This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]

On: 22 August 2015, At: 01:09

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick
Place, London, SW1P 1WG

International Journal of Construction Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-Engineered

Buildings: A Study of Design and Construction
Practices in Indonesia
a

Setya Winarno , Alan Griffith & Paul Stephenson

a

Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

Division of Built Environment, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK. Email:

Published online: 10 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Setya Winarno, Alan Griffith & Paul Stephenson (2010) Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-Engineered
Buildings: A Study of Design and Construction Practices in Indonesia, International Journal of Construction Management,
10:1, 75-86, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2010.10773139
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2010.10773139

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The International Journal of Construction Management (2010) Vol. 10 No.1, 75-86

REDUCING EARTHQUAKE RISK TO NON-ENGINEERED

BUILDINGS: A STUDY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICES IN INDONESIA
Setya WINARNO1, Alan GRIFFITH2 and Paul STEPHENSON2
1

Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

Division of Built Environment, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Email: A.Griffith@shu.ac.uk

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

Abstract
This paper reports on a research study which examined the technical and societal-human
elements significant to seismic risk reduction for non-engineered buildings. The aim was
to explore the potential for reducing earthquake risk to non-engineered buildings within the
context of design and construction practices in Indonesia. 'Non-engineered' buildings were
defined as unsystematically designed and poorly built structures. These buildings are
particularly susceptible to earthquakes and dominate construction indigenous to Indonesia
and other parts of the Asia Pacific region. A better understanding of both the technical and
human elements impacting on the design and construction of non-engineered buildings will
enable earthquake risk reduction measures to be developed in Indonesia. Moreover,
knowledge and capabilities developed there will be of interest throughout the Asia-Pacific
region.
Keywords
Building codes, earthquakes, non-engineered buildings, risk reduction.

INTRODUCTION
Approximately ninety per cent of the world's earthquakes occur within the Circum-Pacific
Belt, more commonly referred to as the 'Ring of Fire'. With its most southerly point
enveloping New Zealand, the belt incorporates almost all of the developed countries of the
Asia Pacific Rim before moving upwards through Japan and extending across the Pacific
Ocean to the North and South Americas. Indonesia lies firmly within the Circum-Pacific
Belt. Approximately two-thirds of the major cities in Indonesia are located in regions
which are considered to have a 'relatively high' to 'very high' risk of earthquake (IUDMP,
2000; 2001). In and around these cities, tens of thousands of buildings and homes,
together with associated community and transport infrastructures, have been destroyed in
recent earthquake disasters (BEPPENAS, 2005; 2006).
The effects of earthquakes, whilst ordinarily devastating, can be particularly catastrophic in
Indonesia because many buildings and structures are not intrinsically designed and
constructed to be earthquake resistant (CEEDEDS, 2004). Moreover, many collapsed and
heavily damaged buildings, in particular domestic dwellings, are of low cost construction
in poorer communities (BAPPENAS, 2006). The singular characteristic of such buildings
is that they are 'non-engineered' - in simple terms, unsystematically designed and poorly
built structures. In city and urban areas, non-engineered buildings can be high-rise and

76
Winarno, Griffith and Stephenson

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

constructed from concrete or structural masonry while in rural and coastal locations
construction tends to be low-rise using wood or lightweight masonry (Boen, 1978: Sarwidi,
2001). Non-engineered buildings proliferate throughout Indonesia, in particular in coastal
regions. They are especially vulnerable to offshore tremors and tsunamis, exemplified by
the 2004 'Aceh' disaster (BAPPENAS, 2005). In some cities, over eighty per cent of all
buildings and domestic dwellings are non-engineered (Winarno et al., 2007). Such an
approach to building is not confined to Indonesia.
Non-engineered construction is
prominent throughout Nepal, India, the Philippines, and developing countries in the AsiaPacific region.
Risk reduction through the application and enforcement of earthquake-resistant, or seismic,
building codes to non-engineered construction works is absolutely essential to safeguard
this building type from earthquake events (Shah, 2002). Appropriate codes exist in
Indonesia, however, their use in the design of buildings can be infrequent, inconsistent and
ineffective.
Furthermore, building regulation can be haphazard leading to poor
construction practices. It is no surprise therefore that poor performance in non-engineered
buildings is so clearly manifest. The management of earthquake disasters in Indonesia has
tended to adopt response mechanisms following each individual event.
Little
consideration has been paid to risk reduction through the development-planning, design,
construction and control of non-engineered buildings. Similarly, little has been done to
raise general awareness among communities, builders, owners and occupiers (Comfort,
1999: Ngoedijo, 2003: ISDR, 2003).
Earthquake risk reduction is concerned with not only technical interventions but a plethora
of societal human responses (Petak, 2002: Wenzel, 2006). This paper reports on a
research study (Winarno, 2007) which examined technical and human elements significant
to seismic risk reduction for non-engineered buildings (SRRNEB). The aim was to explore
the potential for reducing earthquake risk to non-engineered buildings within the context of
design and building practices in Indonesia. The study employed a triangulated qualitativequantitative approach using secondary data from the Asia-Pacific region together with
primary data gathered by a questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews with participants
to the design, construction and building legislative processes. A better understanding of
both the technical and human elements involved in the performance of non-engineered
construction in earthquake situations will enable appropriate risk reduction measures to be
developed in Indonesia. The transferable knowledge and experiences reflected in this
paper will be of considerable interest throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE

RESEARCH
A 'non-engineered' building is, in simple terms, an unsystematically designed and poorly
built structure (Winarno, 2007). Such construction is typically undertaken by small
builders and self-builders using techniques reflecting local traditions, customs and
practices This does not involve the input of qualified designers, engineers or construction
professionals. In Indonesia, non-engineered buildings dominate the rural, coastal and
residential areas of almost all major cities (CEEDEDS, 2004). Despite the inherent
hazards of such construction, non-engineered buildings continue to proliferate within low
income and low-to-medium income populations due to increasing pressures for more
affordable basic housing (Sarwidi, 2001). Some illustrations of non-engineered buildings
are shown in Appendix II.

77
Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-engineered Buildings : A Study of Design and
Construction Practices in Indonesia

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

To ensure the intrinsic earthquake resistance of non-engineered buildings, earthquake, or

seismic, related building codes need to be implemented, as the norm, during design and
construction. Construction conforming to these codes improves the behaviour of structures
in extreme ground movement situations such as those experienced during earthquake
events. Such applications are routine in the more developed countries of the Asia Pacific
region such as Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong.
In Indonesia, seismic-related
building codes have existed since the late 1970s (Boen, 1978). However, their use has
been inconsistent and therefore ineffective. This has been due chiefly to the lack of
awareness of the codes themselves accompanied by poor building control procedures.
Clearly, there is a gap between the existing knowledge base and its application (Comartin
et al., 2004). A better understanding of the design and construction of non-engineered
buildings will enable more useful and effective earthquake risk reduction measures to be
developed in Indonesia.
The findings of this paper may be of interest not only to
practitioners of Indonesian construction but to those in countries throughout the Asia
Pacific region.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE STUDY

Aim
The aim of the research study was to examine the potential for reducing earthquake, or
seismic, risk to non-engineered buildings within the context of current construction
practice in Indonesia.
Objectives
Underpinning the aim of the research study, the main objectives were:

1. To identify the key characteristics of the regulatory, technical and social

dimensions of current building practices that generate risk to non-engineered
buildings in earthquake situations;
2. To examine the perspectives and views of key stakeholders in relation to the
identified characteristics to be considered when reducing risk to non-engineered
buildings;
3. To highlight the principal reasons why the appropriate building codes are not
applied more readily to non-engineered buildings;
4. To propose actions to improve the design and construction of non-engineered
buildings.
Methodology
The methodology involved a triangulated qualitative-quantitative approach. Information
and data was gathered from secondary and primary sources. This involved the review of a
wide range of literature from the Asia-Pacific region and wider international sources
together with a detailed structured questionnaire survey of building practice in Indonesia, a
series of in-depth interviews with multidisciplinary stakeholders and the acquisition of case
studies. The approach to questioning within these data groups enabled each of the

78
Winarno, Griffith and Stephenson

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

research objectives to be explicitly fulfilled. Quantitative data was collated and analyzed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to provide inferential ranking
and correlation of responses {Spearman 'rho'}. Qualitative data was processed using
NVivo software to code prominent patterns in the views and opinions of the respondents.
Using these methods, trends in the quantitative and qualitative data could be established
and integrated to highlight those key elements exposed by the responses.
Research Respondents
It was essential that suitable respondents were identified when gathering the primary data.
The input of the key multidisciplinary stakeholders was necessary to ensure appropriate
data was collected. This necessitated the inclusion of those who are engaged in the design
and construction of non-engineered buildings together with those with experience of the
impacts upon these types of buildings from earthquake events. Literature from research in
Indonesia (IUDMP, 2001; GREAT, 2001; SCEC, 2002; Dixit, 2003; CEEDEDS, 2004)
suggested that appropriate participants should include nine groups of multidisciplinary
stakeholders: (i) researchers/scientists; (ii) small and medium contractors; (iii) construction
supervisors; (iv) government officials; (v) business leaders; (vi) academics/educators; (vii)
non-government organizations; (viii) community leaders; and (ix) media reporters. The
appropriateness of each respondent was determined by their role, responsibilities and
normal activities within their own organization and the level of experience in the specific
subject.
Data Collection and Handling
The survey questionnaire was distributed to 875 multi-disciplinary stakeholders involved
with non-engineered buildings. 305 usable responses were returned; a 35% response rate.
The survey asked respondents to consider and value key characteristics identified from the
literature review. These statements were presented as statements. The respondants were
asked to rate the characteristics for importance on a five-point bi-polar, or Likert, scale.
Statistically, the mean score of each characteristic was calculated and ordered by highest
score. A Spearman 'rho' test was undertaken to examine the relationships between
different stakeholder groups within the total body of respondents with an output limit of
95% confidence. High ranking pairs of characteristics from any one stakeholder group
were seen to correspond with high rankings in other groups. The prominent characteristics
identified could be said to be a reliable outcome of the respondents' considerations. The
questionnaire survey was followed by a series of semi-structured interviews with 9
respondents, reflecting each of the 9 stakeholder groups.
These allowed detailed
discussion of individual experiences and a more enhanced understanding of events, issues
and concerns. Although, the findings are well grounded in the primary data, they should
not be held to be wholly typical of design and construction practices throughout Indonesia.
They allow, however, an indicative perspective to be formed which give validity to the
findings and conclusions made in this paper.

FINDINGS
The findings from the study address each of the four research objectives in turn:
(1)
Key elements within the regulatory, technical and social dimensions of
building practice in Indonesia that generate risk to non-engineered buildings in
earthquake regions;

79
Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-engineered Buildings : A Study of Design and
Construction Practices in Indonesia

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

The data collection, described earlier, highlighted fifty-seven key characteristics,

associated with the consideration of seismic risk reduction (see Appendix I). These
included fifteen technical interventions and forty-two non-technical aspects, predominantly
human responses. These characteristics formed sensibly into twelve groups: (i) hazard
analysis; (ii) risk assessment; (iii) policy and planning; (iv) legal and regulatory framework;
(v) organization structure; (vi) resources; (vii) information management and
communication; (viii) education and training; (ix) public awareness; (x) research; (xi)
social and economic development practices; and (xii) physical measures.
The data
obtained reflected the respondents views and opinions of the importance of the
characteristics within and across the groups, highlighting elements to which particular
attention is given when considering risk reduction.
Prominent technical characteristics include: 'information on earthquake occurrence,
scenario and impacts' which falls into the group denoted hazard analysis; 'inventory data on
geology' which falls within the risk assessment group; 'the development and enforcement
of building codes' which comes in the legal and regulatory framework group; and
'development planning' within the policy and planning group of elements. Prominent nontechnical, or human response, characteristics include: 'resource mobilization' which falls
into the resources group; 'coordination of government bodies' which comes within
organization structure; 'awareness enhancement' within the group education and training;
and 'dissemination of indigenous knowledge' which comes within the public awareness
grouping. Respondents were clear that while the technical characteristics were vitally
important, well known and understood; the non-technical characteristics were also
considered prerequisite but were generally less well appreciated and understood. When
considered as groups of characteristics it was seen that respondents assigned higher priority
to technical interventions than non-technical human orientated characteristics. This likely
occurs due to greater familiarity and experience with technical characteristics. Respondents
may also have felt more comfortable highlighting aspects for which they hold less direct
responsibility.
(2)
Perspectives of key stakeholders in relation to the importance of the identified
characteristics to be considered important to reducing risk to non-engineered
buildings;
The data highlighted a number of influential perspectives of the key stakeholders, as
follows:

Limited knowledge
Inability or unwillingness to share knowledge
Reliance on traditional and familiar viewpoints

Developing links between scientific, subject-specific and personal knowledge develops a

capacity to shift latent knowledge to dynamic action and disseminate experiences to a
wider audience. It became clear from the respondents that this was not happening. Instead,
understanding and activity was locally based in terms of geography and people with little,
if any, widespread dissemination. As such, a piecemeal approach was being taken in all
respects with no sharing of learnt lessons at community, local or national levels. This
means that technical interventions were considered first and foremost because of
familiarity and tradition while non-technical aspects were ignored through lack of

80
Winarno, Griffith and Stephenson

knowledge and understanding. Many respondents reported that technical knowledge and
capabilities rested with the building contractors tradesmen and that there was a natural
reluctance to share information with other stakeholders in the building process. As such,
inappropriate practices would go unnoticed or unregulated. Essentially earthquake
resistance was not in-built but either consciously or unconsciously omitted.
(3)
Principal reasons why seismic-related building codes are not applied more
readily to non-engineered buildings;

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

The data highlighted three key factors of influence explaining why appropriate building
codes are not applied more readily to non-engineered buildings:
Lack of knowledge by building contractors
Lack of earthquake data
Lack of understanding of the Governments role
Respondents suggested that a prominent reason for not applying seismic building codes
more readily was that those tradespersons involved in constructing residential dwellings
simply do not know how to build an earthquake resistant structure. The quality of
workmanship was largely dependent upon the inherent practices of individuals who relied
upon custom and tradition rather than reference to building standards and specifications.
The lack of technical knowledge matched by relevant skill-sets was highlighted as a major
shortcoming.
It was also clear that difficulties emerged from the lack of general information on
earthquake likelihood and location. Scientific information on local geological conditions
and seismic history clearly exists yet its availability was lacking and inclusion in local
planning absent. This meant that community and regulatory awareness was at a low level
and seismic information ignored when planning residential building development.
A lack of awareness of the specific and wider roles of government bodies was also
highlighted. Regulation and control of building activity was seen to be weak such that
compliance with building codes is not well monitored and enforced. Also, government
policies appeared to be far removed from those difficulties explicitly associated with nonengineered construction and the activities of the stakeholders involved. Government bodies
have tended to remain somewhat distant from the real issues; information management and
communication, and organization structure. Thus widespread education and training has
become stifled.
All of this has meant that awareness, knowledge and understanding of building codes has
really remained at a low level and their application to design and enforcement during
construction has not been widespread or effective.
(4)
Actions which might be taken to improve practices in the design and
construction of non- engineered buildings.
The data highlighted many key areas where positive action might be taken to improve
practice. These involve important contributions from each of the stakeholder groups and
the careful and comprehensive consideration required for and across the many elements
identified. The prominent actions are that:

81
Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-engineered Buildings : A Study of Design and
Construction Practices in Indonesia

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

The Government (local and national) must take a prominent, stronger and leading
role in ensuring pre-emptive management of earthquake-resistant design and
construction;
There must be frequent, timely and reliable information on earthquake risk
available to building stakeholders through effective communication mechanisms;
A robust framework of risk assessment must be a part of building legislature,
regulation and building control;
There must be more effective control of on-site construction practices to ensure
rigorous adherence to building codes;
Risk reduction for non-engineered buildings, and indeed for all construction, must
become an intrinsic part of development policies;
Designers and builders must have the necessary knowledge and competences to
deliver earthquake-resistant construction end-products;
Earthquake-related technology and practice must evolve through appropriate
education and training routes;
Greater awareness of earthquake-related matters must be ensured by all
stakeholders to the building processes, and from a broader perspective there must
be greater owner, occupier and widespread public awareness;
Research must form the core of inter-related interests in building-related earthquake
science, technology, policy, legislature, procedures and practices.

The findings revealed that the routine role, rather than the exceptional role, of government
is becoming increasing critical to the matter of earthquake response. Also, the role of the
builder, whether they are self-builders or speculative-builders, in non-engineered
construction was seen to be vitally important. Seismic risk is a reality for those who live
in earthquake-prone areas and the occurrence of a seismic event is not always predictable
or avoidable. People have no option but to live as harmoniously as one can with the risk.
In this sense, a good awareness of those risks together with a better understanding of
earthquake phenomena and characteristics is of the highest importance, underlying those
initiatives which seek to reduce apparent risk.
Earthquake data in Indonesia is available to key government staff, select researchers, and
subject specialists, but it is not widespread among local building practitioners or
community stakeholders. Public institutions, the wider population and local communities
appear to have a low level of awareness of risk and do not have an affordable means to
reduce it and negate the risk, leading to lack of preparedness toward disaster.
Moreover, the primary data highlighted that to break the reluctance of communities to
implement seismic codes, the decision makers cannot simply give seismic code manuals or
practical training to local builders and expect them to be rigorously implemented. If local
populations have a greater awareness of potential risk, equipped with better understanding
of appropriate data, they will be in a position to strive to implement building codes
voluntarily.

APPLICATION
It is too early in the development process of formalising the key considerations for
reducing seismic risk to non-engineered buildings in Indonesia to review their application

82
Winarno, Griffith and Stephenson

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

to practice. Notwithstanding, the study did incorporate a number of research workshops

with stakeholder groups. These examined the appropriateness and impact of the key
characteristics identified and how, in parts and at various levels, they might be translated
into practical applications. At a community level it was suggested that a best-practice
earthquake resistant house model could be established to assist self-builders and small
builders appreciate the benefits available from appropriate construction methods. At an
administrative level it was suggested that a media-friendly awareness and education
package be developed. This would play an important role in disseminating the message of
earthquake-resistant design and construction to consultants, developers and building
regulators. For the future it was suggested that the key characteristics of earthquakeresistant construction highlighted might be refined to a form where they could be
incorporated into local, and later regional and national, programmes of formal risk
management.

CONCLUSIONS
Earthquakes are a feared yet accepted phenomenon, posing a real threat for almost all
Indonesian communities. This threat is related intrinsically and directly to the vulnerable
geology of the region and therefore earthquake risk is ever present. The Indonesian
population have little choice but to live as harmoniously as possible with the high level of
risk as earthquakes can occur at any time and without warning. When earthquakes do
occur their effects are catastrophic, bringing destruction and loss of life, particularly to
highly populated communities where non-engineered building is the indigenous form of
construction for residential dwellings.
The application of earthquake-resistant, or seismic, building codes to non-engineered
construction is absolutely essential to improve the safety of people and property in
earthquake regions.
This paper has shown that the detailed examination of nonengineered design and construction together with a greater appreciation of the underlying
dynamics of stakeholder perspectives and actions will allow the elements significant to
earthquake risk reduction as applied to non-engineered buildings to be better understood.
Applying the appropriate combination of technical and human interventions to earthquake
events will, over time, facilitate the development of better risk reduction measures. Thus
the effective implementation of earthquake compatible building codes can become intrinsic
to Indonesian construction practice.

REFERENCES
BAPPENAS/National Development Planning Agency, (2005). Preliminary Damage and
Loss Assessment: The 2004 Natural Disaster. The Consultative Group of Indonesia,
Jakarta.
BAPPENAS/National Development Planning Agency, (2006). Preliminary Damage and
Loss Assessment: Yogyakarta and Central Java Natural Disaster. The Consultative
Group of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Boen, T. (1978). Detailers Manual for Small Buildings in Earthquake Areas (Manual
Bangunan Tahan Gempa (Rumah Tinggal)), Yayasan Lembaga Penyelidikan Masalah
Bangunan, Bandung, Indonesia.
CEEDEDS/The Center for Earthquake Engineering, Dynamic Effect, and Disaster Studies
(2004). The Manual of Earthquake Resistant Building; Project Report Between
CEEDEDS and Government of Japan. Yogyakarta.

83

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-engineered Buildings : A Study of Design and

Construction Practices in Indonesia

Comartin, C., Brzev, S., Naeim, F., Greene, M., Blondet, M., Cherry, S., DAyala, D.,
Farsi, M., Jain, S, K.,
Pantelic, J., Samant, L., Sassu, M. (2004). A Challenge to
Earthquake Engineering Professionals. Earthquake Spectra, 20, (4). Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
Comfort, L.K. (1999). Shared Risk: Complex Systems in Seismic Response. PergamonElsevier Science Ltd., Netherlands.
Dixit, A.M. (2003). The Community Based Program of NSET for Earthquake Disaster
Mitigation. The International Conference on Total Disaster Risk Management, Nepal.
GREAT/Gujarat Relief Engineering Advice Team (2001). Repair and Strengthening Guide
for Earthquake Damaged Low-Rise Domestic Buildings in Gujarat, India. GREAT
Publications India.
ISDR/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2003). Rationale Paper on the
Framework for Guidance and Monitoring of Disaster Risk Reduction. Inter-Agency
Task Force Meeting, Eighth Meeting, Geneva. www.unisdr.org
IUDMP/Indonesian Urban Disaster Mitigation Project (2000). Report of the Visit to
Bengkulu Earthquake
Stricken Area. Institut Teknologi Bandung and Asian
Disaster Preparedness Centre.
IUDMP/Indonesian Urban Disaster Mitigation Project (2001). Increasing the Safety of
Indonesian Cities from Earthquake Disaster Threat. Asian Disaster Preparedness
Center.
Ngoedijo, W. (2003). An Overview of Disaster Mitigation in Local Planning and
Programming in Decentralized Indonesia. Asian Regional Conference on Urban
Infrastructure Financing and Disaster Mitigation, Sri Lanka
Petak, W. (2002). Managing Risk in a Complex Environment with Competing Worldviews.
Extreme Events Workshop, California.
Sarwidi (2001). Reconnaissance Team CEEDEDS, The Center for Earthquake Engineering,
Dynamic Effect, and Disaster Studies, Yogyakarta.
SCEC/Southern California Earthquake Center (2002). Earthquake as Extreme Events.
Extreme Events Workshop, California.
Shah, H.C. (2002). Earthquake Risk Management: A Crucial Ingredient in Reducing
Death, Injury and Economic Disruptions. Risk Management Solutions, India.
Wenzel, F. (2006). Earthquake Risk Reduction - Obstacles and Opportunities. European
Review. 14 (2), 221-231.
Winarno, S., Griffith, A. and Stephenson, P. (2007). A Framework for Guiding and
Monitoring Seismic Risk Reduction of Non-Engineered Buildings. UK GRAD
Research Networking Competition Final research poster presentation, Carnegie
Stadium, Headingley, Leeds.
Winarno, S. (2007). Seismic Risk Management of Non-Engineered Buildings. Unpublished
PhD thesis, Division of Built Environment, Sheffield Hallam University.

84
Winarno, Griffith and Stephenson

Appendix I: Key characteristics associated with effective earthquake risk reduction

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Core Area: Seismic Hazard Analysis
1. Earthquake occurrence data
2. Earthquake scenario data
3. Earthquake scenario data (probabilistic)
Core Area: Seismic Risk Assessment
4. Inventory data: geology/soil profiles and buildings
5. Building fragility curves
6. Damage assessment
Core Area: Policy and Planning
7. Risk reduction as a policy priority
8. Integration of risk reduction with planning
9. Responsibilities for risk reduction
Core Area: Legal and Regulatory Framework
10. Seismic codes
11. Laws and regulations
12. Compliance and enforcement (developers / builders)
13. Compliance and enforcement (financial institutions)
14. Compliance and enforcement (building control)
15. Certification systems
16. Responsibility and accountability
Core Area: Organisational Structure
17. Implementing and coordinating bodies
18. Intra- and inter-ministerial mechanisms
19. Civil society, private sector and community participation (consultations)
20. Civil society, private sector and community participation (activities)
Core Area: Resources
21 Resource mobilisation (disaster management office)
22. Resource mobilisation (budget allocation)
23. Resource mobilisation (staffing)
24. Resource mobilisation (links with stakeholder organisations)
Core Area: Information Management and Communication
25. Information and dissemination (web sites)
26. Information and dissemination (databases)
27. Information and dissemination (grass-root discussions)
28. Networks for seismic risk management (multidisciplinary stakeholder networks)
29. Networks for seismic risk management (information centres)
30. Networks for seismic risk management (project visits for city managers)
31. Networks for seismic risk management (best practice sharing)
Core Area: Education and Training
32. Risk reduction in levels of curricula
33. Role of teachers at school level
34. Training of trainer programmes
35. Training programmes (stakeholder organisations)
36. Training programmes (apprentices)
Core Area: Public Awareness
37. Policy, programme and materials
38. Dissemination of indigenous knowledge (modes of information)
39. Dissemination of indigenous knowledge (government stakeholders)
40. Dissemination of indigenous knowledge (tradespersons)
41. Dissemination of indigenous knowledge (community)
42. Earthquake safety day
43. Documentation
Core Area: Research
44. Research into seismic codes
45. Interdisciplinary research between science and policy
46. Evaluation and feedback
47. Science and technological research (technical support)
48. Science and technological research (academic involvements)
49. Science and technological research (international research exchange)
Core Area: Social and Economic Development Practices
50. Pro-poor and sustainable livelihood strategies
51. Financial instruments (incentives)
52. Financial instruments (insurances)
Core Area: Physical Measures
53. Land use applications
54. Introduction of seismic codes in new and existing building
55. Examples of real construction (public buildings)
56. Examples of real construction (maintenance programmes)
57. Examples of real construction (low cost housing)

______________________________________________________________________________________

85
Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-engineered Buildings : A Study of Design and
Construction Practices in Indonesia
Appendix II: Some illustrations of non-engineered buildings in Indonesia

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

Figure 1: Non-engineered building: Poor quality of concrete, weak compressive strength

(Boen, 2006)

Figure 2: Non-engineered building: residential house damaged after the Majalengka

Indonesia earthquake in 2001 (Sarwidi, 2001)

86
Winarno, Griffith and Stephenson

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 01:09 22 August 2015

Figure 3: Non-engineered building: new retail building damaged after the Yogyakarta
earthquake in 2006 (Winarno, 2007)