Some emergency managers include geophysical and topographical factors in the vulnerability assessment process, while others include them in the risk assessment process. For example, Picket and Block (1991, 278-79), following the work of Terrence Haney, discuss the development of an earthquake hazard vulnerability model that utilizes data from five key areas: (1) geophysical, (2) topographical, (3) transportation and utility infrastructure, (4) structural facilities (buildings and bridges), and (5) demographic factors. Pearce et al. (1993, 4) argue that the consideration of geophysical and topographical factors belongs in the risk assessment process. For example, an analysis that concludes that the existence of a fault-line increases the likelihood of an earthquake occurring is part of risk assessment; however, the proximity of the community to the fault-line may increase or decrease the vulnerability of the population. Related to this argument is Anderson's (1992) suggestion that emergency planners should give special consideration to the growing vulnerability of metropolitan areas. Anderson makes an important point, as often the consequences of disasters in metropolitan areas are related to how geographic and topographic information has been considered. If, for example, such information is perceived to be part of risk assessment, then proximity to a fault-line would lead to mitigation measures that could address the need to reduce risk by zoning against construction near the line, expropriating existing properties, and so on. If, on the other hand, such information is perceived to be part of vulnerability assessment, then the issue becomes not one of reducing the likelihood of experiencing an earthquake but of how to decrease one's vulnerability by residing in an earthquake-resistant building, improving the infrastructure, or whatever. (Pearce 2000, Chapter 2, 24-25)