Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 12 results ...

Blong, R (2004) Residential building damage and natural perils: Australian examples and issues. Building Research & Information, 32(05), 379–90.

Comerio, M C (2004) Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective. Building Research & Information, 32(05), 403–13.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: building codes; disaster recovery; earthquake hazards; insurance; land-use regulation; mitigation; performance-based design; public policy; risk management; United States
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0961-3218
  • URL: http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=2fj6u02edh23wp1r
  • Abstract:
    Although many countries have experienced significant losses from earthquakes, governments have a difficult time creating effective seismic hazard mitigation policies. Traditional building-oriented policy mechanisms, such as land-use regulation and building codes, are minimum standards for public health and safety, but more specialized hazard zone development restrictions are difficult to enforce at the local level where more salient issues typically dominate. Some hazards' insurance policies link the cost of coverage to mitigation, but as a broad policy, the availability of insurance often encourages rather than discourages poor site selection and development planning. In recent years, there has been a strong divergence between knowledge and policy. Public utilities, large corporations, museums and educational institutions have developed risk management models to safeguard critical functions, protect valuable contents and limit downtime. These self-generated mitigation plans could be replicated in other organizations and institutions if hazard mitigation policies were designed to reward innovation and allow flexibility. Policies such as performance-based design standards that create incentives for mitigation, accommodate change and allow the negotiation of means for desired objectives are needed to replace rigid and prescriptive regulatory models.

Freeman, P K (2004) Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing to housing. Building Research & Information, 32(05), 427–37.

Gibb, A, Lingard, H, Behm, M and Cooke, T (2014) Construction accident causality: learning from different countries and differing consequences. Construction Management and Economics, 32(05), 446-59.

Hegazy, T and Saad, D A (2014) A microeconomic perspective on infrastructure rehabilitation. Construction Management and Economics, 32(05), 433-45.

Jacobsson, M and Roth, P (2014) Towards a shift in mindset: partnering projects as engagement platforms. Construction Management and Economics, 32(05), 419-32.

Jewell, C, Flanagan, R and Lu, W (2014) The dilemma of scope and scale for construction professional service firms. Construction Management and Economics, 32(05), 473-86.

Lam, T and Gale, K (2014) Highway maintenance: impact of framework agreements upon project financial performance. Construction Management and Economics, 32(05), 460-72.

Manfield, P, Ashmore, J and Corsellis, T (2004) Design of humanitarian tents for use in cold climates. Building Research & Information, 32(05), 368–78.

Schilderman, T (2004) Adapting traditional shelter for disaster mitigation and reconstruction: experiences with community-based approaches. Building Research & Information, 32(05), 414–26.

Spence, R (2004) Risk and regulation: can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural disasters?. Building Research & Information, 32(05), 391–402.

White, R R (2004) Managing and interpreting uncertainty for climate change risk. Building Research & Information, 32(05), 438–48.