Egbelakin, T; Wilkinson, S; Potangaroa, R and Ingham, J (2013) Improving regulatory frameworks for earthquake risk mitigation. Building Research & Information, 41(6), pp. 677-689. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
New Zealand’s devastating Canterbury earthquakes provided an opportunity to examine the efficacy of existing regulations and policies relevant to seismic strengthening of vulnerable buildings. The mixed-methods approach adopted, comprising both qualitative and quantitative approaches, revealed that some of the provisions in these regulations pose as constraints to appropriate strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings. Those provisions include the current seismic design philosophy, lack of mandatory disclosure of seismic risks and ineffective timeframes for strengthening vulnerable buildings. Recommendations arising from these research findings and implications for pre-disaster mitigation for future earthquake and Canterbury’s post-disaster reconstruction suggest: (1) a reappraisal of the requirements for earthquake engineering design and construction, (2) a review and realignment of all regulatory frameworks relevant to earthquake risk mitigation, and (3) the need to develop a national programme necessary to achieve consistent mitigation efforts across the country. These recommendations are important in order to present a robust framework where New Zealand communities such as Christchurch can gradually recover after a major earthquake disaster, while planning for pre-disaster mitigation against future earthquakes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building regulation; buildings; disaster mitigation; disaster planning; earthquake; public policy; public safety; risk mitigation |
| Index terms: | risk mitigation, public policy, disaster planning, engineering design, earthquake, mitigation, regulation, disaster mitigation, strengthening, post-disaster reconstruction, philosophy, programme, Christchurch, seismic design, seismic risk, building regulation, New Zealand, public safety |
| Subjects: | structural engineering, post-disaster and reconstruction, Geography, financial risk, design process, project controls, emergency and crisis management, philosophical studies, regulatory law, environmental hazards, political science, public policy |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Governance, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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