Theme

• Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction in Urban Areas of Developing Countries
• Pre-Positioned Emergency Rescue Stores (PPERS): New Earthquake Preparedness Strategy from NSET
• Regional and International Initiatives in Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction
• IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Tips 6:How Architectural Features Affect Buildings During Earthquakes

Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction in Urban Areas of Developing Countries

The absence of any reliable mechanism to predict earthquakes makes them the most disastrous of all natural calamities. Earthquakes affected 19 million people in 2001, more than any other year of the decade and cost the world US$238 million in damages alone . Afghanistan, China, Iran, Indonesia, India, Japan, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines and Taiwan all lie within seismically active areas. Seismic risks to people and economic losses have been increasing due to the rapid pace of urbanization and increasingly dense city populations. Recent earthquakes in Iran, India, Taiwan and Turkey have yet again shown us how vulnerable urban areas are to the effects of earthquakes.

There are two basic structural measures for reducing vulnerability: enforcing seismic building codes and imposing land use restrictions to limit settlements in hazard prone areas. With the steady pace of economic growth in Asia and the influx of rural migrants and investment funds to cities, urban centers have seen an increase in construction that often does not comply with local building codes. The extraordinary number of existing noncompliant buildings poses a serious challenge to earthquake mitigation. Earthquake events seem to have only a short-term effect on people’s motivation to enforce building codes in new construction and a host of problems diverts the attention of municipal bodies, local planners and engineers from enforcing seismic code regulations. In addition to the technical and legal aspects, there are socio-economic and political factors to consider.

Disasters are unresolved problems of development. These problems stem from socio-economic, governance, demographic and physical environment issues that have to be understood and integrated into the process of reducing vulnerability to earthquakes.

Municipal bodies often lack the resources or technical capacity to implement building codes or scrutinize the technical aspects of building plans. The problem is acute in smaller cities and towns, where even if the people want to incorporate seismic features into their houses, there is little technical assistance available. The urban poor, who often live in the most hazard prone areas, find it financially impossible to relocate or improve their houses. Although recent earthquakes have put some pressure on governing bodies for more effective enforcement or introduction of seismic codes, measures are generally implemented only on new structures. Many municipalities lack appropriate land use restrictions or do not adhere to their own planning laws or master plans. The result is the expansion of towns and cities into hazard prone areas where more unsafe buildings are constructed.

Local governments have a pivotal role in reducing vulnerability to earthquakes, but national committees need to be set up to monitor enforcement of building codes, periodically appraise seismic risks, and recommend various mitigation measures for critical infrastructure, houses, industries, dams, nuclear plants and essential facilities such as schools and hospitals. Retrofitting strategies based on affordable engineering solutions are needed along with new initiatives for promoting insurance, both in the government and in the private sector. It would clearly be in the interests of national governments to create a mechanism like disaster insurance funded by contributions from annual budgets.

The lack of adequate prevention measures has been the main cause of casualties and economic losses in past earthquakes. And yet, there remains a fallacy that preparedness costs more than relief. There is also more political mileage to be gained from relief measures and this too has impeded attempts to prioritize preparedness measures.

The last few decades have seen an encouraging paradigm shift from relief to response to risk management that is influencing the way disaster management programs are planned and financed. However, these efforts claim a fraction of the resources allocated to humanitarian assistance, relief and post-disaster reconstruction. Below are a number of interventions that could be adopted in earthquake prone towns, cities, districts and provinces.

Raise public awareness and sensitize decision-makers: Most local governments have a negative image regarding delivery of basic services. As a result, most investments (public and private) are skewed towards upgrading existing basic infrastructure. The situation is further exacerbated by the increasing competition between cities to attract foreign direct investment. There is an urgent need to sensitize decision-makers and advocate for the importance of earthquake mitigation in their existing political and development agenda.

Recognize that earthquakes are not just ‘set backs’ to development, but result in part from the path that development is taking: Both technical and political groups need training. In urban areas in developing countries, a few individuals make most of the political decisions. Many development problems have been successfully addressed due to the commitment and positive outlook of politically powerful individuals; the “champions”. There are also champions who are not politically powerful but have the right outlook and commitment to work for a cause (engineers, fire fighters, government officers, etc.).

Conduct earthquake vulnerability assessments and develop damage scenarios: Earthquake damage scenarios describe the socio-economic and physical consequences of a possible earthquake. The damage scenario highlights the measurable socio-economic benefits of a preventive approach and helps disaster managers prepare before a disaster strikes. One effective way of raising awareness is to develop and disseminate an earthquake risk index for various areas.

Promote knowledge sharing and implementation of credible solutions for effective seismic risk mitigation: There is much to gain from reviewing the ever-expanding range of new knowledge being created in the Asia-Pacific region. Knowledge about innovative approaches and strategies for earthquake risk management is a valuable resource.

Aman Mehta is an urban development specialist, currently working as an independent consultant in Asia and Africa. Over the last eight years he has provided expertise on institutional development, indicators development, project design and appraisal and post-disaster damage assessment. This article is extracted from a paper written by the author on Earthquake Vulnerability Risk Mapping for the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. He can be contacted at aman_mehta@yahoo.com