T211 Shaping a Sustainable Future with Geology in the Twenty-First Century: Geology and Society Division Turns 21

Tuesday, 24 September 2024
1:30 PM - 5:30 PM
211B

BUILDING ON SHAKY GROUND: THE ETHICS OF BUILDING REGULATIONS IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND POLICY

Paper number: T211-5
Program: Technical Sessions
Time: 2:25 PM – 2:40 PM

Authors

  • Gah-Kai Leung Presenting Author
    University of Warwick, Coventry, Hampshire

Abstract

Earthquakes cause tremendous damage when they threaten human habitation. Therefore, the appropriate design of urban environments to resist earthquakes will be of particular concern to policymakers. This paper examines one important element of urban design: building regulations. Since most people in urbanized areas will live, work and spend their leisure time in built structures, the design of these structures is of paramount concern to earthquake engineering. Many already-built structures will fail to meet reasonable safety standards—often because they were built before modern construction codes—and so will require retrofitting. So we need to answer the question of what a fair building code would look like. However, engineers, policymakers, architects, urban planners and affected citizens alike lack an understanding of the relevant ethical principles which should guide this important policy area. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature and so contribute to urban policymaking for major earthquakes.

The paper is structured as follows. First I fill in some empirical background concerning available strategies for earthquake risk reduction. Then I consider the implications of this context for my central question: How should we design building regulations to account for the risk of a major earthquake? Existing practice in the International Building Code generally specifies Life Safety as the minimally acceptable standard from an engineering point of view. Life Safety is highly permissive, allowing for severe and even irreparable structural damage to buildings. I argue that this standard is too minimal and undermines seismic resilience. An ethical construction code would aim for Immediate Occupancy, which would ensure that structures remain usable or inhabitable after a seismic event. I discuss the ramifications of my claim for who should pay the cost of seismic retrofitting. I discuss and respond to two objections: (1) that Life Safety represents an acceptable compromise between protecting lives and financial expense; (2) Immediate Occupancy is politically infeasible. The key conclusion—that Immediate Occupancy is ethically preferable to Life Safety—suggests a quite radical overhaul of existing practices in earthquake engineering and preparedness policy.

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 56, No. 5

doi: 10.1130/abs/2024AM-403821

© Copyright 2024 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.