New Strategy for Earthquake Risk Management - How to motivate people for safety-

Transcription

1 First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology New Strategy for Earthquake Risk Management - How to motivate people for safety- Kenji Okazaki National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) Japan

2 10 Major Disasters (fatalities) in the last 30 years!!!"#$%&'!(%)#)$*+!!,*#+!--(*#$. /.%'# 0#+$.12#3* :999 /&;&<=%# >&;?#'& 84:999 B+<*'%# 0#+$.12#3* 8A:999 C+#' 0#+$.12#3* 4559 DA:999 E#'F;#G*). /H?;IJ;&&G K9:999 >*'*L2*;# M;&&G 4555 D9:999 C'G%# 0#+$.12#3* :999 C+#' 0#+$.12#3* 899D 86:999 C'G&'*)%#:-&$.*+) 01I$)2'#<% 899K &N*+-D99:999 O#3%)$#' 0#+$.12#3* 899A

3 Most tragedies and difficulties in disasters are attributed to loss of lives and shelters due to destruction of houses. Financial burden of governments caused by destruction of houses is too huge. It t is not possible to predict occurrence of earthquakes. In earthquakes, most of the victims are killed by their own houses. Most of houses are conventional and non- engineered, being vulnerable to earthquakes. Securing safety of conventional houses is the highest priority in seismic risk management

4 Vulnerable conventional houses Adobe Bricks Stones Wooden

5 Resource allocation for disaster management Pre-disaster vs. post-disaster Pre-disaster Post-disaster Resource allocation Lives to be saved Pre-disaster Post-disaster Engineered vs. non-engineered Non-engineered Engineered Resource allocation Lives to be saved Nonengineered Engineered

6 Retrofitting: Difficult decision making It is generally understood that securing safety of existing vulnerable houses, or retrofitting, is essential to reduce seismic damage. Practical techniques to retrofit conventional buildings are available % of the construction cost would be sufficient for retrofitting Nevertheless, house owners are hardly motivated to invest in retrofitting for safety.

7 Securing housing safety is crucial and technically easy, but --- Current vicious cycle for unsafer houses Large casualty/damage in earthquakes Support for recovery locally, nationally, internationally Increase of vulnerable houses No incentive for safer houses

8 Securing housing safety is crucial and technically easy, hence --- Proposed cycle for safer houses Decrease of victims and recovery cost Support for safer houses locally, nationally, internationally Increase of safer houses Strong incentive for safer houses

9 Japan s s (yet unsuccessful) experience in facilitating retrofit of conventional houses Earthquakes with more than 1,000 deaths in the past 100 years! Earthquake! year! Magnitude! Deaths Kanto Kita-tango Sanriku Tottori Mikawa Nankai Fukui Hanshin -Awaji! 1923! 1927! 1933! 1943! 1945! 1946! 1948! 1995!! 7.9!! 7.3!! 8.1!! 7.2!! 7.1!! 8.0!! 7.1!! ,000! 2,900! 3,000! 1,100! 2,000! 1,300! 3,900! 6,400

10 Conventional houses in Japan Historically, wooden houses (post-and-beam) are dominant. S/RC 33% Wooden 64%!""#$% &'() *+,$-. Others 57% Wooden 43%!""#$% &'($)* Total number (existing): approx. 47 million units (2003) Annual construction: approx. 1.3 million units (2005)

11 Structural requirements for wooden houses in Building Codes (BSL) Structural calculation is not required for ordinary wooden houses (<500m2, < 3 stories, BSL Article 20 ) Specification for shear walls (ratio and allocation), materials, etc. Structural examination is exempted as the structure of the ordinary wooden houses is designed by the licensed architect. (approx. 400,000 units in 2005)

12 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake Approx. 100,000 buildings were totally damaged Most of the collapsed buildings were conventional wooden houses. 80% of the total deaths (6,400) or 90 % of immediate deaths were caused by crushing or suffocation mainly due to house collapse. 95 % of collapsed buildings were built before 1981 BSL amendment (in the most severely damaged area).

13 Old houses were severely damaged in Kobe Earthquake 100% 80% 60% 40% medium damage Minor damage and no damage Construction period (entire Japan) <70=621;.665/>823'*"$' /892 :;/.123*%"!% /89 G#()# G#($# #($#G#(($ (")* %"&' ##"'( )"&! *#"%* #*"*$ 20% 0% Larger damage Before 1971Before 1981After /0.123#%"'$ /89!"#$!"(% ("!' +, *+, '+, %+, $+, #++,

14 Expenditure of the government directly attributed to housing collapse in Kobe EQ Total: more than US$15 billion (only the national government) = $150,000 / destroyed house (almost equal to reconstruction cost) #"' $ 1 = 100 yen (1995) $"& $"! $"%!"# ()*+,-. /012) ,+ 8,9 :;<03+

15 Recent amendment of Building Codes Introduction of the new structural design method (1981) A building must be designed against a medium scale earthquake so that they will suffer only minor structural damages and would be able to continue its function (1 st stage design) A building must be designed against a maximum scale earthquake likely to occur during its life time so that they will not collapse, despite considerable damage and deformation, so that the human lives will be protected (2 nd stage design) Introduction of Performance Based Code (1998) Clarifying the criteria (building/building parts performance) of requirements quantitatively Expanding the pre-verified methods/technologies (simplifying building permission procedures for generalized methods/technologies) Examples: Base isolation systems, active/passive vibration control systems, etc.

16 Buildings with insufficient structural safety Housing Total houses (Throughout the country) Total housing units Number of houses having insufficient earthquake resistance (Percentage of the total number) 47 million houses 11.5 million houses About 25% Other buildings Total number 3.4 million buildings Number of buildings with insufficient earthquake resistance (Percentage of the total number) 1.2 million buildings About 35%

17 Estimated casualties by future earthquakes Tokai Earthquake (Case AM5:00) Tonankai and Nankai Earthquakes (Case AM5:00) Probable damage Casualties Caused by tremor Number of buildings collapse Approx. 6,700 Approx. 170,000 Approx. 6,600 Approx. 170,000 There will be more casualties and building damage caused by liquefaction, tsunami, fire, land slides, etc.

18 Japan s s policies for safer houses Acts to secure building safety Financial assistance for retrofitting Earthquake insurance Promotion of technical development Information Dissemination, development of Simplified Seismic Diagnosis, etc.

19 Percentage of houses with insufficient earthquake resistance ('# "'# )*# &'# )'#!'# $'# )!#!"# Accelerate? $%# $&# Trend Only! $'# (# '# $%%) $%%*!'')!''*!'$)!'$*!'!)!'!*

20 Only the old houses constructed before 1981 amendment are unsafe? Safety level of houses reduces as time passes, due to aging and/or bad maintenance. There are many unsafe houses due to bad designing, poor construction work, corner- cutting, etc. - Nation wide scandal of false structural calculation for apartment houses by licensed architect (Dec. 2005) - Structural safety of many wooden houses were found to be substandard in Tokyo (June 2006) Many houses constructed after 1981 may be unsafe. Government decides to terminate the exemption of structural examination from next year.

21 Recent Acts to secure building safety Law Concerning Facilitation of Earthquake Resistant Modification of the Buildings (1995) To promote seismic retrofitting of existing vulnerable buildings Housing Quality Assurance Act (1999) To assure housing quality, to protect the interests of housing purchasers, and to resolute promptly disputes related to housing

22 Law Concerning Facilitation of Earthquake Resistant Modification of the Buildings (1995) Based on the lessons from the Kobe Earthquake Obligations for the owners of buildings which many people use to direct their efforts toward seismic diagnosis and retrofitting Some technical requirements may be exempted Guidance, advice, and instructions by the authorities Certification under the Law (1995 to 2002) Use Number of Certifications Public Private Total 2,709 2, >>> Little effect to facilitate retrofitting

23 Housing Quality Assurance Act (1999) Housing Performance Indication 9 fields in total 28 indicators Structural Stability ( E a r t h q u a k e - resistance, Grade etc.) L u m i n o u s and Visual Environment (Simple opening ratio etc.) Fire Safety ( Fire-resistance, Grade etc.) Acoustic Environment (Heavy floor impact sound control, Grade etc.) Mitigation of Degradation (Anti-degradation measure, Grade ) Thermal Environment (Energy efficiency, Grade Consideration for the Aged & others (Consideration for the aged and others, Grade etc.) Indoor Air E n v i r o n m e n t (Formaldehyde control measures, Grade etc.) Consideration for Maintenance (Consideration for maintenance, Grade )

24 Housing performance evaluation /2, !"#$%&'()*+ Number of Designated Bodies for Housing Performance Evaluation F.Y /0.,,- F.Y F.Y F.Y : 8 F.Y ; 8 F.Y < 8 (Number of evaluations) * */4+444 * *,4+444 * / , **+,-..3!"#$%&'() Number of Housing Performance Evaluation <=%& ><%& Evaluation of Plans /*+/.* * / *1-+03* Evaluation of Construction 3,+1,1 */1+,13 **4+40, F.Y F.Y F.Y. 566:78 F.Y. 566;78 F.Y.

25 Financial assistance to facilitate seismic diagnosis and seismic retrofitting Building Type Department stores, Theatres, Other assembly halls, Collective houses, etc. Seismic diagnosis Subsidy approx. 67% from MLIT and Prefectural/Local Gov. Seismic reinforcement Subsidy approx. 13% from MLIT and Prefectural/Local Gov. Governmental low interest loan Detached houses Subsidiaries approx. 67% from MLIT and Prefectural/Local Gov. Subsidiaries approx. 15% from MLIT and Prefectural/Local Gov. Governmental low interest loan Tax reduction Cost to subsidize retrofitting of 10 million housing units will be: 10 million x $3,000 = $30 billion - Even the governments do not expect that this assistance would really promote retrofitting

26 Earthquake insurance Scheme of earthquake insurance Liability sharing of insurance companies and Government (2005)

27 Earthquake insurance Premium rates Case: Tokyo, Wooden, $100,000 Premium is $360 per year ($1=120 yen) Map of class locations Discount rate

28 Problems of earthquake insurance Moral hazard People would avoid investment in improving safety of their house >> Loss of lives cannot be reduced Social fairness Government will provide $billions to those who do not comply with the Building Codes. Nobody knows which house will collapse in earthquakes vs. Only poorly constructed houses will collapse The latest engineering knowledge can tell you which house will be severely damaged.

29 Simplified Seismic Diagnosis for wooden houses

30 Individual decision making is crucial for house retrofitting Unless every house owner makes decision to invest in retrofitting, earthquake safer communities would not be attained (No matter how governments wish to promote retrofitting). It is generally expected that if a house owner understands vulnerability of the house, i.e. probability of destruction, he/she will invest in retrofitting the house.. Is it true?

31 Decision making for retrofitting Current loss (CL) (cost for retrofitting) vs. Future uncertain loss (FL) (value of house and life with probability) If CL < FL, retrofitting is economically reasonable. (People are motivated for retrofitting) If CL > FL, retrofitting is not reasonable. (People are not motivated for retrofitting)

32 V: Value of a house α: Ratio of retrofitting cost to the house value p: Probability of collapse (multiplied by probability of big earthquakes) If only the house value is considered CL = α x VFL = p x V Current situationcl (αv) > FS (pv) because α Retrofit cost is high (approx. 10% of construction cost), while probability of loss is very low (usually less than 1%).

33 Policy target: CL (αv)( ) < FL (p V ) V Possible to reduce α? Enormous subsidy for retrofitting is not feasible. Possible to increase the conceived p? People tend to overestimate the probability of a big disaster risk with very long return period. Hence, better understanding the probability may decrease the value of the conceived p. Most effective is to increase the conceived loss (V ) Better understanding of what will be lost, i.e. house (property) and invaluable lives as well as family life would be most effective. If people understand the value of life protected by their house should be taken into account, people will invest in retrofitting. Is it true?

34 Psychological effect (1) Prospect theory Kahneman & Tversky Choose between: A. Sure gain of $3,000 B. 80% chance of winning $4,000 and 20% chance of winning nothing (expected gain $3,200) Result: 80 % selected A Choose between: A. Sure loss of $3,000 B. 80% chance of losing $4,000 and 20% chance of losing nothing (expected loss $3,200) Result: 92% selected B People are risk-seekers when the choice involves loss

35 Psychological effect (2) Future uncertain loss is psychologically much discounted (more than the effect of the interest rate) (Lowenstein). Furthermore, the investment (retrofitting) would be waste if any earthquake would not occur within either the life of the house or the investor. - Life expectancy of a house: dozens years - Life expectancy of an investor: dozens years - Return period of a big earthquake: hundreds years

36 Retrofitting is economically reasonable? - As far as the risk is uncertain and futuristic, retrofitting is discouraged. - Even if people understand their risk correctly, many would not be motivated for retrofitting.

37 Proposals for economic incentive If the risk lies in future, there is always little incentive for retrofitting. To facilitate retrofitting, future uncertain loss should be converted to current certain loss. Proposal: - Policies should be developed in favor of those who own safe houses. (In Japan, the insurance premium could be exempted for those who own a safe house, as the safe houses would hardly collapse and the government is prepared to bear more than 4.5 trillion yen (US$38 billion) in case of a great earthquake. Funds for such policies can be mobilized from large resources for relief and recovery/reconstruction.

38 Proposals for motivation towards safety Community Based Disaster Management (CBDM) Local people are potential victims and assume responsibility in managing the risk Local people respond first and are the last remaining to rebuild safer communities Disasters reflect local conditions, of which local people are well ware Co-learning among stakeholders through face-to-face risk communication (not one-way education) is effective to enhance understanding of the risk. - Participatory decision making process leads to ownership of risk and actions - Local governments and NGOs should play more important roles for motivation and capacity building

39 RADIUS Project ( ) Motivation of local people for urban seismic reduction Capacity building Local leadership and ownership Awareness raising Earthquake damage scenarios and action plans were developed by local people in 9 cities worldwide

40 A training seminar in Japan Interview with police officers in Zigong Disaster seminar for students in Bandung Action Plan Workshop in Tashkent

41 Simplified program for damage estimation

42 RADIUS initiatives are sustainable Some local partnerships sustain and efforts continue Skopje adopted RADIUS recommendations in Master Plan. Guayaquil created a new Division for Disaster Mitigation. Bandung changed its building permit process. Antofagasta generated US$ 1 million to remove schools from Tsunami areas. Tijuana created an NGO called RADIUS. Tijuana organizes a RADIUS meeting every month. It had 76 th meeting last week (August 2006). Experience is transferred to neighboring cities.

43 PNY Pantanka New-Life Project Rehabilitation after Gujarat Earthquake of January 2001 Focus on non-engineered construction UNCRD with EDM, NCPDP, NGOs Kobe, NSET-Nepal, and SEEDS Training Education Awareness Confidence

44 Motivation and capacity building by Shake- Table Demonstration Build people s confidence on simple and effective means Enhance understanding of performance of simple structures Incorporate people into process of transferring technology

45 Explanation Measurement Inspection Training

46 Motivation and capacity building by Shake- Table Demonstration (by UNCRD + NSET Nepal) Afghanistan Training and Livelihood Initiative, Kabul, 2003 After Bam Earthquake, Iran, 2004 Practical guidelines (English and Persian) was developed under the project. Demonstration was conducted at the house model exhibition center.

47 Demonstration at World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) Kobe, 2005 Masonry (bricks) Wooden structure

48 School Earthquake Safety Initiative (SESI) Fiji, India, Indonesia, and Uzbekistan Bal Vikas Secondary School, Nepal Retrofit Strengthen school buildings (retrofitting) Technology transfer and training of masons/engineers Disaster education and mitigation culture Children are good messengers to families and communities

49 Sustainability in Community-Based Disaster Management ( ) by UNCRD Year 1 (2002): Framework for sustainable CBDM through 6 case studies Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, The Philippines Year 2 (2003): Development of Guidelines for sustainable CBDM Year 3 (2004): 10-year review of CBDM activities, Partnership building, Publication of User s s Guide

50 User s s Guide for CBDM Generic Guidelines This provides a complete discussion of the factors, best practices and examples that will enhance sustainability of CBDM. User-Specific Tools - Policymakers - National Disaster Managers - Local Disaster Managers - Trainers - Community Workers

51 Master Program for Disaster Mitigation jointly conducted by GRIPS (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies) and BRI (Building Research Institute) Graduates of Training Courses on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology More than 1,200 graduates in 95 countries (2005) Epicenters of earthquakes, occurred in Number of Graduates in the training course

52 Thank you! A single death is a tragedy, a million death is a statistic. Joseph Stalin Kenji Okazaki Professor National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan Tel: Fax: Web: