2013 EERI Annual Meeting Session: Retrofit and Rehabilitation of Vulnerable Buildings

1. Political and Policy Perspectives:
Vulnerable Buildings
Peter J. May
Donald R. Matthews Distinguished Professor of
American Politics
Center for American Politics and Policy
University of Washington

2. A Puzzle
Why don’t citizens, politicians, and
others take more seriously the risks
posed by vulnerable buildings?
Photos: The Olympian

3. The Standard Answer
They don’t know or understand the risks
Source: Seattle Times, March 3, 2001; p. B 5

4. Perhaps …
But, there are powerful other
reasons for failing to take
appropriate protective actions

5. Cognitive and Other Limits
 People under-estimate low
probabilities – round to zero
 Costly actions are required upfront
with uncertain longer term payoffs
 Actions are interdependent – why
should I do something if others
don’t?
 Other priorities, especially for firms
and governmental entities

6. A Matter of Public Concern?
Not Really: Public shows limited interest
except after events –
Source: Seattle PI, March 3, 2001; p. B3

7. What About Elected Officials?
 Limited constituency for earthquake
resilience
 Most politicians show limited
interest, although that is changing
some
 But, the issues of cost and public
safety make this an issue of relevance
to government (and others)

8. Net Effect
 There has been overall an under-
investment in protective actions that
will enhance seismic resilience
 But, various programs have been
undertaken over the years in
response to particular events
 And, there have been varied private
efforts by some building owners and
others

9. How to capitalize on all of this?
And move forward
Source: Time Magazine, March 12, 2001; p. 18

10. Critical Ingredients
 Political champions within
government
 Platform for moving ahead
 Evangelists among the engineering
and design communities
 Energy, rationale and technical basis
 First movers -- building owners who
show how seismic and other
vulnerabilities can be addressed
 Demonstration effect

11. A Basic Question Remains
How far should government go in
protecting citizens and others from
earthquake (and other) risks?

12. There is a Large Policy Toolkit
 Calling attention to the
vulnerabilities,
 Requiring building
assessments,
 Posted ratings of buildings,
 Devising voluntary risk-
reduction programs,
 Mandating required retrofits.

13. Towards a Comprehensive Approach
 Elements of each of these actions
that take into account different
types and levels of risk.
 Consider potential unintended
effects of the disruptions posed by
retrofit or other risk-reduction
programs
 Link seismic issues to broader
initiatives like the current ones in
Seattle concerning sustainability

14. Bottom Line
 None of this is easy or
automatic
 The engineering and design
community is critical for
success
 Not just in providing
analyses and advice
 But also as policy and
program advocates