Improving regulatory frameworks for earthquake risk mitigation

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.

[1]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Mary Anne Devanna,et al.  Strategic Human Resource Management , 1984 .

[3]  Disaster Management in the United States , 2008 .

[4]  D. Dowrick Earthquake risk reduction , 2003 .

[5]  Peter J. May,et al.  Societal Perspectives about Earthquake Performance: The Fallacy of “Acceptable Risk” , 2001 .

[6]  David J. Dowrick Earthquake Risk Reduction: Dowrick/Earthquake Risk Reduction , 2005 .

[7]  Peter J. May MAKING CHOICES ABOUT EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE , 2004 .

[8]  Suzanne Wilkinson,et al.  Enhancing seismic risk mitigation decisions: a motivational approach , 2011 .

[9]  Raymond J. Burby,et al.  Making building codes an effective tool for earthquake hazard mitigation , 1999 .

[10]  T. Birkland Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting , 1998, Journal of Public Policy.

[11]  P Casey,et al.  Development and Environment , 2018, Springer International Publishing.

[12]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  Politics of Hazard Mitigation , 2000 .

[13]  Michael K Lindell,et al.  Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  Suzanne Wilkinson,et al.  Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio-behavioural perspective , 2011 .

[15]  Peter J. May,et al.  Earthquake risk reduction: An examination of local regulatory efforts , 1994 .

[16]  Mary C. Comerio,et al.  Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective , 2004 .

[17]  Brian J. Gerber,et al.  Disaster Management in the United States: Examining Key Political and Policy Challenges , 2007 .

[18]  David Salvesen,et al.  Encouraging Residential Rehabilitation with Building Codes: New Jersey's Experience , 2006 .

[19]  P. Malhotra Should Building Codes Target Societal Risk? , 2009 .

[20]  Robin Spence,et al.  Risk and regulation: can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural disasters? , 2004 .

[21]  Raymond J. Burby,et al.  Policy Design for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: Lessons from Energy Conservation, Radon Reduction, and Termite Control , 1998 .

[22]  A. M. P. Mollema,et al.  Building and Housing , 1962 .