler 

and Wein, 2017). An estimate of building damages and costs 

caused by mainshock shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and fire 

are documented in Seligson and others (2018) and Scawthorn 

(2018). However, the specific geography of the damage to the 

region’s places of work and its residential communities, as well as 

the relation between them, will affect the function of the region’s 

economy following the mainshock. This chapter provides a spatial 

analysis of how the San Francisco Bay region’s industries, jobs, 

and employee residences could be disrupted by concentrations 

of building damages (defined as more than 20 percent extensive 

and complete damage to building square footage in a census 

tract). Using relations between homes and workplaces, the 

analysis shows how damaged neighborhood effects could spread 

through job/income losses and (or) difficult living conditions. 

The analysis uses the same maps of concentrated damages 

developed by Johnson and others (Concentrated Damage, in prep.; 

planned to be published as part of this volume) to complement 

a focus on potential residential population displacement with a 

perspective on potential disruption to industry sectors and jobs 

and also to connect the two analyses through the relation between 

employee workplaces and (or) their homes in heavily damaged 

neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay region.

This spatial analysis is informed by the disaster literature 

(summarized in the next section) in the following ways:

• macroeconomic analyses can hide uneven microeconomiclevel or business impacts; 

• neighborhood effects of concentrated damage can have 

larger impacts on businesses than direct damages alone; 

• spatial economic demand shifts occur in response 

to concentrated damages, which may have broad 

implications for long-term survival of an industry where it 

is concentrated in a damaged area; and

• businesses can be affected by employee productivity 

losses and population displacement caused by 

concentrated damage in their residential neighborhoods 

such that business and residential recoveries are 

intertwined. 

Our first analytical step is to define concentrated building 

damage that likely impacts its surrounding residential 

neighborhood or business districts. We use the same definition 

justified by Johnson and others (Concentrated Damage, in 

prep.; planned to be published as part of this volume), that 

is, 20 percent of the building square footage in a census tract 

is extensively or completely damaged as categorized by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazus-MH 

2.1 loss-estimation software (hereafter referred to as Hazus) 

in Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012). The 

20-percent damage concentration threshold is not ironclad, 

but follows from observations of how much damage an area 

(beyond individual buildings) can sustain and still function and 

readily recover, with the implication that beyond this threshold, 

which functions as a tipping point of sorts, recovery challenges 

become increasingly greater (Johnson and others, Long-Term 

Recovery, in prep.; planned to be published as part of this 

volume). Two cases of building-damage concentrations are 

considered: (1) damage from only ground shaking, liquefaction, 

and landslide hazards (estimated by Seligson and others, 2018; 

hereafter referred to as “earthquake hazards”) and (2) damage 

from fire following earthquake in addition to the three 

earthquake hazards (from Johnson and others, Concentrated 

Damage, in prep. [planned to be published as part of this 

volume]; hereafter referred to as “all hazards”). The examination 

of the earthquake hazards and all hazards cases illustrates the 

different distribution of impacts that fire could add in this spatial 

analysis, separates out the larger uncertainty of the fire analysis, 

and aligns with the other analyses in this volume that examine 

both cases (Johnson and others, Concentrated Damage, in 

prep. [planned to be published as part of this volume]; Wein, 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 3

Haveman, and others, this volume; Sue Wing and others, in 

prep. [planned to be published as part of this volume]).

We group concentrated-damage areas within seven 

geographic subareas (of census tracts and [or] cities) to capture 

the general spatial distribution of the HayWired mainshock 

damages and develop broad insights about business vulnerability 

and recovery needs based on lessons from prior studies and 

experience. We present spatial analyses of the two hazard cases 

and subareas from three perspectives:

1. Building occupancy damage inside and outside of 

concentrated-damage areas to illustrate potential 

neighborhood disruption to otherwise usable buildings;

2. Employment by industry groups in areas of concentrated 

building damage to estimate the number of jobs that are 

potentially affected; and 

3. Relations between employees’ homes and (or) their 

workplaces in concentrated-damage areas to illustrate 

potential employed resident issues (for example, 

displacement or difficult living situation) and (or) 

employee issues (for example, job relocation or loss). 

In conclusion, we incorporate insights from the disaster 

literature and regional studies to discuss mitigating, preparing 

for, responding to, and recovering damaged neighborhoods 

and implications for businesses, emergency managers, 

communities, governments, and their corresponding policies 

and programs. 

Disaster Literature on Spatial Aspects

Macroeconomic analyses are included in this volume, 

but they may obscure localized economic impacts (Dahlhamer 

and Tierney, 1998). One example of this is the 2010–present 

Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand—the regional 

economy remained strong and was reasonably resilient (Parker 

and Steenkamp, 2012) despite damages that were 20 percent of 

the country’s total Gross Domestic Product and despite the loss 

of the use of workplaces for 50,000 employees and hundreds of 

residences in the City of Christchurch’s central business district 

(CBD). 

Not all buildings in the Christchurch CBD were unsafe for 

occupancy, but 110 city blocks were initially cordoned in response 

to aftershock risks from damaged and weakened buildings (Kim 

and others, 2017). Most businesses were able to relocate, but the 

accommodation and hospitality sector was one of the hardest hit 

because two-thirds of the hotels were concentrated in the CBD; 

the retail sector was also impacted, but not the manufacturing 

sector that was located outside of the worst hit area (Parker 

and Steenkamp, 2012). However, after the 1995 Kobe, Japan, 

earthquake that more directly and disproportionately impacted 

productive industries and the port (Horwich, 2000), employment 

in manufacturing shifted to (lower paying) service jobs faster than 

the rates of de-industrialization (duPont and others, 2015). 

Neighborhood effects have been documented before in the 

San Francisco Bay region, starting with the 1989 Loma Prieta 

earthquake. Kroll and others (1990) reported that single-location 

retail and some finance, insurance, real estate, and service 

businesses were not only affected by direct damages, but also 

surrounding damage. After the more recent 2014 South Napa 

earthquake, a single-location retail business was ordered to 

evacuate away from an unsafe adjacent building and was closed 

for more than a year before it could re-establish in an affordable 

space (observed by A. Wein during an Earthquake Engineering 

Research Institute [EERI] reconnaissance trip in 2016). 

Neighborhood effects on businesses were first substantiated 

by Dahlhamer and Tierney (1998) when they found that shaking 

intensity was a stronger explanatory variable than direct physical 

damage for a business being worse off 18 months after the 1995 

Northridge earthquake. Similarly, Chang and Falit-Baiamonte 

(2002) found that physical damage was a weak predictor of 

business loss and business recovery was determined by conditions 

and perceptions of the neighborhood, including street closures, 

lost parking spaces, and media portrayals that deterred foot traffic. 

Brick-and-mortar retail and commerce, and city/local government 

services, have been vulnerable to losing the local customer base, in 

particular (Brown and others, 2015; Chang and Falit-Baiamonte, 

2002; Whitman and others, 2014). 

Christchurch CBD businesses adapted to the cordon by 

relocating with similar businesses and sharing work spaces, in 

other business locations, in homes by teleworking, by using cafes 

outside of the cordoned area for meetings, and in vacant rental 

space (observed by A. Wein during an EERI reconnaissance trip 

in 2011; Bowden, 2011; Donnelly and Proctor-Thomson, 2013). 

Businesses were reluctant to move because of financial, social, 

and market costs, but feasible relocations occurred in waves 

that increased in distance from their original location over time 

(Brown and others, 2015). The spatial shifts of businesses pushed 

out of the Christchurch CBD cordon appeared as hotspots of 

business activity change in the suburbs (Brown and others, 2015). 

The eventual demolition of 70 percent of the buildings in the 

Christchurch CBD (Kim and others, 2017) left a hole in the middle 

of the city. As the CBD was rebuilt, business activity trickled back, 

but the redevelopment of the CBD has been patchy for a number 

of years (for example, Anderson, 2014). 

Similarly, one year after Hurricane Katrina (which adversely 

affected several states in the southern United States in 2005), Xiao 

and Nilawar (2013) describe the core disaster area as a doughnut 

hole of low income and employment growth surrounded by 

an edge of high growth counties and parishes within 60 miles. 

Although growth picked up in the core disaster area in subsequent 

years, employment and income still lagged behind four years later. 

The competitive advantages of the high-growth edge were lower 

transportation time and costs for customers. Xiao and Nilawar 

(2013) recognize that the edge sustained high growth from higher 

levels of educated labor, resident income, and growth prior to 

Hurricane Katrina. In both the Christchurch earthquake and 

Hurricane Katrina examples, recovery of business and residential 

neighborhoods with concentrated damage lagged behind lessimpacted areas and spatial shifts in business activity were mapped 
4 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

from holes in the cities to the suburbs and the edges, respectively. 

Similarly, duPont and others (2015) detect long-term shifts in 

population, income, and employment away from the core disaster 

area of the 1995 Kobe earthquake. 

Damages to employee homes and neighborhoods 

have contributed to declines in business productivity when 

distracted employees check on their families and homes 

immediately after an earthquake (Chang and others, 2014). 

After the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, some employees 

(including executives) departed to keep their children in 

school and some workplaces provided for basic needs of 

employees (for example, shower and laundry facilities) 

(Malinen and others, 2018; observed by A. Wein during an 

EERI reconnaissance trip in 2011). Employee well-being 

impacts persisted during the Canterbury earthquake sequence 

because of stresses of aftershocks and resolving homeowner 

insurance (Neilsen, 2018) and was a top issue for businesses 

(Brown and others, 2015). 

Xiao and Van Zandt (2011) were the first to quantify a 

relation between business and residential recovery; the return 

of households and businesses were mutually dependent across 

space in Galveston, Texas, after Hurricane Ike in 2008. They 

found that the re-opening of businesses influenced nearby 

(within 2.42 kilometers [km]) households’ decisions to return 

to their homes and the return of households in the market area 

(within 3.22 km) increased the chances of those businesses 

returning. How to manage this interdependence was a question 

asked by city council members of visiting social scientists during 

a reconnaissance of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake (observed 

by A. Wein during an EERI reconnaissance trip in 2011).

 Xiao and Van Zandt (2011) did not differentiate among 

business sectors, but the interdependence of residents and 

retail businesses (Chang and Falit-Baiamonte, 2002) has been 

noted—retail businesses are more likely to fail if residents 

leave a neighborhood, whereas closure of neighborhood retail 

businesses can reduce the ability of residents to stay in an 

impacted area. The vulnerability of impacted retail businesses 

was seen after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, where retail 

business losses in damaged areas were picked up as gains 

elsewhere in the region (Brady and Perkins, 1991).

Analytical Framework

The analytical framework combines information from 

building damage analyses of HayWired scenario earthquake 

hazards (Seligson and others, 2018) and fire following 

earthquake (Scawthorn, 2018) with data available through 

the U.S. Census Bureau. We describe the analytical steps and 

terms used to identify areas with concentrated damages and 

summarize the building damage, employment levels, and 

workplace-home relation by geography in these areas. We 

conclude this section by recognizing the limitations of our 

approach and its scope. 

The Spatial Building Blocks in Hazus: Census Tracts

The HayWired scenario mainshock building-damage 

assessment for earthquake hazards produces results down to 

the census-tract level using tract boundaries from the 2000 

census (Seligson and others, 2018). Fire-following-earthquake 

building damages (Scawthorn, 2018) were allocated to the 2000 

census tracts and integrated with the earthquake hazard damages 

(Johnson and others, Concentrated Damage, in prep.; planned 

to be published as part of this volume). For this analysis, the 

results for the 2000 tract boundaries were redistributed into 

2010 tract geographies to allow for comparisons to more 

recent employment data available through the U.S. Census 

Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) 

Program and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 

(LODES) datasets (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). To redistribute 

building damages from 2000 census tracts to 2010 census 

tracts, housing units in 2010 tracts were used to weight the 

distribution of losses. For example, a 2000 census tract split 

into two tracts in 2010 uses the relative share of housing units 

in each tract to break up the losses for the original tract. This 

method is more accurate for housing (residential) distribution 

but may be less representative for commercial distributions 

where there is less housing in those areas (Johnson and others, 

Concentrated Damage, in prep.; planned to be published as part 

of this volume). In all, there are 2,386 census tracts (of the 2010 

vintage) analyzed in the HayWired scenario building-damage 

assessment, of which 1,588 are in the nine-county San Francisco 

Bay region, with the remainder located in adjacent counties to 

more fully account for commute flows beyond the region.

Building Damage States

Seligson and others (2018) use Hazus to estimate building 

losses from HayWired scenario mainshock shaking, liquefaction, 

and landslides. An intermediate step in this calculation was the 

estimation of building damage states. Building square footage was 

tallied for five damage states: none, slight, moderate, extensive, 

and complete. The additional square footage of buildings burned 

by fire following earthquake damage is classified as complete 

damage (Johnson and others, Concentrated Damage, in prep.; 

planned to be published as part of this volume). Recall that the 

four mainshock hazards plus fire hazards are referred to as all 

hazards and earthquake hazards refers to only the mainshock 

hazards without fire. Building square footage in each damage state 

can be converted to building counts in each damage state using the 

Hazus correspondence table in appendix 1. 

Extensive building damage state repairs may take weeks 

to months. The complete building damage state repairs or 

replacements may take months to years. This analysis focuses only 

on concentrations of extensively or completely damaged building 

square footage for defining the areas of concentrated damage, 

consistent with HayWired community-at-risk analyses that focus 

on residential population displacement and consequences for 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 5

Figure 1

EXPLANATION

Percentage of all extensively or completely damaged 

building square footage, in developed areas

60 percent and greater

20 to 60 percent

10 to 20 percent

2 to 10 percent

Less than 2 percent

Nondeveloped area

Preserved land

Census tract boundary

Central business district

Hayward Fault rupture

Highway

Hydrology from U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset, 2016

Boundary data from U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data, 2016

Park and highway data from OpenStreetMap, 2017 

Universal Transverse Mercator zone 10N projection

North American Datum of 1983

0 5 10 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 MILES

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

PACIFIC OCEAN

San Pablo

Bay

San Francisco Bay

ALAMEDA

CONTRA COSTA

SOLANO

MARIN

SANTA CLARA

SAN MATEO

SONOMA

NAPA

SAN FRANCISCO

Novato

Antioch

Concord

Oakland

Alameda

Vallejo

Hayward

Fremont

Richmond

Berkeley

Milpitas

San Jose

Livermore

Pittsburg

San Mateo

Daly City

Sunnyvale

Palo Alto

Cupertino

San Rafael

Union City

Pleasanton

San Leandro

Santa Clara

Walnut Creek

Redwood City

Mountain View

South San Francisco

122°30’ 122°

38°

37°30’

580

80 101

101

280

680

CALIF.

Map

area

Figure 1. Map of the San Francisco Bay region, California, showing the percentage of building square footage

that is extensively or completely damaged across all occupancy groups as a result of all HayWired earthquake 

scenario mainshock hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake). Modified 

from Johnson and others (Concentrated Damage, in prep.; planned to be published as part of this volume).
6 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

housing recovery (Johnson and others, Population Movements and 

Long-Term Recovery chapters, in prep.; planned to be published as 

part of this volume). A map showing the percentage of all building 

occupancy square footage that has extensive or complete damage 

caused by all hazards in each census tract is shown in figure 1. 

Maps of damage concentration for each building occupancy group 

are presented by Johnson and others (Concentrated Damage, in 

prep.; planned to be published as part of this volume). 

Areas of Concentrated Damage

Based on literature reviews and other information sources, 

Johnson and others (Concentrated Damage, in prep.; planned to 

be published as part of this volume) determined that a threshold 

for causing significant displacement of businesses and households 

following a major disaster was 20 percent or more of extensive 

or complete damage to total building square footage in an area. If 

the threshold is applied to census tracts in the San Francisco Bay 

region, 11 percent (173 tracts) of the total meets this concentrated 

damage threshold for all hazards damages. Of these, 115 tracts 

qualify as concentrated-damage areas from earthquake hazard 

damages (7 percent of the tracts in the area). These tracts are 

predominantly in Alameda County with the remainder in Contra 

Costa County; the addition of fire following earthquake damage is 

responsible for concentrated-damage areas in the cities of Novato 

and Vallejo, as shown in figure 2. Santa Clara County is broadly 

impacted but contains no tracts where concentrations of damage 

exceed the 20 percent extensive or complete building damage 

threshold. Significant damage in most of the areas in Santa Clara 

County is within the range of 2 to 10 percent of all buildings. For 

additional information about concentrated-damage areas for the 

HayWired earthquake scenario, please refer to Johnson and others 

(Concentrated Damage, in prep.; planned to be published as part of 

this volume) (for methods) and Jones, Johnson, and others (2020) 

(for data).

Subareas

Concentrated-damage areas were aggregated into county 

subareas: northern Alameda County, central Alameda County, 

southern Alameda County, Dublin-Pleasanton, western Contra 

Costa County, Novato, and Vallejo (fig. 2). We defined these 

subareas to provide a general geographic context for the most 

significant concentrations of damage from the HayWired scenario 

mainshock. Although the subareas were defined using census tract 

boundaries, the cities with concentrated-damage areas included in 

each subarea are listed below; all census tracts within the subareas 

are defined in the accompanying data release for this chapter 

(Jones, Au, and Olsen, 2020).7

• Northern Alameda County: Berkeley, Emeryville, north 

Oakland, West Oakland, downtown Oakland, Albany, 

and Alameda

7

Multicity subareas avoided the problem of census tract boundaries crossing 

city lines; a single tract can straddle two cities.

• Central Alameda County: east Oakland, San Leandro, 

Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, Hayward, and Union City

• Southern Alameda County: Fremont and Newark

• Dublin-Pleasanton: Dublin and Pleasanton

• Western Contra Costa County: El Cerrito, Richmond, 

San Pablo, and Pinole

• Novato: Novato

• Vallejo: Vallejo

Figure 3 shows the distribution of tracts with concentrated 

damage from all hazards and earthquake hazards by subarea. 

The tracts shown in dark orange in this figure are additional 

tracts added to the concentrated-damage footprint if fire is 

incorporated into the HayWired scenario damages; the sum of 

dark orange and light orange represents the all hazards footprint 

(fig. 3). In general, subareas are referred to by name, and 

unless otherwise noted, the references to subarea impacts only 

consider tracts with concentrated damage within each subarea, 

not every tract in the subarea. The tracts in subareas with 

less-concentrated damage are accounted for as, for example, 

“Alameda County remainder.” 

Building Occupancy Groups

The building damage results are broken out into 33 

detailed building occupancy classes (defined by Hazus), 

which represent uses of the buildings. For the purposes of 

this analysis, the building occupancies are collapsed into 

five nonresidential occupancy groups: industrial/warehouse; 

offices; retail/commercial; household serving; and agricultural 

uses. Residential classes are aggregated into three occupancy 

groups: single family/duplex; multifamily; and group living. 

A correspondence between Hazus building occupancies to 

occupancy groups is shown in table 1.

Industry Employment Groups

The 2015 LEHD dataset from the U.S. Census Bureau 

provides information on employment by industry (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2017). LEHD’s employment data are reported for 20 

industry sectors. As for the occupancy groups, we collapsed the 

more detailed sector data from LEHD into five broad industry 

groups that correspond to the occupancy groups: industrial/

warehouse; offices; retail/commercial; household serving; and 

agricultural uses. A correspondence between LEHD industry 

sectors to industry groups is shown in table 2. Please note 

that although the names of nonresidential occupancy groups 

and industry groups are the same, these terms are not used 

interchangeably. Occupancy groups relate to the Hazus building 

inventory data, whereas industry groups describe employment 

data. The data subset used for this analysis is provided by Jones, 

Au, and Olsen (2020).
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 7

Figure 2

Hydrology from U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset, 2016

Boundary data from U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data, 2016

Park and highway data from OpenStreetMap, 2017

Universal Transverse Mercator zone 10N projection 

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

Tract with concentrated building damage from earthquake hazards

Additional tract with concentrated building damage from fire

Preserved land

Economic subarea outline

Hayward Fault rupture

Highway

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

0 4 8 MILES

San Pablo Bay

San Francisco Bay

PACIFIC OCEAN

Novato

Vallejo

Central Alameda

 County

Southern Alameda

 County

Dublin-Pleasanton

Western

Contra Costa County

Northern

Alameda County

ALAMEDA

SOLANO

MARIN

CONTRA COSTA

SAN MATEO

SONOMA NAPA

SANTA CLARA

SAN FRANCISCO

122°30’ 122°

38°

37°30’

580

80

101

101

280

680

CALIF.

Map

area

Figure 2. Map of the San Francisco Bay region, California, showing concentrated-damage areas and subareas as a result 

of hazards caused by the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock on the Hayward Fault. Concentrated-damage areas 

are defined as census tracts with 20 percent or more of their total building square footage in extensive or complete damage 

according to the Hazus analysis (Seligson and others, 2018). Light orange areas are those affected only by earthquake hazards 

(ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslide) and dark orange areas are added if fire following earthquake damages are included. 
8 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Table 1. Hazus occupancy classification to occupancy group correspondence.

Occupancy group Hazus classification Hazus occupancy description

Nonresidential

Industrial/warehouse COM2 Warehouse

IND1 Industrial-Heavy

IND2 Industrial-Light

IND3 Industrial-Food/drugs/chemicals

IND4 Industrial-Metals/minerals processing

IND5 Industrial-High tech

IND6 Industrial-Construction

Offices COM4 Professional/technical services

Retail/commercial COM1 Retail trade

COM10 Parking

COM3 Personal and repair services

COM5 Banks

COM8 Entertainment and recreation

COM9 Theaters

RES4 Hotel/motel

Household serving COM6 Hospital

COM7 Medical office/clinic

EDU1 Grade schools

EDU2 Colleges/universities

GOV1 Government-General services

GOV2 Government-Emergency response

REL1 Church/non-profit

Agricultural uses AGR1 Agriculture

Residential

Single family/duplex RES1 Single family

RES3A Duplex

RES2 Mobile home

Multifamily RES3B Multifamily (3–4 units)

RES3C Multifamily (5–9 units)

RES3D Multifamily (10–19 units)

RES3E Multifamily (20–49 units)

RES3F Multifamily (50+ units)

Group living RES5 Dormitories

RES6 Nursing home
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 9

gure 3

Tracts with concentrated building damage from earthquake hazards

Additional tracts with concentrated building damage from fire

EXPLANATION

22

72

2 4 15

115

8

34

3 2

6

1 4

58

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Northern

Alameda

County

Central

Alameda

County

Southern

Alameda

County

Western Contra

Costa County

DublinPleasanton

Novato Vallejo Total tracts

Number of census tracts

Figure 3. Bar chart

showing census tracts 

with concentrated damage 

by subarea, identified 

by damages from the 

HayWired earthquake 

scenario mainshock in the 

San Francisco Bay region, 

California. Consistent 

with the map in figure 2, 

light orange represents 

tracts with concentrated 

damage from earthquake 

hazards (ground shaking, 

liquefaction, and landslide) 

and dark orange represents 

additional tracts when 

fire following earthquake 

damages are included. 

Table 2. U.S. Census Bureau industry classification to industry group correspondence.

[NAICS, North American Industry Classification System]

Industry group NAICS sector NAICS industry description

Industrial/warehouse 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

22 Utilities

23 Construction

31–33 Manufacturing

42 Wholesale trade

48–49 Transportation and warehousing

Offices 51 Information

52 Finance and insurance

53 Real estate and rental and leasing

54 Professional, scientific, and technical services

55 Management of companies and enterprises

Retail/commercial 44–45 Retail trade

71 Arts, entertainment, recreation

72 Accommodation and food

81 Other services

Household serving 56 Administration, support and waste management, and remediation

61 Education

62 Health and social services

92 Public administration

Agricultural uses 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting
10 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Household and Workplace Relation

The LODES dataset provides detailed spatial distributions 

of workers’ employment and residential locations (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2017). Our analysis tallies workers and employed 

residents working and (or) living in concentrated-damage areas 

according to where they live and work in subareas and beyond. 

However, since the San Francisco Bay region workforce extends 

beyond the nine counties bordering San Francisco Bay, this 

analysis includes employees that commute from the San Joaquin 

Valley region (Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties), 

the Sacramento Valley region (Sacramento and Yolo Counties), 

the central coast region (Monterey, San Benito, and Santa 

Cruz Counties), and other areas within California to work in 

concentrated-damage areas. Please note that LODES aggregates 

the origin-destination industry sector data into three segments: 

goods producing; trade, transportation, and utilities; and all other 

services. These data cannot be broken out into the individual 

industry groups listed in table 2. A correspondence between 

LEHD industry sectors to LODES industry segments is provided 

in appendix 1. In addition, LODES data used in this analysis are 

focused on within-state workers. Because of this, the worker totals 

will vary slightly compared to the LEHD employment totals, 

which look at workers in the region regardless of where they 

reside. The data subset used for this analysis is provided by Jones, 

Au, and Olsen (2020).

Limitations and Knowledge Gaps of the 

Analytical Framework 

We define concentrated-damage areas as tracts with at 

least 20 percent of the building square footage in an extensive or 

complete damage state. This threshold for defining concentrated 

damage is based on available data and expert opinion (Johnson 

and others, Concentrated Damage, in prep.; planned to be 

published as part of this volume). The definition has not 

considered whether the 20 percent threshold for neighborhood 

effects could vary by building height (commonly found in dense 

downtown areas) or the mix of building uses (for example, 

primarily single family/duplex versus industrial/warehouse or 

retail/commercial). 

Census tracts could be impacted by other disruptive forces, 

including utility and transportation damages (such as Tierney, 

1997) or toxic plumes. For example, in Johnson and others 

(Communities at Risk Overview, in prep.; planned to be published 

as part of this volume), areas with utility and transportation issues 

were illustrated by coarsely identifying areas where at least two 

services could potentially be disrupted for more than a month. We 

find that most (141 of the 173) tracts with concentrated damage 

from all hazards are contained or overlapping with these areas and 

another 107 tracts with less-concentrated damage are contained in 

or overlap with these areas. The average concentration of extensive 

and complete damage in these less-concentrated-damage tracts is 

14 percent. Among the 17 tracts with less-concentrated damage that 

are completely contained within the long-term utility/transportation 

restoration areas, the average extensive and complete building 

damage is 16 percent. This suggests that tracts classified here with 

less-concentrated damage could potentially become areas with 

significant displacement of businesses and households because of 

long restoration times of multiple utility and transportation services. 

We find these borderline tracts in areas with high probability of 

ground failure and along the Hayward Fault and they may include 

areas with strong shaking and better performing buildings (for 

example, single family homes or offices). 

For each step, it is necessary to use crosswalks between sector 

data in the form of 33 Hazus building occupancies, 20 LEHD 

employment sectors, and 3 LODES employment segments. 

Nonetheless, the sector results are in reasonable agreement, except 

for the household-serving group, where the Hazus square footage 

for education and government occupancies is less than the LEHD 

employment data suggests (which becomes evident in a comparison 

of results). Hazus building inventory data has been found to 

underestimate square footage of educational building occupancy 

(H. Seligson, Seligson Consulting, written commun., 2017). 

Subareas are defined to reduce the detail of summarizing 

data and relations between census tracts and to capture spatial 

variations within the broader county geographies, since the tract 

boundaries do not necessarily correspond to city boundaries. The 

central Alameda County subarea is the largest area and defines 

the core of the disaster area. The subareas group tracts with 

concentrated damage within counties rather than transportation 

zones, meaning that the results are less specific about additional 

commute disruption between the homes and workplaces. 

Building Occupancy Damages 

In this section, we show how extensive and complete 

building damage is distributed between concentrated and lessconcentrated-damage areas in the region. The spillover effect 

in the concentrated-damage areas means that otherwise usable 

buildings could suffer from neighborhood effects. Results, shown 

in figures and tables, vary by building occupancy class and 

subarea; more detailed tables of results are provided in appendix 2. 

Regional

Figures 4 and 5 show the amount and percentage of building 

occupancy square footage in the nine-county San Francisco Bay 

region, divided into four categories based on two categories of 

building damage states (disruptive building damage, defined as 

extensive or complete damage to building square footage, or lessdisruptive building damage, defined as none, slight, or moderate 

damage to building square footage) and two types of location (in 

concentrated-damage areas or less-concentrated-damage areas). 

The distinction here is that 20 percent or more disruptive building 

damage defines concentrated damage, indicating a spatially 

impaired neighborhood, whereas disruptive building damage in 

less-concentrated-damage areas is assumed to be contained to the 

building, not impairing the neighborhood. 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 11

We see that most building square footage is in residential 

classes, particularly single-family/duplex occupancy, and 

residential classes compose the largest amount of disruptive 

building damage (light and dark reds, fig. 4). A smaller 

percentage of single-family/duplex housing types incur 

disruptive building damage because they out-perform 

industrial and commercial building types (light and dark reds, 

fig. 5), making them a small contributor to concentrations of 

damage. Consequently, for earthquake hazards, disruptive 

building damage for single-family/duplex housing is largely 

in tracts with less-concentrated damage (light red). However, 

conflagrations concentrate residential damages such that 

disruptive damage is only slightly more present in lessconcentrated-damage areas for all hazards than earthquake 

hazards (light red bars in fig. 5). 

The multifamily and group living housing, industrial/

warehouse, and retail/commercial occupancies have a larger 

share of their building square footage in concentrated-damage 

areas (compared to single-family/duplex residences and offices) 

(dark colors, fig. 5), which corresponds to these building 

occupancy types being more vulnerable to the effects of the 

mainshock hazards (light and dark reds, fig. 5) and fire (in the 

case of multifamily and group living occupancies) (all hazards 

versus earthquake hazards, fig. 5). The household-serving 

industry group is also disproportionately affected by fire based 

on the distribution of burned square footage relative to schools, 

applying 1995 Northridge earthquake burn data (where fires 

were initiated in school laboratories) to an underestimation of 

square footage in the occupancy class. 

Neighborhood disruption from concentrated damage to 

otherwise usable buildings is larger than the square footage 

that is directly impacted in those tracts (shown in dark blue). 

This is an artifact of using the 20 percent disruptive building 

damage threshold for defining concentrated-damage areas. 

Most notably, less-disruptive single-family/duplex building 

damage in concentrated-damage areas (dark blue) is more than 

the total disruptive single-family/duplex building damage in 

the entire nine-county region (light and dark red combined) and 

usable homes are potentially more exposed to neighborhood 

disruptions than other usable building occupancies. 

EXPLANATION

Building square footage in the nine-county region, grouped based 

on Hazus damage state

Less-disruptive damage in tracts with less-concentrated damage

Disruptive damage in tracts with less-concentrated damage

Less-disruptive damage in tracts with concentrated damage

Disruptive damage in tracts with concentrated damage

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 350,000

Thousands of square feet

Group

living

Single family/

duplex

Agricultural

uses

Household 

serving

Offices

Retail/

commercial

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Industrial/

warehouse Earthquake

All

250,000 300,000

Multifamily

Figure 4. Bar chart showing building occupancy square footage damage for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the 

nine-county San Francisco Bay region, California. Results are separated into less-disruptive damage (none, slight, and moderate 

damage; blue colors) and disruptive damage (extensive and complete damage; red colors) according to the Hazus analysis and also 

separated based on location within less-concentrated-damage areas (<20 percent of building square footage is disruptively damaged; 

light colors) and concentrated-damage areas (≥20 percent of building square footage is disruptively damaged; dark colors). “All” 

refers to damage from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following 

earthquake. “Earthquake” refers to damage from earthquake hazards only: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. 
12 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Figure 5

EXPLANATION

Building square footage in the nine-county region, grouped based 

on Hazus damage state

Less-disruptive damage in tracts with less-concentrated damage

Disruptive damage in tracts with less-concentrated damage

Less-disruptive damage in tracts with concentrated damage

Disruptive damage in tracts with concentrated damage

0 10

Percentage of exposed square footage

Group

living

Multifamily

Single family/

duplex

Agricultural

uses

Household

serving

Offices

Retail/

commercial

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Industrial/

warehouse Earthquake

All

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 5. Bar chart showing the percentage of building occupancy square footage damage for the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region, California. Results are separated into less-disruptive damage (none, slight, and 

moderate damage; blue colors) and disruptive damage (extensive and complete damage; red colors) according to the Hazus analysis 

and also separated based on location within less-concentrated-damage areas (<20 percent of building square footage is disruptively 

damaged; light colors) and concentrated-damage areas (≥20 percent of building square footage is disruptively damaged; dark colors). 

“All” refers to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following 

earthquake. “Earthquake” refers to damages from earthquake hazards only: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. 

Concentrated-Damage Areas 

Considering only concentrated-damage areas, 30 percent of 

building square footage from all hazards is disruptive (extensive 

and complete) building damage; 26 percent of residential square 

footage and 41 percent of nonresidential square footage is 

disruptive building damage (table 3 and dark colors compared 

to light colors in fig. 6). The single-family/duplex occupancy 

group has the most disruptive building damage square footage 

in concentrated-damage areas (dark purple color in fig. 6),8

however, disruptive damage to multifamily and industrial/

warehouse buildings is more common in concentrated-damage 

areas, followed by retail/commercial (dark colors compared 

8

In terms of buildings, 59 percent of square footage in concentrated-damage 

areas (for all hazards) is in residential use but represents 94 percent of the buildings 

in the same extent because, on average, nonresidential buildings tend to be bigger 

than residential buildings. For example, a single warehouse building could have 

approximately the same square footage as four single-family homes. 

with light colors in fig. 6 and lower percentages in table 3). The 

percentages of disruptive building damage in concentrateddamage areas range from 19 percent (single family/duplex, 

earthquake hazards) to 44 percent (industrial/warehouse, all 

hazards). The disruptive building damage percentage for an 

occupancy group can be less than the concentrated-damage 

threshold of 20 percent depending on the mix of occupancy 

groups in census tracts. 

Subareas

Concentrated building occupancy damage results vary 

across subareas (that contain the concentrated-damage areas). 

The central Alameda County subarea covers the largest area, 

has the largest building square footage in concentrated-damage 

areas (light and dark bars in fig. 7A, B), and the largest share of 

disruptive (extensive and complete) building damage by square 

footage (dark bars in fig. 7A, B). The central Alameda County 

subarea contains 60 percent of the total square footage in 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 13

Table 3. Disruptive building damage in concentrated-damage areas by occupancy group for the HayWired scenario in the San

Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive building damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus. Concentrated-damage areas are defined for both all hazards and 

earthquake hazards. All hazards are defined by damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and 

fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). Earthquake hazards are defined by damages from earthquake hazards: 

ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Occupancy group

Earthquake hazards All hazards

Disruptive building 

damage, in ft2

Disruptive building 

damage, in percent

Disruptive building 

damage, in ft2

Disruptive building 

damage, in percent

Nonresidential

Industrial/warehouse 25,492,796 44 27,599,713 44

Retail/commercial 19,636,682 41 24,030,474 40

Offices 8,744,959 37 10,479,760 36

Household serving 4,734,527 39 7,000,208 42

Agricultural uses 247,644 35 313,649 33

All nonresidential 58,856,608 41 69,423,804 41

Residential

Single family/duplex 33,582,773 19 65,198,410 22

Multifamily 16,331,727 36 28,022,305 43

Group living 1,841,762 37 3,121,621 39

All residential 51,756,262 22 96,342,336 26

Total 110,612,870 29 165,766,140 30

Less-disruptive damage

Industrial/warehouse

Retail/commercial

Office 

Household serving

Agricultural uses

Single family/duplex

Multifamily

Group living

Disruptive damage

Industrial/warehouse 

Retail/commercial 

Office

Household serving 

Agricultural uses

Single family/duplex

Multifamily

Group living

Earthquake

All

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of exposed square footage

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Bar chart showing the percentage of building occupancy square footage in concentrated-damage areas that is disruptive 

(extensive or complete damage according to Hazus) and less disruptive (none, slight, or moderate damage according to Hazus) for the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region, California. “All” refers to damages from all 

hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. “Earthquake” 

refers to damages from earthquake hazards only: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. The black vertical line on each row of 

stacked bars represents the break point between disruptive and less-disruptive building damage. 
14 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Figure 7

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Thousands of square feet

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Vallejo

Novato

Southern Alameda

County

DublinPleasanton

Western Contra

Costa County

Northern Alameda

County

Central Alameda

County

B. Residential occupancies

Less-disruptive damage

Single family/duplex

Multifamily 

Group living 

Disruptive damage

Single family/duplex

Multifamily 

Group living

EXPLANATION

0 10,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Thousands of square feet

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

20,000

Vallejo

Novato

Southern Alameda

County

DublinPleasanton

Western Contra

Costa County

Northern Alameda

County

Central Alameda

County

A. Nonresidential occupancies

Less-disruptive damage

Industrial/warehouse

Retail/commercial 

Office

Household serving

Agricultural

Disruptive damage

Industrial/warehouse

Retail/commercial

Office

Household serving

Agricultural uses

EXPLANATION

Figure 7. Bar charts showing building occupancy square footage in concentrated-damage areas by subarea for the HayWired earthquake

scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. “All” refers to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: 

ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. “Earthquake” refers to damages from earthquake hazards only: ground 

shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Dark colors represent disruptive (extensive or complete damage according to Hazus) building damage; light 

colors represent less-disruptive (none, slight, or moderate damage according to Hazus) building damage. 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 15

concentrated-damage areas for all hazards and accounts for 67 

percent of the total disruptive building damage in the all hazard 

concentrated-damage areas. As such, damages in the central 

Alameda County subarea are largely driving the results for the 

San Francisco Bay region.

There are some notable building occupancy differences 

across the subareas:

• Central Alameda County subarea hosts most (about 

74–77 percent) of the industrial/warehouse building 

square footage in concentrated-damage areas (blue 

colors) and most of the disruptive damage to these 

buildings occurs in this subarea (fig. 7A).

• Western Contra Costa County subarea hosts relatively more 

retail/commercial square footage in concentrated-damage 

areas than other subareas (orange in fig. 8A) and most of 

the disruptive damage in this subarea is to buildings in 

these occupancies group (dark orange in fig. 8A). 

• Dublin-Pleasanton subarea hosts relatively more office 

buildings in concentrated-damage areas except for Novato 

(gray in fig. 8A), which shows the largest proportion of 

disruptive damage to these building occupancies (dark 

purple in fig. 8A) compared to other subareas.

• Northern Alameda County subarea shows relatively more 

multifamily and group living housing in its residential 

square footage than other subareas (likely related to 

student housing) and the largest percentage of multifamily 

and group living residential building square footage with 

disruptive damage (light and dark red) as compared to 

other subareas (fig. 8B). 

• Southern Alameda County subarea’s concentrated-damage 

areas predominantly host residential buildings (fig. 7A, B). 

• Fires in the Novato subarea result in the largest 

percentages of residential building square footage with 

disruptive building damage in concentrated-damage 

areas relative to other subareas—that is, 34 percent of 

single-family/duplex and 93 percent of multifamily 

building square footage (fig. 8B). 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Vallejo

Novato

Southern Alameda

County

DublinPleasanton

Western Contra

 Costa County

Northern Alameda

County

Central Alameda

County

A. Nonresidential occupancies

Less-disruptive damage

Industrial/warehouse

Retail/commercial

Office

Household serving

Agricultural uses

Disruptive damage

Industrial/warehouse

Retail/commercial 

Office

Household serving 

Agricultural uses

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of exposed square footage

Figure 8. Bar charts showing the percentage of building occupancy square footage in concentrated-damage areas of subareas for the

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. “All” refers to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. “Earthquake” refers to damages from earthquake 

hazards only: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Dark colors represent disruptive (extensive or complete damage according to Hazus) 

building damage; light colors represent less-disruptive (none, slight, or moderate damage according to Hazus) building damage. The black vertical 

line on each row of stacked bars represents the break point between disruptive and less-disruptive building damage. Figure continues on page 16.
16 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

fig8b

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of exposed square footage

Vallejo

Novato

Southern Alameda

County

DublinPleasanton

Western Contra

Costa County

Northern Alameda

County

Central Alameda

County

B. Residential occupancies

Less-disruptive damage

Single family/duplex 

Multifamily 

Group living 

Disruptive damage

Single family/duplex 

Multifamily 

Group living 

EXPLANATION

Figure 8. Bar charts showing the percentage of building occupancy square footage in concentrated-damage areas of subareas for the

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. “All” refers to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. “Earthquake” refers to damages from earthquake 

hazards only: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Dark colors represent disruptive (extensive or complete damage according to Hazus) 

building damage; light colors represent less-disruptive (none, slight, or moderate damage according to Hazus) building damage. The black 

vertical line on each row of stacked bars represents the break point between disruptive and less-disruptive building damage.—Continued

Employment by Industry Group

The U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD 2015 dataset (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2017) includes information on employment by 20 industry

sectors. As with the nonresidential occupancy groups in the

previous section, the data are collapsed into five industry groups: 

industrial/warehouse; retail/commercial; offices; household 

serving;9 and agricultural uses. A correspondence between LEHD 

industry sectors to industry groups are shown in table 2. 

Regional Employment 

In 2015, there were approximately 330,000 jobs distributed 

across concentrated-damage areas from all hazards (10 percent 

of San Francisco Bay region jobs). The employment mix in 

these concentrated-damage areas is diverse: 39 percent were in 

the household-serving industry group (approximately 127,000), 

9

The household-serving occupancy group includes government, education, 

healthcare, and religious building occupancies.

followed by 27 percent in industrial/warehouse (approximately 

88,000), 24 percent in retail/commercial (approximately 80,000), 

and 11 percent in office jobs (approximately 35,000) (fig. 9A). In 

comparison to figure 9B, figure 9A shows the disproportionate 

effect of fire on household-serving employment (because the 

model applies the 1995 Northridge earthquake fire data). The 

percentage of employment in agricultural uses is less than one 

percent in concentrated-damage areas (all hazards and earthquake 

hazards), which is not surprising, because agriculture is generally 

found in rural areas outside the concentrated damage in urbanized 

areas. However, more recently, the cannabis industry has been 

expanding into large warehouses in the San Francisco Bay region 

(Roach and Chapple, 2018).

The industry employment mixes in areas of concentrated 

damage from all hazards differ somewhat from the industry 

mixes for the four counties that contain concentrated-damage 

areas and for the region (fig. 9). The concentrated-damage areas 

have a markedly higher proportion of industrial/warehouse 

jobs, and a much lower percentage of office jobs, which is 

consistent with the building occupancy damage results discussed 

above. The overall larger share of household-serving jobs is 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 17

Figure 9

C. Four-county regional total

22

18

24

36

<1

B. Concentrated damage from earthquake hazards

<1

31

10

25

34

A. Concentrated damage from all hazards

<1

27

11

24

39

Employment, by industry group

Industrial/warehouse 

Retail/commercial 

Office 

Household serving 

Agricultural uses 

EXPLANATION

D. Nine-county regional total

21

24

24

31

1

Figure 9. Pie diagrams showing employment by industry group for concentrated-damage areas for the HayWired earthquake scenario

mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. Number indicates percentage of total employment in concentrated-damage areas for an 

individual industry group. A, Employees affected by concentrated-damage areas from all hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and 

fire following earthquake); total number of employees is 330,159. B, Employees affected by concentrated-damage areas from earthquake hazards 

(ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction); total number of employees is 259,095. C, Total employment by industry group for the four counties 

that encompass all of the concentrated-damage areas (Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, and Marin Counties); total number of employees is 

1,367,946. D, Total employment by industry group for the nine counties bordering San Francisco Bay; total number of employees is 3,730,011.

not commensurate with the square footage results discussed 

above and likely reflects a known underestimation of education 

occupancy square footage, and perhaps other government 

occupancies as well, in the Hazus inventory (H. Seligson, 

Seligson Consulting, written commun., 2017). 

Subarea Employment

Fifty-seven percent of the 330,159 jobs in concentrateddamage areas from all hazards are located in the central 

Alameda County subarea (fig. 10), commensurate with the 

percentage of nonresidential square footage in the subarea. 

To put this number in further context, the jobs in the central 

Alameda County subarea’s concentrated-damage areas 

represented one-quarter of all jobs in Alameda County. The 

subarea has a larger share of industrial/warehouse jobs and 

smaller share of office jobs (fig. 11) than other counties in 

the region. Jobs in the northern Alameda County subarea’s 

concentrated-damage areas account for nearly one-quarter of all 

jobs in concentrated-damage areas (78,514 jobs), and account 

for 10 percent of Alameda County jobs overall. In contrast to 

central Alameda County, northern Alameda County has larger 

shares of office and household-serving jobs than industrial/
18 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Figure 10

0 40,000 100,000 140,000 180,000 200,000

Number of employees

Vallejo

Novato

Southern Alameda

County

DublinPleasanton

Western Contra

Costa County

Northern Alameda

County

Central Alameda

County

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All

20,000 60,000 80,000 120,000 160,000

Employment, by industry group

Industrial/warehouse 

Retail/commercial

Office

Household serving 

Agricultural uses 

EXPLANATION

Figure 10. Bar chart showing employment in concentrated-damage areas by industry group in subareas for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock 

in the San Francisco Bay region, California. “All” refers to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, 

liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. “Earthquake” refers to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. 

0 10 50 70 80 100

Percentage of employment

20 30 40 60 90

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All 

Earthquake

All

Earthquake

All

Vallejo

Novato

Southern Alameda

County

DublinPleasanton

Western Contra

Costa County

Northern Alameda

County

Central Alameda

County Employment, by industry 

group

Industrial/warehouse 

Retail/commercial 

Office 

Household serving 

Agricultural uses 

EXPLANATION

Figure 11. Bar chart showing the percentage of employment by industry group in concentrated-damage areas by subareas for the HayWired earthquake 

scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. “All” refers to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, 

landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. “Earthquake” refers to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 19

warehouse jobs. Very little employment is in concentrateddamage areas in the southern Alameda County subarea, which 

agrees with the predominance of residential buildings in the 

concentrated-damage areas in this subarea. 

The area of concentrated damage from all hazards in the 

Dublin-Pleasanton subarea contain 8 percent of total jobs in 

concentrated-damage areas (27,843 jobs). However, these tracts 

accounted for 23 percent of all jobs in the Tri-Valley area (defined 

as the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore).

The areas of concentrated damage from all hazards in the 

western Contra Costa County subarea contained about 24,000 

jobs, composing 7 percent of all jobs in concentrated-damage 

areas, and 7 percent of Contra Costa County employment. 

However, these areas accounted for half of all jobs in the cities 

of El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules. Areas 

of concentrated damage in western Contra Costa contain less 

employment in offices and more in retail/commercial. 

Concentrated-damage areas from the fire hazard in 

Novato and Vallejo expose office and household-serving jobs, 

in particular, respectively (fig. 11). 

Employee Residence and Workplace 

Relation

A major earthquake event on the Hayward Fault would 

impact businesses beyond the concentrated-damage areas through 

the geographic relations of residences and workplaces. For 

example, people who work in concentrated-damage areas but live 

in communities with less-concentrated damage could lose their 

jobs or be out of work for an extended period without a paycheck, 

spreading impacts to areas less affected by physical damage. 

People who live in concentrated-damage areas may be displaced 

or burdened in a way that interferes with their productivity, even if 

their job is in a less-concentrated-damage area. 

We broadly calculate how many workers live and (or) work 

in concentrated-damage areas in the region and subareas. More 

detailed analysis by industry group follows, but is limited, because, 

though the LEHD employment data allow for establishing industry 

groups that could be easily organized to match occupancy groups, 

the LODES data are reported for only three aggregated industry 

segments: goods producing; trade, transportation, and utilities; 

and all other services. (A correspondence between LEHD industry 

sectors to LODES industry segments is provided in appendix 1.) 

Regional

Home and workplace relations are defined as one of 

the following: employees (1) live and work in areas with 

concentrated damage, (2) live in areas with concentrated 

damage but work in areas with less-concentrated damage, (3) 

work in areas with concentrated damage but live in areas with 

less-concentrated damage, or (4) live and work in areas with 

less-concentrated damage (fig. 12).

Table 4 presents numbers of employees that live in 

concentrated-damage areas (employed residents) and (or) work in 

1. Live and work in areas 

with concentrated damage

(96,292 employees)

2. Live in areas with 

concentrated damage but 

work in areas with 

less-concentrated damage

(234,202 employees)

3. Work in areas with 

concentrated damage but 

live in areas with lessconcentrated damage

(181,856 employees)

4. Live and work in areas 

with less-concentrated 

damage

(2,658,510 employees)

EXPLANATION

Area of concentrated 

damage

Area of less-concentrated 

damage

Home location

Work location

Figure 12. Cartoon showing possible home-workplace relations associated with areas of concentrated and less-concentrated

damage resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. Employee numbers 

are calculated for the nine counties for all hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake).
20 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

concentrated-damage areas (workers) in 2015. Note that the region 

of study expands to a larger 17-county region to capture workers 

living beyond the nine counties that border San Francisco Bay. 

In total, almost 600,000 employees work and (or) live in areas 

of concentrated damage from all hazards (and 25 percent fewer 

employees if only earthquake hazards are considered). 

In the nine-county region, 96,292 employees both live and 

work in areas of concentrated damage from all hazards—that 

is, 3 percent of the nine-county region’s employment. This is 

almost double the number of employees working and living in 

areas of concentrated damage from earthquake hazards. Another 

5 percent of employees work in concentrated-damage areas and 

another 6 percent of employees live in concentrated-damage 

areas, which have the potential to greatly widen impacts. In the 

four counties that contain concentrated-damage areas (Alameda, 

Contra Costa, Marin, and Solano Counties), 26 percent of the 

employees work and (or) live in areas of concentrated damage 

from all hazards, accounting for 6 percent of the 17-county 

region’s employment. Analogous numbers for earthquake 

hazards are given in table 4; notably, 19 percent of employees 

in the two counties that contain concentrated-damage areas 

(Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) work and (or) live in 

concentrated-damage areas, accounting for 5 percent of the 

nine-county region’s employment.

In 2015, there were more employed residents (about 

364,000) than workers (about 328,000) in areas of concentrated 

damage from all hazards, indicating that these tracts are an 

overall net exporter of workers (although not for all subareas). 

For the earthquake hazards case, concentrated-damage areas are 

a net importer of workers from other locations (about 258,000 

workers compared to about 236,000 employed residents). This 

switch is a result of the disproportionate effect of conflagrations 

on residences in the HayWired scenario, which increases the 

number of affected residents more than affected workers. 

Furthermore, of the approximately 96,000 employees that both 

work and live in areas of concentrated damage from all hazards, 

about 70 percent work and live in the same subarea (blue in 

fig. 13), most commonly in central Alameda County, and the 

rest live and work in concentrated-damage areas across other 

subareas (orange in fig. 13). 

Industry Segment

For context, employment in the LODES data in the San 

Francisco Bay region is composed of 15 percent goods-producing 

jobs, 17 percent trade, transportation, and utilities jobs, and 68 

percent all other services jobs. Using the LODES data to track 

employee residences and workplaces by industry segments, we 

find that only the industry distribution of workers in concentrateddamage areas (for all hazards) diverges from the region’s job 

composition—10 percent more in trade, transportation, and 

utilities, and 11 percent less in other services (fig. 14), relating 

to the lower seismic performance, larger exposure to fire, and 

more impacted location of industrial/warehouse buildings that 

strongly determine the designation of concentrated-damage areas 

compared to other occupancies. The relatively larger percentage 

of trade, transportation, and utilities industry workers employed 

in concentrated-damage areas highlights another path by which 

impacts may spread: if goods shipment to local producers is 

slowed by damage in the east bay. 

Table 4. Employees (in thousands) living and (or) working in concentrated-damage areas for the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. 

[All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. Earthquake 

hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Values in thousands of people. Percentages may not sum exactly because of 

rounding. Numbers for employed residents and workers change with area because some people work or live (respectively) outside of the region. %, percent] 

All hazards Earthquake hazards

Four-county 

region

Nine-county 

region Total region Four-county region

Nine-county 

region Total region

Total employment 1,361 3,708 5,511 1,361 3,708 5,511

People living and working in 

concentrated-damage areas 

96 (7%) 96 (3%) 96 (2%) 51 (4%) 51 (1%) 51 (1%)

Employed residents living in 

concentrated-damage areas only

121 (9%) 234 (6%) 267 (5%) 91 (7%) 163 (4%) 184 (3%)

Workers working in concentrateddamage areas only130 (10%) 182 (5%) 232 (4%) 122 (9%) 164 (4%) 206 (4%)

Total employees living and (or) 

working in concentrateddamage areas 

348 (26%) 512 (14%) 595 (11%) 264 (19%) 379 (10%) 442 (8%)
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 21

Figure 13

EXPLANATION

Live and work in the same concentrated-damage area

Live in a concentrated-damage subarea, work in another 

concentrated-damage subarea

Live in a concentrated-damage subarea, work in a 

less-concentrated-damage subarea

Work in a concentrated-damage subarea, live in another 

concentrated-damage subarea

Work in a concentrated-damage subarea, live in a 

less-concentrated-damage subarea

0 50,000 100,000 250,000

Number of employed persons

150,000 200,000

Vallejo

Novato

Southern Alameda

County

DublinPleasanton

Western Contra

Costa County

Northern Alameda

County

WK

ER

Central Alameda

County

WK

ER

AH

EQH

WK

ER

WK

ER

AH

EQH

WK

ER

WK

ER AH

EQH

WK

ER

WK

ER

AH

EQH

WK

ER

WK

ER

AH

EQH

WK

ER

WK

ER

AH

EQH

WK

ER

WK

ER

AH

EQH

Figure 13. Bar chart showing employed residents and workers in concentrated-damage areas by subarea for the HayWired earthquake 

scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. EQH, earthquake hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction); AH, all 

hazards (earthquake hazards plus fire); WK, workers; ER; employed residents.
22 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Figure 14

Live and work in concentrated-damage areas

Goods producing

Trade, transportation, and utilities

Other services

Work only in concentrated-damage areas

Goods producing

Trade, transportation, and utilities

Other services

EXPLANATION

B

8,171

(3%)

11,604

(5%)

32,465

(13%)

116,968

(45%)

56,701

(22%)

31,601

(12%)

A

32,600

(10%)

140,888

(43%)

58,365

(18%)

63,418

(19%)

19,295

(6%)

13,579

(4%)

Figure 14. Pie diagrams showing percentages of

workers by industry segment in concentrated-damage 

areas resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. A, 

All hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and 

fire following earthquake). B, Earthquake hazards (ground 

shaking, landslide, and liquefaction).

Subarea and Industry Segment 

Employed Residents

Figure 15 shows work locations of employed residents living 

in areas of concentrated damage from all hazards to show the 

spread of impacts to jobs from employees living in concentrateddamage areas. More than half of these residents have jobs in 

less-concentrated-damage areas: 81,000 (22 percent) commute to 

jobs in the remainder of Alameda County (outside of the northern, 

central, and southern Alameda County subareas), about 51,000 

(14 percent) commute to San Francisco, 32,000 commute to 

Santa Clara County, 25,000 commute to San Mateo County, and 

28,000 work in the remainder of Contra Costa County (outside of 

the western Contra Costa County subarea). Employment districts 

with less concentrated damage, such as downtown San Francisco, 

could be adversely affected if many of the people who work in 

that district have lost their homes, are dealing with repairs, and 

(or) can no longer get to work because of transportation and (or) 

relocation challenges (Kroll and others, this volume, explore the 

economic impacts of commute disruptions). Extensive workforce 

disruption could occur for about 267,000 employees who live in 

concentrated-damage areas and work in less-concentrated-damage 

areas; the degree and duration of impact will depend on the types 

of plans businesses, responding agencies, and organizations have 

for employees displaced from their homes or living under difficult 

conditions.

Breaking out the jobs of employed residents who 

live in areas of concentrated damage (from all hazards) by 

industry segment, figure 16 shows that the majority of the 

goods-producing jobs are in concentrated-damage areas 

or the less-concentrated-damage areas in the remainder of 

Alameda County. Santa Clara County is also a significant 

goods-producing job destination for 13 percent of employed 

residents in the segment. Trade, transportation, and utilities 

and other services jobs of resident employees were more 

distributed across the region. San Francisco is a significant 

destination for both of these types of jobs and hosts 11 percent 

of trade, transportation, and utilities jobs and 16 percent 

of other services jobs held by employed residents living in 

concentrated-damage areas.

Workers 

Figure 17 shows home locations of workers who 

work in areas of concentrated damage from all hazards to 

show the spread of impacts to residential neighborhoods 

and communities. Figures 13, 17, and 18 show that, of 

the approximately 328,000 workers employed in areas 

of concentrated damage from all hazards, most would be 

commuting primarily from three main residential locations: 

nearly 72,000 (22 percent) from Alameda County remainder, 

69,000 (21 percent) from concentrated-damage areas in the 

central Alameda County subarea, and more than 42,000 

(14 percent) from Contra Costa County remainder. 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 23

Figure 15

All hazards

Earthquake hazards

EXPLANATION

0 20,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

Number of employees

Other less-concentrateddamage areas

Napa County

Central coast

Sonoma County

Solano County remainder

San Joaquin Valley

Marin County remainder

Sacramento Valley

San Mateo County

Contra Costa County remainder

Santa Clara County

San Francisco County

Alameda County remainder

Concentrated-damage areas

40,000

Area of employment

Figure 15. Bar chart showing job locations of employed residents who live in concentrated-damage areas resulting from the

HayWired earthquake scenario in the San Francisco Bay region, California. Results are shown for areas of concentrated damage 

from all hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake) and earthquake hazards (ground shaking, 

landslide, and liquefaction). This figure shows the spread of impacts to jobs from workers living in concentrated-damage areas. 

0 20,000 60,000 80,000

Number of employees

100,000

Napa County

Other less-concentrateddamage areas

Concentrated-damage areas

Alameda County remainder

San Francisco County

Santa Clara County

Contra Costa County remainder

San Mateo County

Sacramento Valley

Marin County remainder

San Joaquin Valley

Solano County remainder

Sonoma County

Central coast

Area of employment

40,000

EXPLANATION

Goods producing

Trade, transportation, and utilities

Other services

Figure 16. Bar chart showing job locations by employment segment of employed residents who live in concentrateddamage areas from all hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake) resulting from 

the HayWired earthquake scenario in the San Francisco Bay region, California.
24 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Figure 17

0 20,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

Number of employees

Alameda County remainder

Contra Costa County remainder

Santa Clara County

San Joaquin Valley

San Mateo County

San Francisco County

Sacramento Valley

Solano County remainder

Central coast

Sonoma County

Marin County remainder

Napa County

Other less-concentrateddamage areas

Concentrated-damage areas

40,000

Area of residence

All hazards

Earthquake hazards 

EXPLANATION

Figure 17. Bar chart showing residential locations of workers employed in concentrated-damage areas resulting from the 

HayWired earthquake scenario in the San Francisco Bay region, California. Results are shown for areas of concentrated damage 

from all hazards (ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake) and earthquake hazards (ground shaking, 

landslide, and liquefaction). 

Figure 18 shows where workers in concentrated-damage 

areas live, and what kinds of jobs they work, broken out into 

the three industry segments. Outside the concentrated-damage 

areas, workers mostly live in the remainder of Alameda and 

Contra Costa Counties. Workers living in the Alameda County 

remainder composed 21 percent of goods-producing workers, 

17 percent of trade, transportation, and utilities workers, and 24 

percent of other services workers. About 13 percent of workers 

employed in concentrated-damage areas in each segment live in 

the remainder of Contra Costa County. About 7 percent of both 

goods-producing and trade, transportation, and utilities workers 

live in Santa Clara County. 

Although some of the workers living in less-impacted 

homes might have jobs that lend themselves to telecommuting, 

this may be a less-viable solution for the 124,000 people who 

work in the goods-producing and trade, transportation, and 

utilities segments that have low rates of working from home 

(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).

This section emphasizes home-workplace relations of 

different industrial types and different subareas. The predominant 

flows are intra-county; homes and jobs are within or between 

county subareas that have concentrated-damage areas and the 

remainder of that county. Notably, most affected employees 

are commuting within the central Alameda County subarea or 

between this subarea and the remainder of Alameda County. These 

intra-Alameda County flows account for almost one-third of the 

affected home-workplace relations. 

More than half of employed residents living in areas 

of concentrated damage in central Alameda County, 

approximately 226,500 people, are employed along Bay 

Area Rapid Transit (BART) routes and the major east bay 

highways in concentrated-damage areas, the remainder of 

Alameda County, and San Francisco. These commutes could 

be challenged (or impossible) if their routes were incapacitated 

for extended times (see Jones and others, this volume, for 

damage and restoration estimates of transportation systems, 

and Kroll and others, this volume, for economic impacts of 

disrupted commutes).

Other notable inter-county relations are illustrated in 

tables 3.5–3.8 of appendix 3 and can be summarized as 

follows:

• 25 percent of northern Alameda County and 19 percent of 

western Contra Costa County employed residents who live 

in concentrated-damage areas work in San Francisco.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 25

0 20,000 60,000 80,000

Number of employees

100,000

Napa County

Other less-concentrateddamage areas

Area of residence

Concentrated-damage areas

Alameda County remainder

Contra Costa County remainder

Santa Clara County

San Joaquin Valley

San Francisco County

San Mateo County

Solano County remainder

Sacramento Valley

Sonoma County

Marin County remainder

Central coast

40,000

Figure 18

EXPLANATION

Goods producing

Trade, transportation, and utilities

Other services

Figure 18. Bar chart showing residence locations of workers by employment segment in concentrated-damage areas from all hazards 

(ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake) resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in 

the San Francisco Bay region, California.

• 31 percent of southern Alameda County and 16 percent 

of Dublin-Pleasanton employed residents who live in 

concentrated-damage areas work in Santa Clara County. 

• 16 percent of northern Alameda County and 18 

percent of Dublin-Pleasanton workers employed in 

concentrated-damage areas live in the remainder of 

Contra Costa County. 

To illustrate the home-work commute relation, an example 

of commute flows for the areas of concentrated damage from 

all hazards in the central Alameda County subarea is provided 

below. Figure 19 shows, by subregion, how workers flow 

into the central Alameda County concentrated-damage areas. 

Figure 20 shows the inverse flow—how residents flow out 

of the central Alameda County concentrated-damage areas to 

commute to work. The commute flow of employees completely 

within the concentrated-damage areas of central Alameda 

County (the 54,463 people who both live and work in the 

same subarea) is represented by a circle where the flow arrows 

converge to (fig. 19) or diverge from (fig. 20). 

Commute flow between the areas of concentrated damage 

from all hazards in central Alameda County and the remainder 

of Alameda County is the largest flow for both workers and 

employed residents. Comparing figures 19 and 20, however, 

it becomes obvious that more employed residents leave the 

concentrated-damage areas in central Alameda County to go 

to work than workers enter the same area. More employees 

commute into San Francisco and San Mateo County than vice 

versa, whereas the remainder of Contra Costa County sends 

more employees into the concentrated-damage areas in central 

Alameda County than the inverse.

Taking into account the distribution of industry segments, 

(tables 3.9 and 3.10 of appendix 3), we note several other 

observations.

• Other services workers with jobs in concentrated-damage 

areas are more likely to also be living in a concentrateddamage area or live in Alameda County remainder 

compared to workers in the goods-producing and 

trade, transportation, and utilities segment. However, 

residents employed in other services who have homes in 

concentrated-damage areas are less likely to have jobs 

in concentrated-damage areas compared to the other two 

industry segments. 
26 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Figure 19

EXPLANATION

Workers commuting to central Alameda County

Fewer than 2,500

2,500 to 5,000

5,000 to 10,000

Preserved land

Economic subarea outline

Highway

10,000 to 25,000

More than 25,000

Work and reside in same 

subarea (54,463)

Hydrology from U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset, 2016

Boundary data from U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data, 2016

Park and highway data from OpenStreetMap, 2017

Universal Transverse Mercator zone 10N projection 

North American Datum of 1983

0 9 18 KILOMETERS

0 9 18 MILES

San Pablo

Bay

San

Francisco

Bay

PACIFIC OCEAN

 1. Marin County remainder

 2. Novato

 3. Sonoma County

 4. Western Contra Costa County

 5. Northern Alameda County

 6. Vallejo

 7. Napa County

 8. Solano County remainder

 9. Contra Costa County remainder

10. Sacramento Valley

11. Dublin-Pleasanton

12. Alameda County remainder

13. San Joaquin Valley

14. Santa Clara County

15. Southern Alameda County

16. Central coast

17. San Mateo County

18. San Francisco County

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

MARIN

SONOMA

NAPA

SOLANO

YOLO SACRAMENTO

CONTRA COSTA SAN JOAQUIN

ALAMEDA

STANISLAUS

SANTA CLARA

MERCED

SAN BENITO

MONTEREY

SANTA CRUZ

SAN MATEO

SAN FRANCISCO

123° 122° 121°

38°

37°

5

580

80

101

101

280

CALIF.

Map

area

Figure 19. Map showing worker commute flow into areas of concentrated damage from all hazards in the central Alameda County subarea,

San Francisco Bay region, California. All hazards refers to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired earthquake scenario: ground 

shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. Areas with “remainder” in the name are parts of counties outside the defined 

subareas, and other counties that do not have concentrated-damage areas are also included. More distant counties are aggregated into larger 

subregions: Sacramento Valley (Sacramento and Yolo Counties), San Joaquin Valley (Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties), and the 

central coast (Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties).
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 27

Figure 20

San Pablo

Bay

San Francisco

Bay

PACIFIC OCEAN

123° 122° 121°

38°

37°

 1. Marin County remainder

 2. Novato

 3. Sonoma County

 4. Western Contra Costa County

 5. Northern Alameda County

 6. Vallejo

 7. Napa County

 8. Solano County remainder

 9. Contra Costa County remainder

10. Sacramento Valley

11. Dublin-Pleasanton

12. Alameda County remainder

13. San Joaquin Valley

14. Santa Clara County

15. Southern Alameda County

16. Central coast

17. San Mateo County

18. San Francisco County

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

MARIN

SONOMA

NAPA

SOLANO

YOLO SACRAMENTO

CONTRA COSTA SAN JOAQUIN

ALAMEDA

STANISLAUS

SANTA CLARA

MERCED

SAN BENITO

MONTEREY

SANTA CRUZ

SAN MATEO

SAN FRANCISCO

5

580

80

101

101

280

EXPLANATION

Workers commuting from central Alameda County

Fewer than 2,500

2,500 to 5,000

5,000 to 10,000

Preserved land

Economic subarea outline

Highway

10,000 to 25,000

More than 25,000

Work and reside in same 

subarea (54,463)

Hydrology from U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset, 2016

Boundary data from U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data, 2016

Park and highway data from OpenStreetMap, 2017

Universal Transverse Mercator zone 10N projection 

North American Datum of 1983

CALIF.

Map

area

0 9 18 KILOMETERS

0 9 18 MILES

Figure 20. Map showing employed resident flow out of areas of concentrated damage from all hazards in the central Alameda County subarea,

San Francisco Bay region, California. All hazards refers to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired earthquake scenario: ground 

shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. Areas with “remainder” in the name are parts of counties outside the defined 

subareas, and other counties that do not have concentrated-damage areas are also included. More distant counties are aggregated into larger 

subregions: Sacramento Valley (Sacramento and Yolo Counties), San Joaquin Valley (Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties), and the 

central coast (Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties).
28 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

• Residences of trade, transportation, and utilities and 

goods-producing workers with jobs in concentrateddamage areas are more dispersed than other services 

workers, including a large share of affected workers 

in Sacramento Valley and the central coast, where 

trade, transportation, and utilities workers’ jobs almost 

equaled other services jobs in number.

• 13 percent of goods-producing employed residents 

living in concentrated-damage areas work in Santa 

Clara County; 11 percent of trade, transportation, and 

utilities employed residents living in concentrateddamage areas work in San Francisco.

Employee Well-Being

Employee productivity would likely decrease with 

stress. Employees could be stressed by displacement from 

their homes and neighborhoods, difficult living conditions, 

insurance and financial issues, commute disruptions, and 

business relocations. The enduring stress of aftershocks 

during the earthquake sequence could persist for all affected 

populations. Further productivity losses could result from 

declines in employee well-being because of the loss of loved 

ones or sustained injuries during the earthquake. Seligson 

and others (2018) estimate 800 fatalities, 500 life-threatening 

injuries, 3,000 major injuries, and 12,000 minor injuries that 

could affect the workforce. 

Summary and Discussion 

Macroeconomic impact analyses of building and 

infrastructure damage assessments provide an aggregate 

estimate of impacts the HayWired scenario could have on the 

regional economy (Sue Wing and others, in prep. [planned 

to be published as part of this volume]; Kroll and others, this 

volume). However, these analyses do not adequately capture 

the uneven spread of the HayWired scenario’s impacts across 

the San Francisco Bay region. The spatial analysis discussed in 

this chapter provides a geographical examination of potential 

business disruption from concentrated damage and considers 

impacts on both employee workplaces (by industry group or 

segment) and homes (by single-family/duplex, multifamily, 

or group living type). Moreover, the spatial analysis reveals 

the potential spread of direct job impacts in concentrateddamage areas to the communities where those workers live, 

and the spread of home impacts in concentrated-damage 

areas to businesses where those residents are employed. This 

study follows the analytical framework of the communities 

at risk chapter by Johnson and others (Concentrated Damage, 

in prep.; planned to be published as part of this volume) and 

complements its examination of impacts of concentrated 

damages on housing and communities, potential population 

displacement, and long-term recovery challenges.

Following a summary of study findings, we draw deeper 

insights regarding industrial trends from regional studies of the 

San Francisco Bay region and published literature. We conclude 

with policy implications for earthquake mitigation, preparation, 

response, and recovery for emergency managers, businesses, 

communities, and (or) regional entities. Policies pertain to 

neighborhood effects of concentrated damage, disproportionate 

impacts on industrial/warehouse sectors, spread of impacts through 

home-workplace relations, and spatial economic demand shifts. 

Summary of Study Findings 

Concentrated Damages

As reported by Johnson and others (Concentrated Damage, 

in prep.; planned to be published as part of this volume), the total 

number of census tracts with areas of concentrated damage (where 

the percentage of extensive or complete damage across all building 

occupancy groups is greater than 20 percent) across the seven 

subareas used in this analysis for the all hazards case (ground 

shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake) 

is 173. These 173 tracts make up about 11 percent of the total 

number of tracts in the nine-county region and are primarily 

located in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties with fire impacts in 

Marin and Solano Counties. Of these tracts, 115 (about 7 percent 

of the census tracts in the nine-county region) are in concentrateddamage areas for the earthquake hazards case (ground shaking, 

landslide, and liquefaction) within the two primary counties 

(Alameda and Contra Costa Counties). 

A few concentrated-damage tracts correspond to downtown 

areas. The cities of Hayward and San Leandro have aging 

downtown cores with concentrations of vulnerable building 

stock that are heavily damaged in the HayWired scenario (fig. 1). 

Downtown Pleasanton also sustains concentrated damage from 

high intensity shaking. Downtown Oakland and San Francisco, 

which have some even older buildings, are spared from the most 

intense shaking in the HayWired scenario (but could be highly 

vulnerable in a different earthquake scenario).

Analyses of concentrated damage from the HayWired 

scenario show that the building square footage (and consequently 

businesses and residents at risk) in concentrated-damage areas 

ranges from more than double to nearly five times more than the 

square footage that is directly impacted by disruptive (extensive or 

complete) building damage. 

Concentrated Damages and Building Occupancy 

Industrial/warehouse, retail/commercial, and (or) multifamily 

buildings are most likely to contribute to neighborhood damage 

concentrations from all hazards.10 The affordable housing crisis 

could be further distressed by the greater vulnerability of more 

10Concentrated-damage areas are predominantly determined by industrial/

warehouse and retail/commercial classes even before fire following earthquake 

impacts on residential areas are considered.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 29

affordable housing (for example, aging multifamily housing) 

(Johnson and others, Communities at Risk Overview and LongTerm Recovery chapters, in prep.; planned to be published as part 

of this volume). 

Group-living housing, most prevalent in the northern 

Alameda County subarea, is also vulnerable to significant 

damage, but represents only a very small share of residential 

square footage. Offices and single-family/duplex buildings 

generally perform fairly well with respect to damage but may 

be more affected by their location in neighborhoods composed 

of more vulnerable buildings. 

Household-serving industries are less affected by 

concentrated damages than other industries but are more 

closely tied to the households they serve. Household-serving 

industries could be affected if their customers—the households 

they serve—are displaced because of damage to multifamily 

residential buildings. Conversely, single-family/duplex 

residential neighborhoods would have trouble re-establishing 

themselves without household services (for example, schools) 

available (Johnson and others, Communities at Risk Overview 

and Long-Term Recovery chapters, in prep. [planned to be 

published as part of this volume]; Xiao and Nilawar, 2013). 

Concentrated Damages and Employment 

The 2015 workforce in concentrated-damage areas (from 

all hazards) represents 6 percent of the larger 17-county region, 

9 percent of the nine-county region, and 24 percent of the four 

counties that contain concentrated-damage areas. In Alameda 

County (the most impacted county in the region), about onequarter of the total county employment and 57 percent of central 

Alameda County subarea employment is in concentrateddamage areas. Nearly half of some city-based employment 

could be located in concentrated-damage areas in Contra Costa 

County. 

Consistent with building occupancy results, industrial/

warehouse employment is disproportionately located in 

concentrated-damage areas. Future work could delve deeper into 

income losses to employees affected by concentrated damages 

using more detailed sector data with income distributions or U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Effects on local expenditures 

could be estimated using an input-output analysis. 

Home and Workplace Relations

Home and workplace relations are defined as one of 

the following: employees (1) live and work in concentrateddamage areas, (2) live in concentrated-damage areas but work 

in less-concentrated-damage areas, (3) work in concentrateddamage areas but live in less-concentrated-damage areas, or 

(4) live and work in less-concentrated-damage areas. About 

15 percent of the nine-county San Francisco Bay region’s 

employees are affected by one of the first three relations if all 

hazards are considered. Of the 96,000 employees who live 

and work in concentrated-damage areas, 70 percent do so in 

the same subarea, and 57 percent of these employees live and 

work in the central Alameda County subarea. The proximity 

of employee homes to workplaces in Alameda County is 

corroborated by lower vehicle miles traveled in Alameda 

County than in other counties in the region (Chapple and 

others, 2017). 

With nearly 420,000 employees with a job or home in a 

concentrated-damage area in the nine-county region, job losses 

or relocation and residential population displacement have the 

potential to greatly widen business impacts. Approximately 

81,000 people living in areas of concentrated damage from all 

hazards commute to jobs in less-concentrated-damage areas in 

Alameda County (referred to as Alameda County remainder). 

Further afield, around 51,000 people commute to San Francisco 

and about 32,000 commute to Santa Clara County. Employment 

districts, such as downtown San Francisco and some cities in 

Santa Clara County, could be adversely affected if many of 

the people who work in these locations are stranded on the 

day of the earthquake, lose their homes, utility services, and 

(or) community services (for example, schools are closed), are 

stressed by living conditions and home repairs, and (or) can no 

longer get to work because of transportation disruptions. Since 

fire following earthquake disproportionately affects residences, 

some businesses could struggle to fill jobs, as their preexisting 

and potential workforce no longer has housing accessible to 

jobs, similar to the outcome of the 2017 Santa Rosa fires (D. 

Guhin, Planning and Economic Development Director for the 

City of Santa Rosa, oral commun., 2018). 

Of the 232,000 people working but not residing in 

concentrated-damage areas (from all hazards), half of these 

workers (114,000) are in residential neighborhoods in the 

remainder of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These 

workers could lose their jobs or be out of work for an extended 

period with no income, possibly leading to relocation. Such 

losses would be expressed as declines in spending (sales tax) 

in local communities and income taxes. Telework from home 

may be possible; office work generally has more flexibility for 

telework, but it is a less-viable option for some of the 90,000 

employees living in less-concentrated-damage areas who work 

in goods-producing and trade, transportation, and utilities 

industry jobs located in concentrated-damage areas. 

The movement within concentrated-damage areas and 

between concentrated- and less-concentrated-damage areas 

in central Alameda County, Alameda County remainder, 

San Francisco, and Santa Clara County shows, in addition, 

how challenging commutes would be if BART as well as the 

major highways in Alameda County were incapacitated for 

extended periods of time. The fourth home-workplace relation, 

between less-concentrated-damage areas, is also not immune 

to incapacitated major highways and BART lines that could 

disrupt commutes, especially given that commutes in 2019 were 

already encumbered in the San Francisco Bay region. Jones and 

others (this volume) present HayWired scenario transportation 

system disruptions, and Kroll and others (this volume) use this 

study with those disruptions to estimate economic impacts of 

commute disruptions. 
30 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Drawing Insights from other Regional Research 

and Experience

Regional results of concentrated damage from the HayWired 

scenario are largely driven by the results for the central Alameda 

County subarea and by industrial/warehouse and retail/commercial 

damages concentrated within. Industrial buildings in Alameda 

County are older than in many other parts of the region, with 

an average age of 60 years (Chapple and others, 2017). The 

prevalence of these older vulnerable buildings near the epicenter of 

the earthquake intensifies concentrated damage in the HayWired 

scenario. Industrial/warehouse and repair (included in our retail/

commercial class) are already a focus in regional planning efforts 

for production, distribution, and repair (PDR) (Chapple and others, 

2017, Roach and Chapple, 2018) and warehouse (da Silva and 

others, 2017) sectors. These studies provide insight into industrial 

and logistics trends that could influence job diversity, business 

survivability, and spatial economic demand shifts after a large 

earthquake on the Hayward Fault. 

• The industrial/warehouse industry group that is widely 

affected by concentrated damage is a primary source 

of jobs with middle income wages that require fairly 

low levels of educational attainment (Chapple and 

others, 2017) and are significant sectors for retaining the 

region’s economic diversity and options for middle-skill 

workers (Terplan and others, 2014). Significant damage 

to this building stock could result in eliminating many 

of these kinds of businesses/jobs in the San Francisco 

Bay region as businesses may choose to relocate 

permanently outside of the region, where land and 

construction costs are lower, and where housing prices 

for workers are lower. 

• Half of the PDR industries in Alameda County are in 

decline and most are in decline in Contra Costa County 

(Chapple and others, 2017), particularly in a few 

manufacturing and construction sectors.11 Using the 

employment distributions across counties and subareas 

(table 2.14 in appendix 2 and table 4.6 in appendix 

4 of Wein, Haveman, and others, this volume), we 

calculate that 32 percent of San Francisco Bay region 

manufacturing and construction employment is located 

in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Manufacturing 

employment specifically is disproportionately larger 

in the subareas (containing all concentrated-damage 

areas), particularly in Alameda County and the central 

Alameda County subarea, than in the rest of the region. 

Construction employment is disproportionately larger 

in the western Contra Costa County subarea than in 

the rest of the region. Concentrated damages in these 

11Industries in decline or losing jobs include boat building, black magnetic 

and optical recording, semiconductor, electrical instrument measuring, computer 

storage device, electronic computer manufacturing, drywall and installation 

contractors, commercial printing, specialty trade contractors, highway and 

bridge construction, and electric power distribution (Chapple and others, 2017).

sectors, along with a shrinking share of San Francisco 

Bay region manufacturing and construction jobs, could 

exacerbate these trends. 

• Concentrated damages could disrupt the efficiency 

of industrial clusters of manufacturing, research and 

development, corporate offices, and suppliers in the San 

Francisco Bay region (Chapple and others, 2017) for the 

high-tech sector. Many high-tech companies are moving 

towards manufacturing close to large office operations 

to enable quicker response time and more collaboration 

between design, production, and marketing teams 

(Chapple and others, 2017). 

• Two trends are increasing demand for industrial/warehouse 

buildings in the areas more prone to concentrated 

damage: (1) the growing “maker movement,” on-demand 

production, and productivity increases made possible by 

the Internet of Things (IoT), all of which create a demand 

for small industrial spaces that are in the urban core to be 

closer to customers; and (2) the rise of just-in-time delivery, 

which has increased the demand for small warehouses 

close to dense urban centers (Chapple and others, 2017). 

These two trends are more tightly coupling customers and 

suppliers geographically, which potentially intensifies these 

dependencies in areas of concentrated damage. 

• Increased in-sourcing (of previously out-sourced 

industries) for more customized production and 

on-demand delivery is occurring in new buildings on 

the periphery of the urban core in less-developed areas 

because converting old buildings to modern manufacturing 

and distribution standards is prohibitively expensive 

(Chapple and others, 2017). This high-tech contract 

manufacturing allows companies to prototype products, 

protect intellectual capital, and decrease turnaround time 

relative to offshore operations (Chapple and others, 2017). 

These industries on the region’s urban periphery may lose 

manufacturing customers located in the concentrateddamage areas of the urban core. 

• Alameda County offers low rents for PDR production 

facilities, whereas headquarters might be in high rental 

areas, such as San Francisco (Chapple and others, 

2017). This means that manufacturing will be sensitive 

to rent increases that occur in response to a scarcity of 

space from damages or competition with higher uses in 

mixed-use industrial lands. Businesses that do not own 

their land and buildings may experience rent increases 

and thus involuntary displacement. Even those that own 

their land and buildings may decide to profit from the 

conversion of their land and move away, in a process 

of voluntary displacement (Chapple and others, 2017). 

Headquarters, research and development, and suppliers in 

close proximity could also relocate from high-rent space 

in Santa Clara County and San Francisco to be close to the 

manufacturing facilities that move away. 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 31

• In the “Bay Area Plan 2040,” there are some industrial 

land-use conflicts with priority development areas 

(PDAs), places identified by San Francisco Bay region 

communities as areas for investment, new homes, and 

job growth (Chapple and others, 2017). The industrial 

land use and PDA areas overlap in concentrated-damage 

areas along the BART line near the Port of Oakland. 

Damages to industrial buildings could accelerate the 

gradual displacement of PDR industries on industrial land 

with conversion of these lands to other high density uses, 

including housing. 

• Goods-producing workers residing in the remaining areas 

of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties could be a postearthquake factor in shifting manufacturing to the outer 

reaches of those counties if a damaged transportation 

network decreases access to the industrial concentrations 

on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. However, 

these areas may be competing for the employers located 

further from the earthquake impacts, either in neighboring 

counties or more distant locations.

• Although PDR employment has declined in the region, 

need for PDR space continues to grow to meet demand 

for more land for parking and loading. Recent expansion 

of manufacturing has occurred along Interstate 880 (as 

has one-third of new research and development activity) 

with the newest construction located in the southern part 

of Alameda County, which would be less impacted by 

the HayWired scenario and could be positioned to absorb 

more growth. 

• Growing industries are mostly in wholesale, transportation, 

and logistics services (for example, electronic parts and 

equipment merchant wholesalers), sectors that use few 

workers per square foot of space. These types of small 

warehousing spaces close to the urban core enables 

just-in-time delivery to manufacturers as well as first/

last mile delivery of consumer goods to online shoppers. 

New warehouse spaces are more evenly distributed 

than manufacturing in the San Francisco Bay region 

(Chapple and others, 2017). The small urban warehouse 

spaces work in tandem with large logistics facilities 

as demonstrated by warehouse growth in Stockton 

(California) and Reno (Nevada), which has outpaced that 

in the San Francisco Bay region (da Silva and others, 

2017). If more warehousing is absorbed in Sacramento 

and other outlying areas after a large earthquake, increases 

in vehicle miles traveled would challenge just-in-time 

delivery and aggravate an environmental concern for 

regional planning (da Silva and others, 2017). 

• Electronic shopping generates additional demand for 

large logistics and transportation industries and large 

e-commerce warehouses. These large entities have 

been locating on the periphery of the urban core for 

at least a decade (Chapple and others, 2017). A major 

earthquake could boost electronic shopping at the 

expense of more local retail stores at least temporarily, 

and possibly permanently.

In summary, in addition to the direct loss of jobs from 

damage and commuting disruption, concentrations of damage 

from a large earthquake on the Hayward Fault could: (1) 

accelerate the exit of declining industries; (2) exacerbate the 

already precarious position of specialized industrial clusters in 

old manufacturing buildings and move manufacturing to more 

affordable places, which would create ripple effects to suppliers, 

customers, research and development, and headquarter operations; 

and (3) accelerate the gradual conversion of industrial to higher 

uses in mixed land uses and PDAs, dislocating jobs. 

Policy Implications 

Learning from prior disasters and insights from regional 

studies, numerous policy implications are identified below. See 

Johnson and others (Communities at Risk Overview, in prep.; 

planned to be published as part of this volume) for other policy 

implications from the perspective of housing, communities, 

and local and regional governments affected by areas of 

concentrated damage. 

Concentrated Damages

In areas with concentrated damages, businesses with a 

local customer base are at risk of losing customers that are 

displaced from their homes, deterred by physical damage in 

the business neighborhood, and (or) the loss of neighboring 

businesses. Where retail and household-serving businesses 

are already stressed and suffer permanent closure, this would 

make it harder to draw people back to the neighborhood. 

Reducing the impacts of neighborhood damage on business 

may include:

• More resilient businesses have broader customer 

bases and can more easily relocate, telework, and 

serve customers online. For businesses that are more 

dependent on local customers, adaptations would be 

critical and may even include temporary or permanent 

closure (for example, Hatton, 2015). 

• Contingent business interruption insurance is important 

to cover losses from indirect causes, such as businesses 

that are inaccessible to customers (caused by cordons, 

checkpoints, or fear) resulting from concentrated 

damage (for example, Battisto and others, 2018).12

• Temporary and permanent business losses could 

potentially be reduced by post-disaster temporary 

installations of retail/commercial business space near 

customers. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the 

12CoreLogic (2018) estimated that only 20 percent of commercial losses 

from damage would be insured for the HayWired scenario.
32 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

City of Santa Cruz demonstrated how the provision of 

temporary retail space near customers can aid recovery 

(Kroll and others, 1990).

The neighborhood effects of concentrated damages indicate 

that disaster planning is as important for neighborhoods as it is for 

individual businesses:

• When a business invests in building retrofits or other 

mitigations, the action can benefit not just the business 

itself but also its neighbors (Xiao and Van Zandt, 2011; 

Johnson and others, Communities at Risk Overview, in 

prep. [planned to be published as part of this volume]). 

Conversely, as seen in the 2014 South Napa earthquake, 

failure of one building spreads risk and impacts to the rest 

of a block or neighborhood of businesses and residences 

(Almufti and others, 2016). 

• After Hurricane Sandy, grants to repair corridors of 

concentrated damage and market reopening aimed to bring 

back foot traffic to all the affected businesses (Battisto and 

others, 2018). 

• Establishing links with neighboring establishments or 

businesses with similar production processes can provide a 

support network to call on after an event (for example, see 

Almufti and others, 2016; Stevenson and others, 2014).

In areas of concentrated damage, cordons may restrict 

access to blocks of businesses and residences for health and safety 

reasons because of infrastructure and building damage, aftershock 

risk, or environmental contamination—the first two conditions 

precipitated implementation of the central business district cordon 

following the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake (Chang and 

others, 2014). In the HayWired scenario, a few downtowns have 

concentrated damage, but not the dense downtowns of Oakland 

and San Francisco. The HayWired scenario is only one of many 

possible outcomes, just as an earthquake is only one of many 

possible damaging events. Lessons learned about cordons from 

recent earthquakes include:

• Businesses could improve their chances of survival 

should they find themselves located in a cordoned area if 

they bolster their preparedness beforehand to be able to 

quickly relocate, including moving critical records and 

supplies (for example, see Chang and others, 2014). 

• Planning by emergency managers and building 

departments to manage a cordon prior to a disaster 

includes legal mechanisms for establishing a cordon 

and methods for determining the appropriate spatial 

extent, identified resources to secure the cordon, a 

communications plan, a system for deciding who 

gets access to the cordoned area and under what 

circumstances (to address the tension between safety 

and contents retrieval or business resumption), an 

arrangement for alternate sites where displaced 

businesses can relocate, and support for legal matters 

involving leases and civil liberties (Chang and others, 

2014; Underwood and others, in press). 

• Cordons around concentrations of damage can also be 

used to accelerate demolition, facilitate construction 

logistics, ensure that contractors meet professional 

standards, and enable greater debris sorting and waste 

management (Chang and others, 2014). Cordons could 

also increase the risk of long-term displacement to the 

original businesses and residents, especially if there is 

major redevelopment or upgrades to the aging building 

stock or infrastructure (Chang and others, 2014). Cities 

are cautioned to pursue such transformation opportunities 

only with full participation of stakeholders in the planning 

(Johnson and Olshansky, 2017). 

When planning for neighborhood recovery from concentrated 

damages before and after a disaster, addressing both residential 

and business recovery needs are mutually beneficial to the 

recovery (Xiao and Van Zandt, 2011). Successful economic 

neighborhood revitalization lets businesses, property owners, and 

residents bring their resources to bear, weaving them together in 

support of a shared built vision and assessment of community 

needs (International Economic Development Council, 2015). 

Examples include:

• Efforts to address housing and household services in order 

to bring staff back to Tulane University (new Orleans) 

after the population displacement caused by Hurricane 

Katrina (Cowan, 2007).

• After the northern California wildfires in 2017, Sonoma 

County is developing a Renewal Enterprise District 

through a new county-wide joint power authority created 

to plan for and finance new housing in areas within 

walking distance of transit and shopping districts to help 

small businesses (Battisto and others, 2018). 

Concentrated Damages by Industry Sector

Disproportionate building and concentrated damages in the 

industrial/warehouse industry group prompts consideration of 

resilience planning for these sectors: 

• Collaborative resilience planning among industrial clusters 

would help prepare them for the impacts of concentrations 

of damage. This could be combined with broader planning 

for resilience of these clusters as described in the newly 

adopted Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 

for the San Francisco Bay region (found at https://abag.

ca.gov/sites/default/files/complete_ceds_with_all_

appendices.pdf).

• Programs to protect disproportionate impacts to middle 

income jobs (particularly in the industrial/warehouse 

industry group) and training to develop skills to match 

jobs would be of regional concern. Programs could be 

developed as part of an economic action plan in support of 

the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. 

• Regional agencies are developing a Priority Production 

Area program for “Plan Bay Area 2050” that identifies 
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 33

geographies where measures are needed to preserve 

manufacturing, distribution and repair services, and middle 

wage jobs. The programs targeted to these areas could 

include consideration of resilience measures that would 

be helpful pre- and post-earthquake and integrate such 

measures into the Priority Production Area program.

Home-Workplace Relations Affected by Damage 

Concentrations

For business continuity planning, the home-workplace 

relation highlights the need for: 

• Plans and resources for employee well-being in 

response to stress of displacement from their homes, 

difficult living conditions, or insurance and financial 

issues, and need for temporary accommodation; and 

• Plans for telework and alternative work places if 

workplaces become inaccessible. 

Many cities could lose jobs, residents, and (or) resident 

income. This has ramifications for the tax base when property 

tax revenues drop for distressed properties, sales tax revenues 

decline from reduced spending, and workplaces or homes are 

vacated. The most badly damaged cities are likely to experience 

the highest losses relative to total budget and have neither the 

insurance nor a reserve base large enough to deal with the cost 

required for recovery. 

• State government and local jurisdictions may need to 

plan together to determine how the revenue losses of a 

widespread event should be shared and ensure that the 

local governments most in need of revenue for recovery 

have access to necessary resources. This could involve 

developing a reserve fund through contributions from state 

and local sources or an insurance program to cover lost 

revenues in impacted areas.

Spatial Economic Demand Shifts

Planning and resource allocations for spatial economic 

demand shifts would be a regional issue for the San Francisco 

Bay region and beyond. In the initial recovery, economic demand 

may shift spatially from slow growth in the damaged core to 

high growth outside. The nature of growth in areas near the core 

damaged area may change, with short-term “fixes” having longterm implications (for example, see Xiao and Nilawar, 2013; 

Brown and others, 2015). Various planning initiatives could need 

to be funded after a large earthquake in the east bay part of the San 

Francisco Bay region. These include:

• Leveraging current regional industrial and logistic 

planning discussions with respect to mitigating, preparing, 

responding, and recovering from an earthquake—

for example, application of the criteria for industrial 

preservation and conservation, as proposed by Chapple 

and others (2017). 

• Using major disruption of land use and routes as an 

opportunity to improve planning for greenhouse gas 

reductions. Regional and local jurisdictions would need to 

be prepared beforehand to launch a planning process that 

addresses the needs of local property owners and residents 

as alternative travel patterns, land uses, and land use 

intensity are considered. 

• Considering earthquake impacts to supply chains 

(including the ports) in regional transportation planning. 

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 

for example, funded a study on the role of airports in 

a disaster (Perkins, 2015) as part of a larger initiative 

reviewing vulnerabilities in transportation and utilities 

systems (available at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/projects/

transportation_utilities_2014/).

• Dove-tailing earthquake planning and policy making 

with the currently energized regional planning for climate 

change. East bay shoreline liquefaction hazards overlap 

with flood hazards and sea level rise as is recognized in 

the “Stronger Housing, Safer Communities” effort by 

ABAG (available at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/projects/

stronger_housing_safer_communities_2015/). The 

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research 

Association (SPUR) promotes a regional strategy for 

improving resilience to multiple natural hazards (Tam and 

Johnson, 2020).

• Within the alternatives that will be considered for 

rebuilding after the earthquake, seizing opportunities 

for other parts of the 21-county northern California 

megaregion (Bellisario and others, 2016). Balancing 

relocation and rebuilding within the east bay with 

opening up megaregion opportunities will need to weigh 

resilient logistics, reduced risk of concentrated damage 

to vulnerable housing, and sustainable workplacehome relations against the risks of further supply 

chain disruptions should another earthquake occur. 

Substantial planning, infrastructure, and business network 

support might be needed to facilitate potential shifts in 

development of the megaregion, in circumstances where 

rebuilding the pre-earthquake business and community 

networks is not feasible. 

Stakeholder Considerations

Our analysis of concentrated-damage areas raises 

considerations for various stakeholders:

• For emergency managers and building departments, 

considerations include preparing to manage many issues 

around neighborhood safety, demolition efficiency, and 

business resumption in areas with concentrated damage 

where cordons may be necessary.

• For businesses, considerations include preparing for 

neighborhood effects on their business operations 
34 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

and critical infrastructure, impacts of employee living 

situations, work relocation plans with respect to 

their customers and employee residences, particular 

vulnerabilities of their sector, and their role in 

neighborhood resilience and recovery. This preparation 

could benefit from being done cooperatively with 

similar types of businesses and within the context 

of city or regionwide resilience plans, to be able to 

address the differing needs of businesses of different 

sizes and sectors.

• For communities and city and county jurisdictions, 

considerations include policies for effective mitigation 

of vulnerable neighborhoods, providing services to 

keep residents in their homes, identifying space and 

resources for business resumption, commitment to 

retaining PDR sectors, acquiring and coordinating 

resource allocations for recovery of residences and 

businesses in tandem, and planning for a reduced 

tax base after an earthquake through effects on 

employment and displaced employed residents.

• For regional scale government, considerations include 

mitigating, preparing for planning, and allocating 

resources to areas that lag in recovery, and to manage 

spatial economic demand shifts.

• For multiple levels of government and the private 

sector, considerations include exploring insurance 

mechanisms to respond to the fiscal consequences 

of a major earthquake, fire, and related damage (see 

Johnson and others, Communities at Risk Overview, 

in prep.; planned to be published as part of this 

volume). 

Each of these stakeholders face budget and time 

constraints that may impede taking steps in advance to 

address the large but uncertain risks posed by a major 

earthquake along the Hayward Fault. However, budgeting for 

planning and mitigation efforts in advance of an event will 

allow more effective responses that address a broad range 

of stakeholders’ needs when an event occurs. Much of the 

planning and preparation that is required to be prepared is also 

an investment that addresses the region’s future more widely.

Acknowledgments

This chapter was reviewed by Jon Haveman (Marin 

Economic Consulting, LLC), Yu Xiao (Portland State University), 

Stephen Levy (Center for Continuing Studies of the California 

Economy), and Jeff Bellisario (Bay Area Council Economic 

Institute). We are grateful for their comments, which helped 

us improve the presentation of these complex spatial analyses. 

Monika Stoeffl (California Resilience Alliance) also directed us to 

further studies of relevance. 

References Cited

Almufti, I., Mieler, M., Kroll, C., Wein, A., Tremayne, H., Fatima, 

S., and Xiao, Y., 2016, Quantifying business interruption, 

downtime, and recovery following the 2014 South Napa 

earthquake and identifying the causes, in Structural Engineers 

Association of California Convention Proceedings, Oct. 12–15, 

2016, Kaanapali, Maui, Hawaii: Structural Engineers 

Association of California.

Anderson, C., 2014, Christchurch—After the earthquake, a city 

rebuilt in whose image?: The Guardian, January 27, 2014, 

accessed May 4, 2019, at https://www.theguardian.com/

cities/2014/jan/27/christchurch-after-earthquake-rebuild-imagenew-zealand.

Battisto, J., Choi, L., Kramer Mills, C., Mattiuzzi, E., Ryder 

Perlmeter, E., and Storey, S., 2018, 2017 small business credit 

survey—Report on disaster-affected firms: Federal Reserve 

Banks of Dallas, New York, Richmond, and San Francisco, 

17 p., accessed March 13, 2019, at https://www.newyorkfed.

org/medialibrary/media/smallbusiness/2017/SBCS-Report-onDisaster-Affected-Firms.pdf.

Bellisario, J., Weinberg, M., and Mena, C., 2016, The northern 

California megaregion—Innovative, Connected, and Growing: 

Bay Area Council Economic Institute report, accessed May 2, 

2019, at http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/files/pdf/The_

Northern_California_Megaregion_2016c.pdf.

Bowden, S., 2011, Aftershock—Business relocation decisions in 

the wake of the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake: Journal 

of Management and Organization, v. 17, no. 6, p. 857–863, 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S183336720000122X.

Brady, R.J., and Perkins, J.B., 1991, Macroeconomic effects of the 

Loma Prieta earthquake: Association of Bay Area Governments 

report, 54 p., accessed October 25, 2018, at https://nehrpsearch.

nist.gov/static/files/NSF/PB93120038.pdf.

Brown, C., Seville, E., Stevenson, J.R., Giovinazzi, S., and Vargo, 

J., 2015, Developing the business behaviours module within 

MERIT: Economics of Resilient Infrastructure Research Report 

2015/02, 164 p., accessed October 25, 2018, at https://resorgs.

org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/eri_2015-002_with_

addendum_feb_2016.pdf.

Chang, S.E., and Falit-Baiamonte, A., 2002, Disaster vulnerability 

of businesses in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake: Global 

Environmental Change Part B—Environmental Hazards, 

v. 4, no. 2–3, p. 59–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-

2867(03)00007-X.

Chang, S.E., Taylor, J.E., Elwood, K.J., Seville, E., Brunsdon, 

D., and Gartner, M., 2014, Urban disaster recovery in 

Christchurch—The central business district cordon and other 

critical decisions: Earthquake Spectra, v. 30, no. 1, 

p. 513–532, https://doi.org/10.1193/022413EQS050M.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 35

Chapple, K., St.-Louis, E., Ritter, S., Ross, Á., Mattiuzzi, 

E., Crispell, M., Lapeyrolerie, E., Coleman, R., and 

Cochran, A., 2017, Industrial land and job study for 

the San Francisco Bay area—Final report: California 

Department of Transportation [for the Association of 

Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission], 274 p., accessed March 13, 2019, at https://

trid.trb.org/view/1482535.

CoreLogic, 2018, Financial implications of the HayWired 

scenario: CoreLogic special report, 22 p., accessed 

October 25, 2018, at https://www.corelogic.com/

downloadable-docs/corelogic_haywired-scenario_r5.pdf.

Cowan, S., 2007, Tulane University—From recovery to 

renewal: Liberal Education, v. 93, no. 3, accessed October 

15, 2018, at https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/

periodicals/tulane-university-recovery-renewal.

Dahlhamer, J.M., and Tierney, K.J., 1998, Rebounding 

from disruptive events—Business recovery following the 

Northridge earthquake: Sociological Spectrum, v. 18, no. 2, 

p. 121–141, https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.1998.99821

89.

Detweiler, S.T., and Wein, A.M., eds., 2017, The HayWired 

earthquake scenario—Earthquake hazards: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013–A–H, 

126 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175013v1.

Donnelly, N., and Proctor-Thomson, S., 2013, Working from 

home—Lessons from the Christchurch experience: [New 

Zealand] Inland Revenue and Public Service Association, 

54 p., accessed December 14, 2017, at https://www.victoria.

ac.nz/som/researchprojects/research-reports-vms/IRPSAWorking-From-Home-Report-FINAL.pdf.

duPont, W., IV, Noy, I., Okuyama, Y., and Sawada, Y., 2015, 

The long-run socio-economic consequences of a large 

disaster—The 1995 earthquake in Kobe: PLOS ONE, 

v. 10, no. 10, p. 17 p., https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0138714.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012, Hazus multihazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model, 

Hazus®-MH 2.1 technical manual: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Mitigation Division, 718 p., accessed 

July 18, 2017, at http://www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/20130726-1820-25045-6286/hzmh2_1_eq_tm.pdf.

Hatton, T., 2015, Collaborative approaches to the post-disaster 

recovery of organisations: University of Canterbury, New 

Zealand, Ph.D. dissertation, 332 p., accessed March 14, 

2019, at http://hdl.handle.net/10092/10927.

Horwich, G., 2000, Economic lessons of the Kobe 

earthquake: Economic Development and Cultural Change, 

v. 48, no. 3, p. 521–542, https://doi.org/10.1086/452609. 

International Economic Development Council, 2015, 

Leadership in times of crisis—A toolkit for economic 

recovery and resiliency: International Economic 

Development Council, 304 p., accessed March 13, 2019, at 

http://restoreyoureconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/

IEDC-Leadership-in-Times-of-Crisis-Toolkit.pdf.

Johnson, L.A., and Olshansky, R.B., 2017, After great 

disasters—An in-depth analysis of how six countries 

managed community recovery: Cambridge, Mass., Lincoln 

Institute of Land Policy, 380 p.

Jones, J.L., Au, C., and Olsen, A., 2020, Economic subareas 

of interest data for areas containing concentrated damage 

resulting from the April 18, 2018, HayWired earthquake 

scenario in the San Francisco Bay region, California: U.S. 

Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P9CLW518.

Jones, J.L., Johnson, L.A., Wein, A.M., and Peters, J., 2020, 

Estimated geospatial and tabular damages and vulnerable 

population distributions resulting from exposure to multiple 

hazards by the M7.0 HayWired scenario on April 18, 

2018, for 17 counties in the San Francisco Bay region, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.

org/10.5066/P94Z8BOZ.

Kim, J.J., Elwood, K.J., Marquis, F., and Chang, S.E., 

2017, Factors influencing post-earthquake decisions on 

buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand: Earthquake 

Spectra, v. 33, no. 2, p. 623–640, https://doi.

org/10.1193/072516EQS120M.

Kroll, C.A., Landis, J.D., Shen, Q., and Stryker, S., 1990, 

Economic impacts of the Loma Prieta earthquake—A focus 

on small business: Berkeley Planning Journal, v. 5, no. 1, 

p. 39–58, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6s67g8mh.

Malinen, S., Hatton, T., Naswall, K., and 

Kuntz, J.,2018, Strategies to enhance employee wellbeing and organisational performance in a postcrisis 

environment—A case study: Journal of Contingencies 

and Crisis Management, v. 27, p. 79–86, https://doi.

org/10.1111/1468-5973.12227.

Neilsen, 2018, The Canterbury Wellbeing survey—May 2018: 

Nielsen report [for the Canterbury District Health Board 

and partnering agencies], 169 p., accessed March 20, 

2019, at https://www.cph.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/

CantyWellbeingSurveyMay2018.pdf.

Parker, M., and Steenkamp, D., 2012, The economic impact 

of the Canterbury earthquakes: Bulletin of the Reserve 

Bank of New Zealand, v. 75, no. 3, p. 13–25, accessed 

October 25, 2018, at https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/

ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Bulletins/2012/2012sep75-

3parkersteenkamp.pdf.
36 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Perkins, J.B., 2015, Roles of airports in regional disasters—

Lessons on disaster response, short-term disaster recovery, 

and long-term economic recovery for the San Francisco 

Bay area: Association of Bay Area Governments, 100 p., 

accessed March 13, 2019, at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/

wp-content/documents/Cascading_Failures/Role-of-Airportsin-Disasters_2015.pdf.

Roach, E., and Chapple, K., 2018, Regional industrial land 

preservation—Perspectives from San Francisco Bay area cities 

on a priority production area program: University of California 

Institute of Transportation Studies, 68 p., accessed March 13, 

2019, at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2st706c0.

Scawthorn, C., 2018, Fire following the Mw 7.0 HayWired 

earthquake scenario, chap. P of Detweiler, S.T., and Wein, 

A.M., eds., The HayWired earthquake scenario—Engineering 

implications: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2017–5013–I–Q, 429 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/

sir20175013v2.

Seligson, H.A., Wein, A.M., and Jones, J.L., 2018, HayWired 

scenario—Hazus analyses of the mainshock and aftershocks, 

chap. J of Detweiler, S.T., and Wein, A.M., eds., The HayWired 

earthquake scenario—Engineering implications: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013–

I–Q, 429 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175013v2.

da Silva, M., Doggett, S., Frick, K., McCoy, R., Mukasa, S., 

Roach, E., Skenazy, S., Stephenson, L., Verma, P., and Yi, S., 

2017, Think outside the box—Goods movement in the northern 

California megaregion: University of California, Berkeley, 

accessed March 13, 2019, at https://tsrg.berkeley.edu/.

Stevenson, J.R., Chang-Richards, Y., Conradson, D., 

Wilkinson, S., Vargo, J., Seville, E., and Brunsdon, D., 

2014, Organizational networks and recovery following the 

Canterbury Earthquakes: Earthquake Spectra, v. 30, no. 1, 

p. 555–575.

Tam, L., and Johnson, L.A., 2020, Safety first—Improving hazard 

resilience in the Bay Area: San Francisco Bay Area Planning 

and Urban Research Association Regional Strategy briefing 

paper, accessed April 16, 2020, at https://www.spur.org/sites/

default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_Safety_First_Improving_

Hazard_Resilience.pdf. 

Terplan, E., Bhatti, I., Vi, T., Levy, S., Belén Seara, M., Snow 

Spalding, K., Auerhahn, L., Brownstein, B., and Mehrens, 

D., 2014, Economic Prosperity Strategy—Improving 

economic opportunity for the Bay Area’s low- and 

moderate-wage workers: San Francisco Bay Area Planning 

and Urban Research Association report, 54 p., accessed 

October 25, 2018, at https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/

publications_pdfs/Economic_Prosperity_Strategy.pdf.

Tierney, K.J., 1997, Business impacts of the Northridge 

earthquake: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis 

Management, v. 5, no. 2, p. 87–97, https://doi.

org/10.1111/1468-5973.00040.

Underwood, G., Orchiston, C., and Shrestha, S., in press, 

Post-earthquake cordons and their implications: Earthquake 

Spectra.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016, 24 percent of employed 

people did some or all of their work at home in 2015: 

The Economics Daily, July 8, 2016, accessed October 25, 

2018, at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/24-percentof-employed-people-did-some-or-all-of-their-work-athome-in-2015.htm. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2017, LEHD origin-destination 

employment statistics data (2002–2015) [downloadable 

data files]: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal-Employer 

Household Dynamics Program, accessed December 13, 

2017, at https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/#lodes.

Whitman, Z., Stevenson, J., Kachali, H., Seville, E., Vargo, J., 

and Wilson, T., 2014, Organisational resilience following 

the Darfield earthquake of 2010: Disasters, v. 38, no. 1, 

p. 148–177, https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12036.

Xiao, Y., and Nilawar, U., 2013, Winners and losers—

Analysing post-disaster spatial economic demand shift: 

Disasters, v. 37, no. 4, p. 646–668, https://doi.org/10.1111/

disa.12025.

Xiao, Y., and Van Zandt, S., 2011, Building community 

resiliency—Spatial links between household and business 

post-disaster return: Urban Studies, v. 49, no. 11, p. 2523–

2542, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011428178.
Appendixes 1–3
38 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Appendix 1. Correspondence Tables

Table 1.1. Building count correspondence from Hazus-MH 2.1.

[ft2, square feet]

Hazus building 

occupancy Description Average size (ft2

)

RES1 Single family 1,600

RES2 Mobile home 1,080

RES3A Duplex 3,000

RES3B Multifamily (3–4) 3,000

RES3C Multifamily (5–9) 8,000

RES3D Multifamily (10–19) 12,000

RES3E Multifamily (20–49) 40,000

RES3F Multifamily (50+) 60,000

RES4 Hotel/motel 135,000

RES5 Dormitories 25,000

RES6 Nursing home 25,000

COM1 Retail trade 110,000

COM2 Warehouse 30,000

COM3 Personal and repair services 10,000

COM4 Professional/technical services 80,000

COM5 Banks 4,100

COM6 Hospital 55,000

COM7 Medical office/clinic 7,000

COM8 Entertainment and recreation 5,000

COM9 Theaters 12,000

COM10 Parking 145,000

IND1 Industrial-Heavy 30,000

IND2 Industrial-Light 30,000

IND3 Industrial-Food/drugs/chemicals 45,000

IND4 Industrial-Metals/minerals processing 45,000

IND5 Industrial-High tech 45,000

IND6 Industrial-Construction 30,000

AGR1 Agriculture 30,000

REL1 Church/non-profit 17,000

GOV1 Government-General services 11,000

GOV2 Government-Emergency response 11,000

EDU1 Grade schools 130,000

EDU2 Colleges/universities 50,000

Table 1.2. LODES industry segment correspondence.

[LODES, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics; LEHD, 

Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics; NAICS, North American 

Industry Classification System]

LODES industry 

segment

NAICS 

sector Industry description

Goods producing 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, 

and hunting

21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and 

gas extraction

23 Construction

31–33 Manufacturing

Trade, transportation, 

and utilities

22 Utilities

42 Wholesale trade

44–45 Retail trade

48–49 Transportation and warehousing

Other services 51 Information

52 Finance and insurance

53 Real estate and rental and 

leasing

54 Professional, scientific, and 

technical services

55 Management of companies and 

enterprises

56 Administration, support and 

waste management, and 

remediation

61 Education

62 Health and social services

71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation

72 Accommodation and food

81 Other services

92 Public administration
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 39

Appendix 2. Building Damages

Table 2.1. Disruptive damage for nonresidential buildings by occupancy group in concentrated-damage areas resulting from the HayWired 

earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Occupancy group Disruptive damage 

(ft2)

Concentrateddamage areas 

(ft2)

Percentage of 

occupancy group with 

disruptive damage

Percentage of 

total disruptive 

damage

All hazards

Industrial/warehouse 27,599,713 62,921,624 44 17

Retail/commercial 24,030,474 60,025,720 40 14

Offices 10,479,760 29,497,195 36 6

Household serving 7,000,208 16,807,935 42 4

Agricultural uses 313,649 963,800 33 0.2

Total 69,423,804 170,216,274 41 42

Earthquake hazards

Industrial/warehouse 25,492,796 58,552,397 44 23

Retail/commercial 19,636,682 47,598,063 41 18

Offices 8,744,959 23,699,591 37 8

Household serving 4,734,527 12,139,383 39 4

Agricultural uses 247,644 703,489 35 0.2

Total 58,856,608 142,692,923 41 53

Table 2.2. Disruptive damage for residential buildings by occupancy group in concentrated-damage areas resulting from the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Occupancy group Disruptive damage 

(ft2)

Concentrateddamage areas 

(ft2)

Percentage of 

occupancy group with 

disruptive damage

Percentage of 

total disruptive 

damage

All hazards

Single family/duplex 65,198,410 301,216,785 22 39

Multifamily 28,022,305 64,907,344 43 17

Group living 3,121,621 8,086,883 39 2

Total 96,342,336 374,211,012 26 58

Earthquake hazards

Single family/duplex 33,582,773 181,490,753 19 30

Multifamily 16,331,727 45,949,663 36 15

Group living 1,841,762 4,921,043 37 2

Total 51,756,262 232,361,459 22 47
40 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Table 2.3. Total disruptive damage for nonresidential occupancy groups by subarea with concentrated damages resulting from the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Number of tracts 

with concentrated 

damage

Disruptive 

damage 

(ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 106 46,319,962 100,977,993 46 67

Northern Alameda County 30 11,275,340 34,605,561 33 16

Western Contra Costa County 6 5,670,589 12,357,460 46 8

Dublin-Pleasanton 21 4,960,477 15,282,373 32 7

Southern Alameda County 1 497,914 1,796,104 28 1

Novato 5 408,909 2,413,169 17 1

Vallejo 4 290,613 2,783,614 10 0.4

Subarea total 173 69,423,804 170,216,274 41 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 72 41,187,231 91,392,743 45 70

Northern Alameda County 22 9,187,735 28,722,807 32 16

Western Contra Costa County 4 4,888,509 10,781,497 45 8

Dublin-Pleasanton 15 3,525,177 11,555,250 31 6

Southern Alameda County 2 67,956 240,626 28 0.1

Novato 0 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 115 58,856,608 142,692,923 41 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 41

Table 2.4. Industrial/warehouse occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 21,813,702 46,248,331 47 79

Northern Alameda County 3,023,652 8,644,377 35 11

Western Contra Costa County 955,275 2,095,403 46 4

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,532,181 4,167,978 37 6

Southern Alameda County 85,982 293,486 29 0.3

Novato 152,488 1,073,913 14 1

Vallejo 36,433 398,136 9 0.1

Subarea total 27,599,713 62,921,624 44 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 20,694,092 45,302,326 46 81

Northern Alameda County 2,689,719 7,709,791 35 11

Western Contra Costa County 839,733 1,899,985 44 4

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,248,444 3,566,292 35 5

Southern Alameda County 20,808 74,003 28 0.1

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 25,492,796 58,552,397 44 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
42 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Table 2.5. Retail/commercial occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the HayWired 

earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 14,267,740 31,271,952 46 59

Northern Alameda County 4,200,828 12,931,928 32 18

Western Contra Costa County 3,212,139 7,016,672 46 13

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,908,605 5,962,536 32 8

Southern Alameda County 251,600 936,327 27 1

Novato 58,185 367,260 16 0.2

Vallejo 131,377 1,539,045 9 1

Subarea total 24,030,474 60,025,720 40 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 12,052,438 26,200,498 46 61

Northern Alameda County 3,703,925 11,610,384 32 19

Western Contra Costa County 2,722,179 5,874,397 46 14

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,125,075 3,800,296 30 6

Southern Alameda County 33,065 112,488 29 0.2

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 19,636,682 47,598,063 41 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 43

Table 2.6. Offices occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the HayWired earthquake 

scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 5,995,458 14,019,107 43 57

Northern Alameda County 2,304,512 8,283,010 28 22

Western Contra Costa County 819,714 1,846,762 44 8

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,184,326 4,049,269 29 11

Southern Alameda County 71,135 290,456 24 1

Novato 86,314 735,504 12 1

Vallejo 18,301 273,087 7 0.2

Subarea total 10,479,760 29,497,195 36 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 5,418,493 12,821,908 42 62

Northern Alameda County 1,624,274 5,681,359 29 19

Western Contra Costa County 734,480 1,710,149 43 8

Dublin-Pleasanton 957,318 3,444,364 28 11

Southern Alameda County 10,394 41,811 25 0.1

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 8,744,959 23,699,591 37 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
44 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Table 2.7. Household-serving occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the HayWired 

earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 4,059,125 8,930,273 45 58

Northern Alameda County 1,716,836 4,631,949 37 25

Western Contra Costa County 639,340 1,295,490 49 9

Dublin-Pleasanton 285,386 918,117 31 4

Southern Alameda County 84,049 253,520 33 1

Novato 111,348 218,770 51 2

Vallejo 104,124 559,816 19 2

Subarea total 7,000,208 16,807,935 42 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 2,865,033 6,652,334 43 61

Northern Alameda County 1,144,831 3,621,353 32 24

Western Contra Costa County 551,822 1,203,011 46 12

Dublin-Pleasanton 169,152 650,361 26 4

Southern Alameda County 3,689 12,324 30 0.1

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 4,734,527 12,139,383 39 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 45

Table 2.8. Agricultural uses occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the HayWired 

earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 183,937 508,330 36 59

Northern Alameda County 29,512 114,297 26 9

Western Contra Costa County 44,121 103,133 43 14

Dublin-Pleasanton 49,979 184,473 27 16

Southern Alameda County 5,148 22,315 23 2

Novato 574 17,722 3 0.2

Vallejo 378 13,530 3 0.1

Subarea total 313,649 963,800 33 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 157,175 415,677 38 64

Northern Alameda County 24,986 99,920 25 10

Western Contra Costa County 40,295 93,955 43 16

Dublin-Pleasanton 25,188 93,937 27 10

Southern Alameda County 0 0 0 0

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 247,644 703,489 35 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
46 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Table 2.9. Total disruptive damage for residential occupancy groups by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damage from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 59,139,171 226,755,128 26 61

Northern Alameda County 15,091,522 61,039,246 25 16

Western Contra Costa County 11,837,609 45,582,106 26 12

Dublin-Pleasanton 3,228,128 16,439,482 20 3

Southern Alameda County 3,986,927 15,733,799 25 4

Novato 923,639 2,127,193 43 1

Vallejo 2,135,340 6,534,058 33 2

Subarea total 96,342,336 374,211,012 26 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 33,215,542 147,066,446 23 64

Northern Alameda County 9,213,063 36,576,990 25 18

Western Contra Costa County 6,790,192 33,997,751 20 13

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,504,494 10,218,553 15 3

Southern Alameda County 1,032,971 4,501,719 23 2

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 51,756,262 232,361,459 22 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 47

Table 2.10. Single family/duplex occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 41,000,566 187,089,779 22 63

Northern Alameda County 8,745,996 41,706,938 21 13

Western Contra Costa County 7,778,963 37,106,849 21 12

Dublin-Pleasanton 2,668,035 14,721,031 18 4

Southern Alameda County 3,355,296 14,124,979 24 5

Novato 576,745 1,712,544 34 1

Vallejo 1,072,809 4,754,665 23 2

Subarea total 65,198,410 301,216,785 22 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 22,415,554 118,974,996 19 67

Northern Alameda County 4,818,541 22,402,794 22 14

Western Contra Costa County 4,250,551 27,080,846 16 13

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,228,508 9,129,562 13 4

Southern Alameda County 869,619 3,902,555 22 3

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 33,582,773 181,490,753 19 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
48 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Table 2.11. Multifamily occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the HayWired 

earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 15,965,391 34,625,980 46 57

Northern Alameda County 5,748,605 17,265,910 33 21

Western Contra Costa County 3,832,968 7,862,251 49 14

Dublin-Pleasanton 514,768 1,579,560 33 2

Southern Alameda County 604,852 1,525,531 40 2

Novato 311,694 335,710 93 1

Vallejo 1,044,027 1,712,402 61 4

Subarea total 28,022,305 64,907,344 43 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 9,490,609 25,018,380 38 58

Northern Alameda County 4,040,679 12,924,281 31 25

Western Contra Costa County 2,374,904 6,378,633 37 15

Dublin-Pleasanton 266,941 1,045,300 26 2

Southern Alameda County 158,594 583,069 27 1

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 16,331,727 45,949,663 36 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 49

Table 2.12. Group-living residential occupancy with disruptive damage by subarea with concentrated damage resulting from the 

HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[Disruptive damage is defined as extensive or complete damage according to Hazus analysis. All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for 

the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake (these damages were added exclusively as complete damage). 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. ft2, square feet]

Subarea

Disruptive 

damage

 (ft2

)

Concentrateddamage area 

(ft2)

Percentage of disruptive 

damage in concentrateddamage areas

Percentage of 

total concentrateddamage areas1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 2,173,214 5,039,369 43 70

Northern Alameda County 596,921 2,066,398 29 19

Western Contra Costa County 225,678 613,006 37 7

Dublin-Pleasanton 45,325 138,891 33 2

Southern Alameda County 26,779 83,289 32 1

Novato 35,200 78,939 45 1

Vallejo 18,504 66,991 28 1

Subarea total 3,121,621 8,086,883 39 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 1,309,379 3,073,070 43 71

Northern Alameda County 353,843 1,249,915 28 20

Western Contra Costa County 164,737 538,272 31 9

Dublin-Pleasanton 9,045 43,691 21 1

Southern Alameda County 4,758 16,095 30 0.3

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 1,841,762 4,921,043 37 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
50 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences

Appendix 3. Employed Residents and Workers

Table 3.1. Total employed residents and workers living or working in concentrated-damage areas from HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock hazards, San Francisco Bay region, California.

[All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction]

Subarea Employed residents Workers

Number Percentage1 Number Percentage1

All hazards

Central Alameda County 226,648 62 186,191 57

Northern Alameda County 54,363 15 78,107 24

Western Contra Costa County 44,902 12 23,882 7

Dublin-Pleasanton 15,723 4 27,742 8

Southern Alameda County 14,035 4 2,375 1

Novato 3,035 1 5,703 2

Vallejo 4,858 1 4,145 1

Subarea total 363,564 100 328,145 100

Earthquake hazards

Central Alameda County 151,183 64 157,000 61

Northern Alameda County 36,852 16 56,874 22

Western Contra Costa County 33,348 14 22,087 9

Dublin-Pleasanton 10,268 4 21,160 8

Southern Alameda County 4,183 2 389 0.2

Novato 0 0 0 0

Vallejo 0 0 0 0

Subarea total 235,834 100 257,510 100

Regional totals

Alameda County 750,932 49 747,446 55

Contra Costa County 476,423 31 358,028 26

Marin County 104,987 7 111,746 8

Solano County 185,506 12 143,731 11

Counties with concentrated-damage areas 1,517,848 30 1,360,951 26

Nine-county study region 3,498,141 70 3,708,216 72

17-county study region 5,033,129 100 5,169,136 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 51

Table 3.2. Employed residents who work in concentrated-damage areas, by subarea, for the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction]

Residence subarea All hazards Earthquake hazards

Number Percentage1 Number Percentage1

Central Alameda County 69,144 72 37,095 72

Northern Alameda County 12,105 13 6,638 13

Western Contra Costa County 9,396 10 5,852 11

Dublin-Pleasanton 2,975 3 1,397 3

Southern Alameda County 1,810 2 394 1

Novato 280 0.3 0 0

Vallejo 582 1 0 0

Total 96,292 100 51,376 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.

Table 3.3. Workers who live in concentrated-damage areas, by subarea, for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the 

San Francisco Bay region, California.

[All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction]

Work subarea All hazards Earthquake hazards

Number Percentage1 Number Percentage1

Central Alameda County 63,593 66 35,674 69

Northern Alameda County 20,827 22 9,792 19

Western Contra Costa County 5,849 6 3,668 7

Dublin-Pleasanton 4,447 5 2,117 4

Southern Alameda County 736 1 125 0.2

Novato 449 0.5 0 0

Vallejo 391 0.4 0 0

Total 96,292 100 51,376 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.

Table 3.4. People who live and work in concentrated-damage areas in the same subarea for the HayWired earthquake scenario 

mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

[All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. 

Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction]

Residence/work subarea All hazards Earthquake hazards

Number Percentage1 Number Percentage1

Central Alameda County 54,463 80 30,920 81

Northern Alameda County 6,793 10 3,539 9

Western Contra Costa County 4,241 6 2,701 7

Dublin-Pleasanton 1,545 2 747 2

Southern Alameda County 345 1 98 0.3

Novato 166 0.2 0 0

Vallejo 233 0.3 0 0

Total 67,786 100 38,005 100

1

Because of rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 percent.
52 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences and less-concentrated-damage Employed residents living in concentrated-damage areas (from all hazards) with respect to their work locations in concentrated- Table 3.5. areas resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. ired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. Records are color coded from smallest (white) to [All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayW largest (dark red) within each column for ease of identifying regions with the most employed residents working in them] Place of work Place of residence Central Alameda County Northern Alameda County Western Contra Costa County Southern Alameda County Dublin-Pleasanton Vallejo Novato Total for subareas Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Employees living and working in a concentrated-damage area Central Alameda County 54,463 24 4,670 9 2,096 5 1,106 8 1,075 7 138 3 45 1 63,593 17 Northern Alameda County 10,667 5 6,793 12 2,773 7 174 1 312 2 71 1 37 1 20,827 6 Dublin-Pleasanton 2,434 1 183 0 97 0 155 1 1,545 10 26 1 7 0 4,447 1 Western Contra Costa County 1,072 0 365 1 4,241 10 21 0 32 0 93 2 25 1 5,849 2 Southern Alameda County 340 0 28 0 12 0 345 2 10 0 1 0 0 0 736 0 Novato 100 0 48 0 108 0 7 0 0 0 20 0 166 5 449 0 Vallejo 68 0 18 0 69 0 2 0 1 0 233 5 0 0 391 0 Subtotal 69,144 31 12,105 22 9,396 22 1,810 13 2,975 19 582 12 280 9 96,292 26 Employees living in a concentrated-damage area and working in a less-concentrated-damage area Alameda County remainder 52,496 23 13,653 25 6,940 15 3,631 26 4,144 26 325 7 124 4 81,313 22 San Francisco County 25,667 11 13,372 25 8,706 19 912 6 1,026 7 445 9 535 18 50,663 14

Santa Clara County 20,944 9 2,721 5 1,727 4 4,305 31 2,581 16 177 4 96 3 32,551 9

San Mateo County 18,514 8 2,807 5 1,707 4 1,414 10 794 5 141 3 110 4 25,487 7

Contra Costa County remainder 14,022 6 3,602 7 7,423 15 421 3 2,150 14 611 13 136 4 28,365 8

Sacramento Valley 4,302 2 907 2 1,146 3 223 2 268 2 245 5 67 2 7,158 2

San Joaquin Valley 3,474 2 669 1 690 1 197 1 397 3 125 3 37 1 5,589 2

Marin County remainder 1,998 1 788 1 2,888 6 57 0 99 1 228 5 1,236 41 7,294 2

Solano County remainder 1,729 1 367 1 938 2 85 1 125 1 1,063 22 43 1 4,350 1

Central coast 1,591 1 326 1 287 1 102 1 115 1 26 1 11 0 2,458 1

Sonoma County 1,376 1 341 1 492 1 61 0 82 1 199 4 199 7 2,750 1

Napa County 519 0 137 0 278 1 22 0 23 0 420 9 30 1 1,429 0

Other 10,872 5 2,568 5 2,284 6 795 6 944 6 271 6 131 4 17,865 5

Subtotal 157,504 69 42,258 78 35,506 78 12,225 87 12,748 81 4,276 88 2,755 91 267,272 74

Total employed residents 226,648 100 54,363 100 44,902 100 14,035 100 15,723 100 4,858 100 3,035 100 363,564 100
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 53

concentrated-damage areas Workers living in concentrated-damage areas (from all hazards) with respect to their home locations in concentrated- and less- Table 3.6.

resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

ired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. Records are color coded from smallest (white) to [All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayW

largest (dark red) within each column for ease of identifying regions with the most workers residing in them]

Place of residence

Place of work

Central Alameda 

County

Northern Alameda 

County

Western Contra 

Costa County Dublin-Pleasanton Southern Alameda County Novato Vallejo Total for subareas

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Employees working and living in a concentrated-damage area

Central Alameda County 54,463 29 10,667 14 1,072 4 2,434 9 340 14 100 2 68 2 69,144 21

Northern Alameda County 4,670 3 6,793 9 365 2 183 1 28 1 48 1 18 0 12,105 4Western Contra Costa County 2,096 1 2,773 4 4,241 18 97 0 12 1 108 2 69 2 9,396 3Southern Alameda County 1,106 1 174 0 21 0 155 1 345 15 7 0 2 0 1,810 1Dublin-Pleasanton 1,075 1 312 0 32 0 1,545 6 10 0 0 0 1 0 2,975 1Vallejo 138 0 71 0 93 0 26 0 1 0 20 0 233 6 582 0Novato 45 0 37 0 25 0 7 0 0 0 166 3 0 0 280 0

Subtotal 63,593 34 20,827 27 5,849 24 4,447 16 736 31 449 8 391 9 96,292 29

Employees working in a concentrated-damage area and living in a less-concentrated-damage area 

Alameda County remainder 38,969 21 21,876 28 2,238 9 7,468 27 793 33 238 4 137 3 71,719 22

Contra Costa County remainder 17,410 9 12,216 16 7,063 30 4,886 18 93 4 418 7 409 10 42,495 13

Santa Clara County 11,601 6 2,619 3 740 3 2,357 8 297 13 134 2 53 1 17,801 5San Joaquin Valley 9,247 5 2,221 3 785 3 2,639 10 129 5 76 1 39 1 15,136 5San Mateo County 8,473 5 2,701 3 589 2 762 3 85 4 151 3 23 1 12,784 4San Francisco County 6,727 4 5,269 7 1,007 4 545 2 39 2 414 7 51 1 14,052 4

Sacramento Valley 5,163 3 1,502 2 821 3 908 3 29 1 112 2 116 3 8,651 3Solano County remainder 4,177 2 1,939 2 1,871 8 464 2 19 1 300 5 2,042 49 10,812 3Central coast 2,479 1 542 1 172 1 432 2 29 1 43 1 14 0 3,711 1Sonoma County 2,129 1 897 1 532 2 305 1 18 1 1,099 19 315 8 5,295 2Marin County remainder 1,112 1 1,382 2 652 3 125 0 10 0 1,542 27 43 1 4,866 1

Napa County 765 0 312 0 390 2 107 0 2 0 96 2 360 9 2,032 1Other 14,346 8 3,804 5 1,173 5 2,297 8 96 4 631 11 152 4 22,499 7Subtotal 122,598 66 57,280 73 18,033 76 23,295 84 1,639 69 5,254 92 3,754 91 231,853 71

Total workers 186,191 100 78,107 100 23,882 100 27,742 100 2,375 100 5,703 100 4,145 100 328,145 100
54 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences concentrated- and less-concentrated- Employed residents living in concentrated-damage areas (from earthquake hazards) with respect to their work locations in Table 3.7. damage areas resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California. gest (dark red) within each column for ease of [Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Records are color coded from smallest (white) to lar identifying regions with the most employed residents working in them] Place of work Place of residence Central Alameda County Northern Alameda County Western Contra Costa County Dublin-Pleasanton Southern Alameda County Novato Vallejo Total for subareas Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Employees living and working in a concentrated-damage area Central Alameda County 30,920 20 2,741 7 1,220 4 550 5 243 6 0 0 0 0 35,674 15 Northern Alameda County 4,273 3 3,539 10 1,880 6 81 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 9,792 4 Dublin-Pleasanton 1,191 1 99 0 51 0 747 7 29 1 0 0 0 0 2,117 1 Western Contra Costa County 687 0 258 1 2,701 8 17 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3,668 2 Southern Alameda County 24 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 98 2 0 0 0 0 125 0 Novato 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vallejo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 37,095 25 6,638 18 5,852 18 1,397 14 394 9 0 0 0 0 51,376 22 Employees living in a concentrated-damage area and working in a less-concentrated-damage area Alameda County remainder 43,973 29 10,999 30 6,136 18 3,277 32 1,085 26 0 0 0 0 65,470 28

San Francisco County 17,164 11 9,213 25 6,493 19 691 7 289 7 0 0 0 0 33,850 14

Santa Clara County 14,335 9 1,776 5 1,294 4 1,784 17 1,309 31 0 0 0 0 20,498 9

San Mateo County 12,179 8 1,842 5 1,256 4 533 5 494 12 0 0 0 0 16,304 7

Contra Costa County remainder 9,199 6 2,378 6 5,689 17 1,265 12 149 4 0 0 0 0 18,680 8

Sacramento Valley 2,827 2 604 2 847 3 152 1 70 2 0 0 0 0 4,500 2

San Joaquin Valley 2,284 2 446 1 511 2 261 3 62 1 0 0 0 0 3,564 2

Marin County 1,362 1 533 1 2,081 6 63 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 4,055 2

Solano County 1,198 1 246 1 771 2 81 1 24 1 0 0 0 0 2,320 1

Central coast 1,058 1 209 1 195 1 60 1 27 1 0 0 0 0 1,549 1

Sonoma County 920 1 223 1 380 1 55 1 23 1 0 0 0 0 1,601 1

Napa County 333 0 86 0 195 1 14 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 636 0

Other 7,256 5 1,659 5 1,648 5 635 6 233 6 0 0 0 0 11,431 5

Subtotal 114,088 75 30,214 82 27,496 82 8,871 86 3,789 91 0 0 0 0 184,458 78

Total employed residents 151,183 100 36,852 100 33,348 100 10,268 100 4,183 100 0 0 0 0 235,834 100
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 55

ess-concentrated-damage areas Workers in concentrated-damage areas (from earthquake hazards) with respect to their residence locations in concentrated- and l Table 3.8.

resulting from the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the San Francisco Bay region, California.

gest (dark red) within each column for ease of [Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Records are color coded from smallest (white) to lar

identifying regions with the most workers residing in them]

Place of residence

Place of work

Central Alameda 

County

Northern Alameda 

County Dublin-Pleasanton Western Contra Costa County Southern Alameda County Novato Vallejo Total for subareas

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Employees working and living in a concentrated-damage area

Central Alameda County 30,920 20 4,273 8 1,191 5 687 3 24 6 0 0 0 0 37,095 14

Northern Alameda County 2,741 2 3,539 6 99 7 258 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6,638 3

Western Contra Costa County 1,220 1 1,880 3 51 0 2,701 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,852 2

Dublin-Pleasanton 550 0 81 0 747 10 17 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1,397 1Southern Alameda County 243 0 19 0 29 0 5 0 98 25 0 0 0 0 394 0Novato 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Vallejo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 35,674 23 9,792 17 2,117 22 3,668 17 125 32 0 0 0 0 51,376 20

Employees working in a concentrated-damage area and living in a less-concentrated-damage area

Alameda County remainder 47,021 30 19,847 35 6,510 15 2,533 11 114 29 0 0 0 0 76,025 30

Contra Costa County remainder 15,041 10 9,671 17 3,694 19 7,543 34 13 3 0 0 0 0 35,962 14Santa Clara County 10,269 7 1,849 3 1,919 4 702 3 46 12 0 0 0 0 14,785 6San Joaquin Valley 8,114 5 1,200 2 2,095 4 755 3 45 12 0 0 0 0 12,209 5San Mateo County 7,436 5 1,981 3 613 15 551 2 15 4 0 0 0 0 10,596 4San Francisco County 5,882 4 4,148 7 447 3 960 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,437 4

Sacramento Valley 4,739 3 1,186 2 722 1 790 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 7,439 3Solano County 3,735 2 1,527 3 380 6 1,837 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 7,480 3Central coast 2,186 1 416 1 325 2 164 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 3,094 1Sonoma County 1,917 1 721 1 257 1 494 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 3,396 1Marin County 924 1 1,179 2 106 1 606 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2,817 1Napa County 692 0 252 0 87 1 351 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,382 1Other 13,370 9 3,105 5 1,888 6 1,133 5 16 4 0 0 0 0 19,512 8Subtotal 121,326 77 47,082 83 19,043 78 18,419 83 264 68 0 0 0 0 206,134 80

Total workers 157,000 100 56,874 100 21,160 100 22,087 100 389 100 0 0 0 0 257,510 100
56 The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Societal Consequences Employed residents (who live in concentrated-damage areas) by place of work and LODES industry segment for the HayWired earthquake scenario mainshock in the Table 3.9. San Francisco Bay region, California. ired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earth- gest (dark red) within each column for ease of identifying regions with the most employed -Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics] [All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayW quake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Records are color coded from smallest (white) to lar residents from each LODES industry segment working in them. LODES, Longitudinal Employer Place of work All hazards Earthquake hazards Total Goods producing Trade, transportation, and utilities Other services Total Goods producing Trade, transportation, and utilities Other services Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Employees living and working in a concentrated-damage area Central Alameda County 63,593 17 10,008 21 14,050 21 39,535 16 35,674 15 6,378 21 8,638 20 20,658 13 Northern Alameda County 20,827 6 2,639 6 2,417 4 15,771 6 9,792 4 1,329 4 1,517 3 6,946 4 Western Contra Costa County 5,849 2 261 1 1,530 2 4,058 2 3,668 2 157 1 914 2 2,597 2 Dublin-Pleasanton 4,447 1 548 1 1,081 2 2,818 1 2,117 1 293 1 534 1 1,290 1 Southern Alameda County 736 0 52 0 139 0 545 0 125 0 14 0 1 0 110 0 Novato 449 0 62 0 46 0 341 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vallejo 391 0 9 0 32 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 96,292 26 13,579 29 19,295 29 63,418 25 51,376 22 8,171 27 11,604 26 31,601 20 Employees living in a concentrated-damage area and working in a less-concentrated-damage area Alameda County remainder 81,313 22 10,918 23 12,568 19 57,827 23 65,470 28 7,848 26 9,576 22 48,046 30 San Francisco County 50,663 14 2,424 5 7,433 11 40,806 16 33,850 14 1,582 5 4,993 11 27,275 17

Santa Clara County 32,551 9 6,110 13 5,517 8 20,924 8 20,498 9 3,867 13 3,495 8 13,136 8

Contra Costa County remainder 28,365 8 3,235 7 4,829 7 20,301 8 18,680 8 2,131 7 3,237 7 13,312 8

San Mateo County 25,487 7 3,208 7 6,045 9 16,234 7 16,304 7 2,020 7 3,843 9 10,441 6

Marin County remainder 7,294 2 731 2 1,353 2 5,210 2 4,055 2 447 1 776 2 2,832 2

Sacramento Valley 7,158 2 651 1 1,670 2 4,837 2 4,500 2 408 1 1,062 2 3,030 2San Joaquin Valley 5,589 2 907 2 2,068 3 2,614 1 3,564 2 563 2 1,316 3 1,685 1Solano County remainder 4,350 1 595 1 1,085 2 2,670 1 2,320 1 316 1 625 1 1,379 1Sonoma County 2,750 1 385 1 698 1 1,667 1 1,601 1 193 1 446 1 962 1

Central coast 2,458 1 641 1 647 1 1,170 0 1,549 1 412 1 381 1 756 0

Napa County 1,429 0 314 1 265 0 850 0 636 0 138 0 121 0 377 0

Other 17,865 5 3,380 7 3,932 6 10,553 4 11,431 5 2,149 7 2,554 6 6,728 4Subtotal 267,272 74 33,499 71 48,110 71 185,663 75 184,458 78 22,074 73 32,425 74 129,959 80

Total employed residents 363,564 100 47,078 100 67,405 100 249,081 100 235,834 100 30,245 100 44,029 100 161,560 100
Chapter V5. Spatial Analysis of Industries, Employment, and Commute Flows in Areas of Concentrated Damage 57

scenario mainshock in the Employees (who work in concentrated-damage areas) by place of residence and LODES industry segment for the HayWired earthquake Table 3.10.

San Francisco Bay region, California.

ired scenario: ground shaking, landslide, liquefaction, and fire following earthquake. Earthquake hazards refer to damages from earthquake 

gest (dark red) within each column for ease of identifying regions with the most workers from each 

-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics]

[All hazards refer to damages from all hazards considered for the HayWhazards: ground shaking, landslide, and liquefaction. Records are color coded from smallest (white) to larLODES industry segment residing in them. LODES, Longitudinal Employer

Place of residence

All hazards Earthquake hazards

Total Goods producing Trade, transportation, and utilities Other services Total Goods producing Trade, transportation, and utilities Other services

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Employees working and living in a concentrated-damage area

Central Alameda County 69,144 21 10,540 23 14,308 18 44,296 22 37,095 14 6,497 16 8,722 13 21,876 15

Northern Alameda County 12,105 4 1,358 3 1,735 2 9,012 4 6,638 3 820 2 1,131 2 4,687 3

Western Contra Costa County 9,396 3 944 2 2,167 3 6,285 3 5,852 2 581 1 1,376 2 3,895 3

Dublin-Pleasanton 2,975 1 365 1 582 1 2,028 1 1,397 1 195 0 294 0 908 1

Southern Alameda County 1,810 1 304 1 355 0 1,151 1 394 0 78 0 81 0 235 0

Vallejo 582 0 42 0 100 0 440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Novato 280 0 26 0 48 0 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 96,292 29 13,579 29 19,295 25 63,418 31 51,376 20 8,171 20 11,604 17 31,601 21

Employees working in a concentrated-damage area and living in a less-concentrated-damage area

Alameda County remainder 71,719 22 9,616 21 13,505 17 48,598 24 76,025 30 11,940 29 16,761 25 47,324 32Contra Costa County remainder 42,495 13 6,069 13 9,560 12 26,866 13 35,962 14 5,672 14 9,009 13 21,281 14

Santa Clara County 17,801 5 3,056 7 5,406 7 9,339 5 14,785 6 2,824 7 4,710 7 7,251 5San Joaquin Valley 15,136 5 2,851 6 4,653 6 7,632 4 12,209 5 2,583 6 4,076 6 5,550 4San Francisco County 14,052 4 1,669 4 3,439 4 8,944 4 11,437 4 1,413 3 3,134 5 6,890 5

San Mateo County 12,784 4 1,745 4 4,161 5 6,878 3 10,596 4 1,589 4 3,676 5 5,331 4

Solano County remainder 10,812 3 1,277 3 2,545 3 6,990 3 7,480 3 1,139 3 2,059 3 4,282 3Sacramento Valley 8,651 3 915 2 3,263 4 4,473 2 7,439 3 844 2 2,917 4 3,678 2Sonoma County 5,295 2 701 2 1,668 2 2,926 1 3,396 1 404 1 1,382 2 1,610 1Marin County remainder 4,866 1 552 1 1,107 1 3,207 2 2,817 1 292 1 880 1 1,645 1Central coast 3,711 1 433 1 1,583 2 1,695 1 3,094 1 394 1 1,346 2 1,354 1Napa County 2,032 1 215 0 503 1 1,314 1 1,382 1 173 0 404 1 805 1Other 22,499 7 3,501 8 6,972 9 12,026 6 19,512 8 3,198 8 6,347 9 9,967 7Subtotal 231,853 71 32,600 71 58,365 75 140,888 69 206,134 80 32,465 80 56,701 83 116,968 79

Total workers 328,145 100 46,179 100 77,660 100 204,306 100 257,510 100 40,636 100 68,305 100 148,569 100