Are building codes consistent with our evolving knowledge of geohazards?Shelley-Ann Jules-Plag (1) and Hans-Peter Plag (2) In a New York Times article on cities in earthquake zones (Revkin, 2010), Roger Bilham is quoted as having said “that the planet's growing, urbanizing population, projected to swell by two billion more people by midcentury and to require one billion dwellings, faced 'an unrecognized weapon of mass destruction: houses.'” Scientific knowledge of geohazards could be used, and in some countries is used, to develop building codes that are intended to prevent this development and the future disasters Bilham anticipates. Challenges arise from a rapid development of our scientific knowledge; from communication issues between science and those making decisions on building codes and land use planning; from a lack of compliance of city developments with building codes particularly in the poorer regions of the world; and from a conflict of interests that often leads to priorities given to short-term economic gains instead of the long-term safety of properties and lives. Using the example of two developed and two developing countries, we will review how science currently informs the development of building codes and to what extent city developments are compliant to these codes. A particular question is how the codes account for the worst case and the epistemic uncertainties at the upper end of the geohazards scale. Compliance with the codes depends on the socital value system and can differ greatly region to region. The role of insurances in supporting development of, and compliance with building codes will be considered. Assessments of disasters for comparable earthquakes will help to illustrate the great impact scientifically sound building codes can have on reducing disasters. Revkin, A., 2010: Disaster awaits Cities in Earthquake Zones. New York Times, February 24, 2010; see NYT article. |
