| 008 |
|
130507n^^^^^^^^xx^||||^o^^^^^|||^0^eng^d |
| 245 |
00 |
|a Disaster risk reduction and the evolution of physical development regulation |h [electronic resource] |y English. |
| 260 |
|
|a London : |b Taylor & Francis, |c 2011. |
| 506 |
|
|a Refer to main document/publisher for use rights. |
| 510 |
|
|a Krimgold, F. (2011). Disaster risk reduction and the evolution of physical development regulation. Environmental Hazards 10 (1): 53-58. |
| 520 |
3 |
|a This document discusses the disjuncture between the substantial progress made in hazard and risk mapping, land-use management, and building design since the 1984 Ocho Rios Conference on disaster risk mitigation, and current failures in development regulation. It outlines a number of novel approaches to regulatory compliance needed to bridge the gap between our understanding of risk, available risk reduction strategies, and our actions in urban development. The 1984 Ocho Rios Conference was pivotal in highlighting options available to societies as far as mitigating the devastating effects of disaster. Today, nearly all populated regions of the world have been preliminarily mapped for hazards, while standards exist for almost every form of construction. Despite these advances, the author uses the divergent impacts of Hurricane Luis in September 1995 on two sides of one island, Saint Martin/Sint Maarten, to illustrate how differences in regulatory frameworks are leading to differences in the impact of natural hazards. On Dutch Sint Maarten, multiple building design standards, and the contracting of regulation out to private companies, led to significant disaster losses, while on French Saint Martin, construction conformed to French standards and was strictly regulated by its Bureaux de Contrôle, thus losses were minor in comparison. The author believes that attention to regulatory processes in the construction industry has been ignored due to the currently dominant emphasis on free market economic principles, which neglect the role of government regulation in managing risks. Other factors include a lack of resources in developing countries to attract qualified personnel at the local level, the corruptibility of those who do become regulators, and the control that building owners and developers often have over local governments. The author contends that advocates must inform stakeholders that increased costs necessary to improve the quality of construction will be negligible when compared to the costs of disasters if nothing is done. Education must focus on developing a culture of appreciation and acceptance by society, the private sector, and government of the need for a standard of safety, making regulation the responsibility of the entire community. Emphasis should be placed on improving compliance through education and correction of errors, rather than punishment. A public knowledgeable of safe building practices can serve as monitoring agents, bringing popular judgment to bear on the non-compliant, while building owners and developers cognizant of the business rationale for improving construction standards can become powerful allies. |
| 520 |
0 |
|a Disaster Risk Reduction |
| 533 |
|
|a Electronic reproduction. |c Florida International University, |d 2013. |f (dpSobek) |n Mode of access: World Wide Web. |n System requirements: Internet connectivity; Web browser software. |
| 650 |
1 |
|a Natural disasters |x Maps. |
| 710 |
2 |
|a Disaster Risk Reduction Program, Florida International University (DRR/FIU), |e summary contributor. |
| 856 |
40 |
|u http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI13042146/00001 |y Click here for full text |
| 992 |
04 |
|a http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/13/04/21/46/00001/FI13042146_thm.jpg |
