| |
 |
 |
Conference Chairman:
Councilman Greig Smith
Platinum Sponsor
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
- Megacities and Earthquakes: an L.A. Story
- Life Line Security
- Methods of Preparedness
- Land Use Planning in a Seismic City
- Legislative Process
- How to Deal with What You Have
- Earthquake Technology in Disaster Management
- Creating the Great ShakeOut
Thursday, November 13, 2008
- Science of the ShakeOut
- Field trips to various locations to experience the Great Southern California ShakeOut
- “Share Fair” to exchange information with the various cities present
- Earthquake Technology: Early Warning & Prediction
- Gala Dinner
Friday, November 14, 2008
- Communicating Messages of Preparedness
- Economic & Business Recovery
- Community Resiliency
- Medical Response & recovery
- Disaster Risk Financing
more...
|
|
|
Session 1C: Disaster Risk Reduction through Land Use Planning
Private property structures in a seismically active region pose some of the greatest threats to a city’s resiliency. How can a city plan its structures, where they are located, and how they are built as they move forward? This panel also looks at the leading building codes for new construction and land use in a seismic city.
Moderator: Kenneth C. Topping, President, Topping Associates International, Presentation
Prof. Sergio Puente, Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, Presentation
Xenan Walde, Presentation
|
Reducing Earthquake Losses Through Disaster-Resistant Community Planning and Design
by Kenneth C. Topping
Land use planning is a potentially powerful platform for enhancing structural approaches to seismic risk reduction in seismically active regions. Proliferation of seismic zonation studies in recent decades has facilitated opportunities for strengthening multiple linkages between science and community design, as well as structural design. Although a variety of challenges exist, applications of effective disaster-resistant community and structural design principles are moving forward in a manner achieving substantially reduced earthquakes losses. Political, institutional, and legal obstacles to applying commonly available land use planning and structural hazard mitigation tools are identified and progress in removing and/or overcoming such obstacles is assessed. For example, successful outcomes of strategies for reducing vulnerability of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and other California communities. Special attention is given to remaining challenges for retrofitting other vulnerable building types in California. Strategies are recommended for deployment of best practices within an integrated multi-hazard mitigation planning framework, both within existing as well as newly developing urban areas. Recommendations are shared regarding what cities in seismically active regions can do to reduce seismic risk and vulnerability based on experiences in the U.S. and other countries.
|
Risk Management, Social Participation and Urban Planning in Mexico City
by Dr. Sergio Puente
The economic development of Mexico during the last fifty years has had as a complement a process of urbanization of equal or greater magnitude, whose principal characteristic has been a pattern of high concentration of population in one city: Mexico City. This growth has exceeded the capacity of the state to cope with the demands of the migrant and low income population. For its magnitude and almost total lack of planning, this precarious and anarchical urban growth has made the city highly vulnerable to natural phenomenon. The 1985 earthquake has shown us how vulnerable the city is.
Our paper presents the results of an empirical research conducted in Mexico City, that aims to prove the highly heterogeneous urban vulnerability within the city in relation to natural and man induce disasters and the dysfunctional relationship between the objective vulnerability of the urban physical structure (mainly of the urban housing stock) and the risk perception of the population. It’s assumed that the coherent risk perception is a key factor for the successful implementation of any urban planning action oriented to risk mitigation. The paper shows the gape that exists between the conducting urban planning at present and perception and participation of the population at risk. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
