Egbelakin, T K; Wilkinson, S; Potangaroa, R and Ingham, J (2011) Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: A socio-behavioural perspective. Building Research & Information, 39(3), pp. 286-300. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Seismic retrofit implementation has been a major challenge in many earthquake-prone cities. This paper examines why building owners are reluctant to adopt measures to reduce earthquake losses despite advancement in seismic design methods and the enactment of intervening legislative frameworks. A case study approach revealed the socio-behavioural barriers affecting seismic retrofit implementation. Significant barriers identified included the perception of earthquake risks, a lack of trust in seismic strengthening techniques and a lack of support for pro-social mitigation behaviours from public authorities. The findings suggest that a reappraisal of the policy implementation approach used by government agencies is required, and that greater attention should be given to seismic designs recommended by professionals and approved by regulatory authorities in order to earn building owners' trust regarding the efficacy of earthquake risk-reduction measures.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building owners; decision-making; earthquake-prone buildings; public policy; risk perception; seismic retrofit; stakeholder behaviour |
| Index terms: | risk perception, owner, government agency, case study, public authority, seismic design, public policy, implementation, strengthening, mitigation, earthquake, decision-making, policy implementation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, policy studies, public policy, contractual arrangements, structural engineering, financial risk, sociology, decision analysis, administrative law, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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