Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Devising ‘policy packages’ for seismic retrofitting of residences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collapse of residential buildings is the major cause of death during earthquakes. Seismic retrofitting of residential buildings is a cost-effective way to reduce injury and death. However, seismic retrofitting is a complex policy problem, entailing multiple barriers and requiring multi-stakeholder, multi-level, multi-sectoral, and multi-disciplinary collaborations. Policy packages are an approach to address complex, multi-dimensional policy challenges by developing synergic combinations of policy instruments, geared to achieving policy goals, while minimizing unintended effects and enhancing legitimacy and political feasibility. Israel has a long history of seismic activity, and a seismic building code was introduced in 1980. Yet, 20% of the country’s housing units predate the building code and require seismic retrofitting. A current market-based plan is attractive only in high property value areas, while the most vulnerable regions are largely in the periphery. This paper presents a three-step methodology to formulate policy packages for seismic retrofitting in Israel. Through expert workshops, 69 relevant policy instruments were identified and analyzed. Then, three effective policy packages were formulated based on the interrelations of the various instruments. Finally, the packages were modified to enhance social and political acceptability. The three packages are a ‘national package’ assigning responsibility to a national-level authority, a ‘municipal package’ assigning responsibility to local government, and a ‘civilian package’ which aims to create conditions for homeowners to retrofit with less government intervention. Each package is comprised of 16 policy instruments, seven of which are common to all three packages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is the official Turkish estimate. There are higher informal estimates (Marza 2004).

  2. See, for example, San Fransico's Mandatory Soft Story Program: http://sfdbi.org/SOFTSTORY; and Los Angeles' earthquake soft story ordinance from 2015: http://hcidla.lacity.org/ordinance-no-183893-earthquake-hazard-reduction.

  3. For details of this project, see www.spreeproject.com.

  4. This stage is sometimes presented as two steps. First, a (socially) acceptable package is formed and then a (politically) viable package is finalized (see www.spreeproject.com for such differentiation). However, whether the ultimate (viable) package is presented as the modification of a socially acceptable package or is termed an ‘acceptable package’ which is the outcome of both social and political analyses, is immaterial for the purpose of this paper.

  5. This suggestion was raised in the informal talks with high-ranking government officials.

  6. Almost 93% of the land in Israel is controlled by the state through the Israel Land Authority, which is a major source of government revenue.

References

  • Alesch DJ, Petak WJ (2002) Overcoming obstacles to implementation: addressing political, institutional and behavioral problems in earthquake hazard mitigation policies. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 1(1):152–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almog A (2016) TAMA 38: For What and For Whom? Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew)

  • Altay N, Prasad S, Tata J (2013) A dynamic model for costing disaster mitigation policies. Disasters 37(3):357–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amiran DH, Arieh E, Turcotte T (1994) Earthquakes in Israel and adjacent areas: macroseismic observations since 100 BCE. Israel Explor J 44(3/4):260–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen RM. Baer G, Clinton J, Hamiel Y, Hofstetter R, Pinsky V, Ziv A, Zollo A (2012) Earthquake early warning for Israel: recommended implementation strategy. Israel Geological Survey Report GSI/26/2012, Lod Israel

  • Baytiyeh H, Naja M (2013) Promoting earthquake disaster mitigation in Lebanon through civic engagement. Disaster Prev Manag 22(4):340–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach D (2013) Changing higher education: converging policy packages and experiences of changing academic work in Sweden. J Educ Policy 28(4):517–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernknopf R, Amos P (2014) Measuring earthquake risk concentration for hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 74(3):2163–2192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom A, Turaga RMR, Ponomariov B (2006) Earthquake mitigation decisions and consequences. Earthq Spectra 22(2):313–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (2012) Final report: Volume 2: The performance of Christchurch CBD buildings

  • Comerio MC (1997) Housing issues after disasters. J Conting Crisis Manag 5(3):166–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comerio MC (2004) Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective. Build Res Inf 32(5):403–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowrick DJ (2003) Earthquake risk reduction actions for New Zealand. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 36(4):249–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Earthquake Engineering Research Institute [EERI] (1998) Incentives and impediments to improving the seismic performance of buildings. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Earthquake Engineering Research Institute [EERI] (2003) Securing society against catastrophic earthquake losses: a research and outreach plan in earthquake engineering. EERI, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S (2008) Factors affecting motivation for improved seismic retrofit implementation. Paper presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Conference (AEES) 21–23 Nov http://www.aees.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/26-Egbelakin.pdf. Accessed 16.11.2016

  • Egbelakin TK, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J (2011) Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio-behavioural perspective. Build Res Inf 39(3):286–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J (2013) Improving regulatory frameworks for earthquake risk mitigation. Build Res Inf 41(6):677–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feitelson E (2003) Packaging policies to address environmental concerns. In: Hensher DA, Button KJ (eds) Handbook of transport and the environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 757–769

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier TG, Walker MH, Kumari A, Thompson CM (2013) Opportunities and constraints to hazard mitigation planning. Appl Geogr 40:52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujimi T, Tatano H (2013) Promoting seismic retrofit implementation through “nudge”: using warranty as a driver. Risk Anal 33(10):1858–1883

    Google Scholar 

  • Furbotn EG, Richter R (2000) Institutions and economic theory. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Givoni M, Macmillen J, Banister D, Feitelson E (2013) From policy measures to policy packages. Transp Rev 33(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gülkan P (2005) An analysis of risk mitigation considerations in regional reconstruction in Turkey: the missing link. Mitig Adapt Strat Gl 10(3):525–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes WT, Luco N, Turner F (2014) Application of the recommendations of the Canterbury earthquakes royal commission to the design, construction, and evaluation of buildings and seismic risk mitigation policies in the United States. Earthq Spectra 30(1):427–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel State Comptroller (2011) Stability of buildings and infrastructure in an earthquake: a snapshot. Jerusalem (Hebrew). http://www.mevaker.gov.il/he/Reports/Report_116/1220891e-0b0b-49e5-b1a7-597913a13a6d/6658.pdf. Accessed 5.7.2017

  • Jordan A, Lenschow A (eds) (2008) Innovation in environmental policy? Integrating the environment for sustainability. Edward Elgar, Chelthenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Justen A, Feanley N, Givoni M, Mcmillen J (2014) A process for designing policy packaging: ideals and realities. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 60(1):9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohiyama M, Kiremidjian AS, Meguro K, Ohara MY (2008) Incentives and disincentives analysis for improving policy for seismic risk management of homeowners in Japan. Nat Hazards Rev 9(4):170–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2012) Using collapse risk assessments to inform seismic safety policy for older concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1495–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Hwang SN (2008) Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Anal 28(2):539–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Whitney DJ (2000) Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Anal 20(1):13–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles W, Berke P, Smith G (2014) A comparison of local hazard mitigation plan quality in six states. Landsc Urban Plan 122:89–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marza VI (2004) On the death toll of the 1999 Izmit (Turkey) major earthquake. ESC General Assembly Papers. European Seismological Commission, Potsdam. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228938098_On_the_death_toll_of_the_1999_Izmit_Turkey_major_earthquake. Accessed 5.7.2017

  • May PJ, Burby RJ, Feeley TJ, Wood R (1999) Adoption and enforcement of earthquake risk-reduction measures (No. 4). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

  • May A, Kelly C, Shepard S (2005) Integrated transport strategies. In: Hensher D, Button K (eds) Handbook of transport strategy, policy and institutions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 237–254

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meguro K, Takahashi T (2001) System for promotion of retrofitting of existing pre-code revision structures. Organ 55:1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachum-Halevi R (2013) Research: hundreds of thousands structures—mainly in the periphery—are still vulnerable to earthquake hazards. The Marker 14(15 March) (Hebrew). http://www.themarker.com/realestate/1.1965792. Accessed 21.11.2016

  • Nahkies PB (2009) Seismic upgrading—meeting the economic challenge paper presented to the Pacific Rim real estate society. Sydney. http://dspace.lincoln.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10182/4464/Nahkies_2009PRRES.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed: 20.11.2016

  • Negev M, Feitelson E, Segal E, Shohat Y (2015) Policy packages for residential buildings in the periphery of Israel. [Report] presented to the Ministry of Science and the National Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness (Hebrew). http://mapi.gov.il/earthquake/documents/havilotmdn.pdf. Accessed 16.11.2016

  • Nelson AC, French SP (2002) Plan quality and mitigating damage from natural disasters: a case study of the Northridge earthquake with planning policy considerations. J Am Plan As 68:194–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness [NSCEP] (2011) A preparedness framework for calamitous earthquakes in Israel. Prime Minister’s Office, Jerusalem (Hebrew)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozcebe G, Ersoy U, Tankut T, Gulkan P, Sucuoglu H, Wasti T, Bousias SN (2004) Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings. http://www.seru.metu.edu.tr/sfp977231/docs/231_prop%20.pdf. Accessed 16.11.2016

  • Ozdemir O, Yilmaz C (2011) Factors affecting risk mitigation revisited: the case of earthquake in Turkey. J Risk Res 14(1):17–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28(2–3):211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petal MA (2004) Urban disaster mitigation and preparedness: the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles

  • Prater CS, Lindell MK (2000) Politics of hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards Rev 1(2):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (2012) Summary of CA programs: enforcement. 27 Sept. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021959.pdf. Accessed 16.11.2016

  • Seismic Safety Commission (SSC) (2006) Status of the unreinforced masonry building law. http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC%202006%20URM%20Report%20Final.pdf. Accessed 26.6.2017

  • Smyth AW, Altay G, Deodatis G, Erdik M, Franco G, Gulkan P, Yuzugullu O (2004) Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey. Earthq Spectra 20(1):171–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool BK, Saunders H (2014) Competing policy packages and the complexity of energy security. Energy 67:641–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence R (2004) Risk and regulation: can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural disasters? Build Res Inf 32(5):391–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence R (2007) Saving lives in earthquakes: successes and failures in seismic protection since 1960. B Earthq Eng 5(2):139–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg M, Burby R (2002) Growing safe want to battle natural hazards? start with your local plan. Plan Chic 68(4):22–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Taeihagh A, Bañares-Alcántara R, Givoni M (2014) A virtual environment for the formulation of policy packages. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 60:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney K (2005) Effective strategies for hazard assessment and loss reduction: the importance of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder CO. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.112.7480&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 16.11.2016

  • Turner F (2006). Unreinforced masonry building collapse mitigation in California. Paper presented at 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

  • UNISDR (2015) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR2015_EN.pdf. Accessed 25.6.2017

  • Vaziri P, Davidson RA, Nozick LK, Hosseini M (2010) Resource allocation for regional earthquake risk mitigation: a case study of Tehran, Iran. Nat Hazards 53(3):527–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei HH, Skibniewski M, Shohet IM, Aharonson-Daniel L, Levi T, Levy R, Shapira S, Levi O, Bar-Dayan Y, Isaac S (2014) Earthquake loss assessment for a region with moderate seismicity: the case of Tiberias, Israel. In: Proceedings of the 2014 creative construction conference, June 21–24, Prague, pp 532–538

  • Weimer LD, Vining AR (1999) Policy analysis: concepts and practice. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshimura M, Meguro K (2004) Proposal of retrofitting promotion system for low earthquake-resistant structures in earthquake prone countries. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, 1–6 Aug, Vancouver. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_927.pdf. Accessed 16.11.2016

  • Zohar M, Marco S (2012) Re-estimating the epicenter of the 1927 Jericho earthquake using spatial distribution of intensity data. J Appl Geophys 82:19–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology, Grant # 3-4169. The authors would like to thank the participants in the expert workshops and especially Yael Kilgman, Amnon Reichman, Igal Shohat and Amir Yahav for their advice and input with regard to the policy packages formation process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federmann School of Public Policy and Government, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel

    Ehud Segal

  2. School of Public Health, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave., Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel

    Maya Negev

  3. Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905, Jerusalem, Israel

    Eran Feitelson

  4. School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W Campbell Rd, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA

    Danielle Zaychik

Authors
  1. Ehud Segal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maya Negev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eran Feitelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Danielle Zaychik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maya Negev.

Appendix I: policy tools

Appendix I: policy tools

  1. 1.

    Require retrofitting by legislation.

  2. 2.

    Mapping: detailed mapping of the condition of buildings constructed before 1980.

  3. 3.

    Require engineering inspection and evaluation and cost estimate of retrofitting.

  4. 4.

    Establish a retrofitting code that allows partial fulfillment of the standards by taking into account effectiveness.

  5. 5.

    Coordinate with government efforts to reduce protection disparities.

  6. 6.

    Prioritize according to seismic vulnerability.

  7. 7.

    Assign buildings to one of three categories:

    1. a.

      Buildings that it is not feasible to retrofit—demolish and rebuild.

    2. b.

      Buildings that should be strengthened—retrofit to the extent that it is effective.

    3. c.

      Buildings in satisfactory condition—retrofit only if effective.

  8. 8.

    Appoint a committee to coordinate between demolish/rebuild in the periphery and giving incentives in high demand areas (rights in the central region, tax incentives).

  9. 9.

    Certify state-of-the-art technologies, such as hardening walls, diagonals, restrainers.

  10. 10.

    Develop prefabricated retrofit methods for engineers including bureaucratic certification.

  11. 11.

    Train engineers.

  12. 12.

    Legal protection to insure engineer’s responsibility.

  13. 13.

    Establish a national authority similar to the urban renewal authority.

  14. 14.

    Establish a government body to manage retrofitting and to deal with disasters, mass burials, strengthening infrastructure, etc., similar to the US Federal Emergency Management Agency.

  15. 15.

    Transfer responsibility to local authorities and establish a local authority in conjunction with the municipal economic corporation.

  16. 16.

    Transfer responsibility to a regional framework as an association of cities (perhaps an option for small municipalities).

  17. 17.

    Provide guidance to tenants in dealing with contractors.

  18. 18.

    Manage retrofit through an external third party—the tenants should not have to deal with finding and supervising a contractor.

  19. 19.

    Cycle of momentum—demolish/rebuild (the government builds new buildings/neighborhoods, transfers tenants to them, and then builds for other tenants on their land, etc.)

  20. 20.

    Place legal responsibility on the local authority.

  21. 21.

    Create a dedicated budget for local authorities to provide grants and economic incentives.

  22. 22.

    Develop program for information dissemination and organizational development among authorities.

  23. 23.

    Strengthen supervisory mechanisms in the local authorities.

  24. 24.

    Develop administrative authorities in the neighborhoods.

  25. 25.

    Give loans for retrofitting with sanctions for failure to repay, such as a warning in the Land Registration Office that would require the purchaser to repay.

  26. 26.

    Exemption/reduced fee for taxes and licences.

  27. 27.

    Loans with low interest for purchase and renovation/improved mortgages.

  28. 28.

    Subsidize costs.

  29. 29.

    Reduce municipal and local taxes.

  30. 30.

    Reduce income tax—credits/negative income tax for renovators.

  31. 31.

    Subsidize cost of engineering inspection.

  32. 32.

    Provide engineering inspection through a public body (the army home front command).

  33. 33.

    Reduce insurance premiums by law.

  34. 34.

    Determine realistic insurance and a response to the situation where not all tenants are insured, by allowing exchange of apartment location.

  35. 35.

    Post signs on vulnerable structures.

  36. 36.

    Notes on the deed.

  37. 37.

    Warnings about noncompliance with retrofitting and hearings.

  38. 38.

    Collect payments from homeowners and issue fines for noncompliance.

  39. 39.

    File misdemeanor charges.

  40. 40.

    Foreclosure/place liens on property.

  41. 41.

    Involve the public in policy and planning/implementation and hold meetings with residential committees and organization.

  42. 42.

    Provide information on the importance of retrofitting.

  43. 43.

    Conduct a pilot project subsidized by the government.

  44. 44.

    Tenders for credit to contractors.

  45. 45.

    Create a fund to finance NOP 38 through a tender—income from the interest will be used in the periphery (equity of allocation).

  46. 46.

    Tax credits for entrepreneurs/contractors.

  47. 47.

    Information booklet about retrofitting prepared by the state or the local authority (one-time cost).

  48. 48.

    Create government fund to subsidize retrofitting from house insurance premiums.

  49. 49.

    Give priority access to funds for retrofitting in the periphery by curtailing other projects aimed at strengthening the periphery (train to Beit She’an).

  50. 50.

    Investment by institutional bodies.

  51. 51.

    Transfer rights through NOP 38 for structures in the periphery requiring retrofitting by giving rights to areas in high demand.

  52. 52.

    Develop a retrofit government program (through a government corporation or the Ministry of Construction and Housing).

  53. 53.

    Establish an appropriate and effective legal framework.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Segal, E., Negev, M., Feitelson, E. et al. Devising ‘policy packages’ for seismic retrofitting of residences. Nat Hazards 89, 497–519 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2978-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2978-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation