Improving regulatory frameworks for earthquake risk mitigation

References

• Birkland, T. A.. 1998. Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 53–74. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X98000038
   Google Scholar
• Burby, R. J., & May, P. J.. 1999. Making building codes an effective tool for earthquake hazard mitigation. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 1(1), 27–37. doi: 10.1016/s1464-2867(99)00003-0. doi: 10.1016/S1464-2867(99)00003-0
   Google Scholar
• Burby, R. J., Salvesen, D., & Creed, M.. 2006. Encouraging residential rehabilitation with building codes: New Jersey experience. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 183–196. doi: 10.1080/01944360608976738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. (2012). Final report – Earthquake-prone buildings. Wellington: Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Comerio, M. C.. 2004. Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective. Building Research & Information, 32(5), 403–413. doi: 10.1080/0961321042000221052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A.. 1995. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118–143. doi: 10.1287/isre.6.2.118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Building and Housing. (2004). The Building Act. Wellington: Brookers.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Building and Housing. (2008). TA earthquake-prone buildings policy: Summary of information included in policies. Wellington: Department of Building and Housing.
   Google Scholar
• Dowrick, D. J.. (2005). Earthquake risk reduction. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Egbelakin, T., Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R., & Ingham, J. (2011a). Enhancing seismic risk mitigation decisions: a motivational approach. Construction Management and Economics, 29(10), 1003–1016. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2011.629664
   Google Scholar
• Egbelakin, T., Wilkinson, S., Potangaroa, R., & Ingham, J. M. (2011b). Challenges to successful seismic retrofit implementation: a socio-behavioural perspective. Building Research & Information, 39(3), 286–300. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2011.552264. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2011.552264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, B. J.. 2007. Disaster management in the United States: examining key political and policy challenges. Policy Studies Journal, 35(2), 227–238. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00217.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins, D.. 2005. The value of earthquake engineering. SESOC Journal, 13(2), 40–42.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, M.. (2012). Indicative CBA model for earthquake prone building review – Summary of methodology and results. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
   Google Scholar
• Lavell, A.. 1994. Prevention and mitigation of disasters in Central America: vulnerability to disasters at the local level. In Varley, A. (Ed.), Disasters, development and environment (pp. 49–63). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lindell, M., & Hwang, S.. 2008. Households' perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 539–556. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01032.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malhotra, P. K.. 2009. Should building codes target societal risk? Earthquake Spectra, 25(1), 213–217. doi: 10.1193/1.3055370. doi: 10.1193/1.3055370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, P. J.. 2001. Societal perspectives about earthquake performance: the fallacy of acceptable risk. Earthquake Spectra, 17(4), 725–737. doi: 10.1193/1.1423904
   Google Scholar
• May, P. J.. 2004. Making choices about earthquake performance. Natural Hazards Review, 5(2), 64–70. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2004)5:2(64)
   Google Scholar
• May, P., & Birkland, T.. 1994. Earthquake risk reduction: an examination of local regulatory efforts. Environmental Management, 18(6), 923–937. doi: 10.1007/bf02393621. doi: 10.1007/BF02393621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, P. J., Burby, R. J., & Kunreuther, H.. 1998. Policy design for earthquake hazard mitigation: lessons from energy conservation, radon reduction, and termite control. Earthquake Spectra, 14(4), 629–650. doi: 10.1193/1.1586019
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. (2002). Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002). Wellington: Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Retrieved from http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/memwebsite.nsflFiles/CDEMAct%20brochure/$filelCDEMAct%20brochure.pdD.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Government. (1991). Resource Management Act. Wellington: New Zealand Government.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Parliament. (1968). Municipal Corporations Act, incorporating Amendment 301A. Wellington: New Zealand Government.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Parliament. (2005). Building regulations (specified systems, change of use, and earthquake-prone buildings). Wellington: New Zealand Government.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE). (2006). Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquake. Wellington: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Standards Institute. (1935). NZSS No. 1935, Model building by-law sections I to X. Wellington: New Zealand Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Prater, C. S., & Lindell, M. K.. 2000. Politics of hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 73–82. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(73)
   Google Scholar
• Spence, R.. 2004. Risk and regulation: can improved government action reduce the impacts of natural disasters? Building Research & Information, 32(5), 391–402. doi: 10.1080/0961321042000221043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Standards Association of New Zealand. (1976). NZS 4203: Code of practice for general structural design and design loadings for buildings. Wellington, New Zealand: Standards Association of New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Standards New Zealand. (2004). NZS 1170.5:2004, Structural design actions part 5: Earthquake actions. Wellington, New Zealand: Standards New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg, M., & Burby, R. J.. 2002. Growing safe: is your comprehensive plan hazardous to your community's health? Planning Magazine, 68(2), 22–23.
   Google Scholar
• Taig, T.. (2012). A risk framework for earthquake prone building policy. Wellington: TTAC Ltd and GNS Science.
   Google Scholar