Comerio, M C (2004) Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: A US perspective. Building Research & Information, 32(5), pp. 403-413. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Although many countries have experienced significant losses from earthquakes, governments have a difficult time creating effective seismic hazard mitigation policies. Traditional building-oriented policy mechanisms, such as land-use regulation and building codes, are minimum standards for public health and safety, but more specialized hazard zone development restrictions are difficult to enforce at the local level where more salient issues typically dominate. Some hazards' insurance policies link the cost of coverage to mitigation, but as a broad policy, the availability of insurance often encourages rather than discourages poor site selection and development planning. In recent years, there has been a strong divergence between knowledge and policy. Public utilities, large corporations, museums and educational institutions have developed risk management models to safeguard critical functions, protect valuable contents and limit downtime. These self-generated mitigation plans could be replicated in other organizations and institutions if hazard mitigation policies were designed to reward innovation and allow flexibility. Policies such as performance-based design standards that create incentives for mitigation, accommodate change and allow the negotiation of means for desired objectives are needed to replace rigid and prescriptive regulatory models.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building codes; disaster recovery; earthquake hazards; insurance; land-use regulation; mitigation; performance-based design; public policy; risk management; united states |
| Index terms: | land, public utility, insurance, design standard, earthquake, building code, disaster recovery, United States, performance-based, public health, negotiation, mitigation, traditional building, regulation, site selection, risk management, public policy |
| Subjects: | regulatory law, environmental health, infrastructure and transport systems, financial risk, cognitive psychology, real estate economics, environmental hazards, political science, risk assessment, performance measurement, technical documentation, economic analysis, Geography, construction type, public policy, emergency and crisis management, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Risk Management, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Governance, 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