Winarno, S; Griffith, A and Stephenson, P (2010) Reducing earthquake risk to non-engineered buildings in Indonesia. Construction Innovation, 10(4), pp. 421-434. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential for reducing earthquake risk to nonengineered buildings. “Nonengineered” buildings are, in simple terms, arbitrarily designed and inadequately built structures. Such buildings are indigenous and widespread within Indonesia, and are particularly susceptible to damage and destruction from earthquake events. A range of technical and social elements are significant to reducing earthquake risk to this building type and need to be appreciated within the context of current regulatory, design, and construction practices in Indonesia. A greater awareness for, and better understanding of, both the technical and human elements which impact on the planning, design, and construction of nonengineered buildings will enable more effective earthquake risk reduction measures to be implemented within building practices throughout Indonesia. Design/methodology/approach – Research used a triangulated approach collating qualitative and quantitative data acquired by multiple collection methods of a questionnaire survey, structured and semistructured interviews, case studies, and professional practice and localcommunity workshops. Quantitative data were collated and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences to provide inferential ranking and correlation of responses. Qualitative data were processed using NVivo software to code prominent patterns in the views and opinions of the respondents. Findings – The findings highlight the following: the reasons why earthquakerelated building codes are not applied more readily to nonengineered buildings; elements of practice where problems occur and where change could improve the use of building codes in their application to nonengineered buildings; actions for change to improve planning regulation, design, and construction of nonengineered buildings; and practical and effective methods of disseminating the research to industry, academic, and community stakeholders. Originality/value – The application of the research findings is unquestionably significant and valuable to Indonesia as any measures which can reduce earthquake risk have: the potential to improve the quality and sustainability of buildings; the ability to enhance the protection of property; and the real capability to save lives. Moreover, knowledge and capabilities developed there are highly relevant to earthquakevulnerable zones within the wider AsiaPacific region.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building specifications; codes; design and theory; earthquakes; Indonesia; structural analysis |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, regulation, methodology, Asia, professional practice, building practice, building code, risk reduction, interview, structural analysis, survey, earthquake, social science, workshop, case study, package, Indonesia, building specification |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, political science, regulatory law, building construction, professional development, financial risk, Geography, research methods, theoretical framing, structural engineering, regions and continents, professional practice, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, construction type |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Legal Issues, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Cost Management, Sustainability, Governance, Construction Technology, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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