Tuesday, January 9, 2024

Learn from 2024 Japan Earthquake

What could governments and aid agencies learn from the recent Japan Earthquake? With a magnitude of Mw 7.5, the earthquake took over 100 lives[i], and 1,370 houses were damaged[ii]. Those numbers may increase as evacuation and assessment are ongoing. Compared with other earthquakes, the casualties and damage are more minor, for instance, on an earthquake with a similar magnitude, Hebei, China, 1976. 242,719 people lost their lives, and 85 percent of the buildings in Tangshan collapsed or were rendered unusable[iii]. Izmit, Türkiye, 1999, 17,127 people died, and 127,251 buildings were damaged, with at least 60,434 others collapsed[iv]. Lastly, in West Sumatera, Indonesia 2009, took 1,115 lives and 181,665 buildings were damaged on various levels[v].

Following the West Sumatra earthquake, the slogan "earthquake don't kill people, but poorly built houses do" was introduced. Still, sadly, the slogan has a slight effect on the changing of attitude and construction practices. Meanwhile, Japanese engineers and their government consistently build safer cities by improving and enforcing building codes, innovating to reduce earthquake impact, and working on meticulous detail on the connection of construction elements. The video shows the buildings withstand cyclic earthquake load, proving their work was successful. However, don’t just copy their technology, which can make the structure flexible and reduce the impact of earthquakes using the damper. It is not as simple as that. We should learn the whole concept and apply every detail to achieve structure ductility, which prevents catastrophic failure.

Reflecting on how the Japanese did on a safer built environment, we should ask what our priorities are in house provision: affordable houses or safer ones.

Therefore, at least 3 things governments and aid agencies could collaborate on. Consistently improving building code, enforcing and campaigning that people would abide by, to begin with. Aid agencies that provide shelter and housing assistance following the disaster should encourage homeowners to prioritize safety over other aspects. This can be implemented through messaging and training of builders and homeowners. The challenging part is ensuring that the training can change the poor construction practices to new ones that abide by the code. It needs consistent coaching and monitoring.

Second, opening the channel for financing. Those who don’t have sound finances will impede retrofitting or rebuilding seismic resistance houses. For instance, banks still see retrofitting funds as not feasible since retrofitting costs should be around 30% compared to the cost of a new building house. Meanwhile, the effort cost for marketing and repayment are the same. The loan also needed to purchase proper quality building materials instead of cheap but poor ones.

Lastly, income improvement in the area should be made to complete the ecosystem[vi] . Non-housing agencies should contribute; otherwise, the abovementioned efforts cannot be achieved without economic improvement.

Arwin Soelaksono


 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)