Winarno, S; Griffith, A and Stephenson, P (2010) Reducing earthquake risk to non-engineered buildings: A study of design and construction practices in Indonesia. International Journal of Construction Management, 10(1), pp. 75-86. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
This paper reports on a research study which examined the technical and societal-human elements significant to seismic risk reduction for non-engineered buildings. The aim was to explore the potential for reducing earthquake risk to non-engineered buildings within the context of design and construction practices in Indonesia. 'Non-engineered' buildings were defined as unsystematically designed and poorly built structures. These buildings are particularly susceptible to earthquakes and dominate construction indigenous to Indonesia and other parts of the Asia Pacific region. A better understanding of both the technical and human elements impacting on the design and construction of non-engineered buildings will enable earthquake risk reduction measures to be developed in Indonesia. Moreover, knowledge and capabilities developed there will be of interest throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building code; earthquake; non-engineered building; risk reduction |
| Index terms: | building code, risk reduction, Asia-Pacific, design and construction, earthquake, Indonesia, seismic risk |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, regulatory law, financial risk, Geography, physical geography and landforms, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Procurement, Sustainability, Geographical Context, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here