Scenarios for regulation
1. Standards and regulations performed mostly satisfactory, but their application was limited.
This scenario can apply if it is observed that buildings that were constructed according to standards
and regulations performed better than those that were not, but only a small proportion of buildings
were found to actually fully comply. It may be that standards, regulations or procedures were too strict
for many builders to adhere to. This could suggest a cause for relaxing them, but only so far as is safe,
determined by engineers or architects Procedures could be improved by: establishing one-stop shops;
cutting red tape; reducing the cost of permits etc.; setting limits to approval periods; and installing clear
appeal and complaint processes. Access and understanding of standards and regulations might be another
constraint. This could be overcome by: developing information materials tailored to informal builders and
home owners (which would use simpler language, more visual information and examples of application),
and perhaps providing technical support and/or a dedicated question and answer service. However, these
measures often are still not enough to regulate all building. Land tenure can be an underlying factor that
may need to be addressed simultaneously. Even if these measures improve affordability, it might not be to
the extent that is adequate for the poorest. Some countries have partially overcome this by having a two-
tier regulatory framework that includes minimum standards to apply to low-income housing. Others have
established starter standards or incremental standards, both of which expect owners to reach full standards
after a given period. If one applies this principle to disaster resistance, it could mean that owners would
be allowed to build a house with only a single cross-braced room, in which residents could shelter when a
cyclone threatens, but that other rooms could be cross-braced later. Thus meaning design for retrofitting
over time, but providing a safe core that would allow survival.
2. Buildings constructed in compliance with standards and regulations did not perform
significantly better than those that did not comply.
Such a scenario can happen if standards or regulations did not consider the disaster in question
adequately, or the disaster exceeded the magnitude for which they were designed. It can also occur if
there is incomplete knowledge of disaster risk, and disasters strike in areas that were considered relatively
safe. In such cases, it is advisable to undertake more systematic hazard mapping, and to revise standards
and regulations upwards, remembering that there are limits to what people can afford. This scenario,
however, can also occur if standards and regulations are well designed to deliver disaster resistance, but
implemented poorly. This may happen for example if standards demand technologies that local builders
are insufficiently familiar with to execute well, something that could be overcome with more training,
technical support and supervision. Failure to perform also happens as a result of inadequate inspection,
when inspectors are inadequately trained, lack transport, are overloaded, or can be bribed to approve
poor quality construction. Some of this can be addressed by better education and training of building
inspectors. Furthermore, the building inspectorate may need additional resources, particularly at times of
high demand (i.e.when a huge reconstruction programme gets under way) which aid agencies may need to
invest in. It is the approval of poor quality construction, often involving bribery that is harder to combat. A
bottom-up approach to this could be to involve the future owners more in quality control, provided they are
not the builders themselves; however, this would involve capacity building on quality issues and how these
could be checked. It would also require them to have access to a building site, which builders may oppose
for safety reasons - and it does require owners to be known in advance – which is often not the case. A
top-down approach would require the agencies that finance reconstruction to take a more active interest;
using their architects or engineers to check on quality independently or to hire check consultants. For an
example of the latter, see PCR Tool 10: Quality Control, case 4.
3. There has been almost no regulation of construction.
Such a scenario may occur in rural areas where regulatory frameworks do not always apply. The big
question here is whether they ought to be regulated to enforce good quality construction or whether a
different way of achieving quality could be allowed. The practical implementation of a regulatory framework
could be very difficult and expensive in some countries with rural areas that have scattered populations
and poor accessibility, whereas it may be easier in countries like Bangladesh that are much more densely
populated. However even in Bangladesh the affordability of regulation would pose serious constraints,
as rural people tend to have less monetary income than their urban counterparts. Furthermore, those in
rural areas are less familiar with the technologies imposed by some regulations, increasing the risk of
poor construction. It may therefore be preferable to look for and strengthen traditional ways of achieving
quality. To pursue this, it is important to identify what people do traditionally to guarantee construction
10