What can disaster damage tell us about standards and regulations?
• Were the standards and regulations in place relevant to the disaster risks encountered in the area? For
example, did they contain design and construction requirements related to the type of disaster that occurred?
• Were the standards ostensibly followed, but their application poor? For instance, was the quality of concrete
construction deficient, because builders lacked the knowledge, or it was difficult to inspect? Was inspection
too lax in general, for whatever reasons?
• How many buildings were constructed with little consideration of standards and regulations and could be
considered as informal? Did such informal buildings perform better, worse or the same as formal buildings
that complied with standards and regulations? For types of informal buildings that withstood the disaster
well: what quality checks did builders use instead of official standards?
• Did the age of buildings have a bearing on how much damage they sustained? This might be relevant if
standards or regulations were changed at a particular date: how did the buildings built after that date
compare with the older ones?
• Can anything be learned from very old buildings, built before many of the standards and regulations were in
place, especially if such buildings have withstood similar disasters in the past? Do local builders still know
how these buildings were constructed and do they have the skills to do so now?
• What were the most common causes of building collapse and their frequency? Were they a result of non-
provision in standards and regulations, poor application of the standards, or because they were common to
informal construction, built outside standards and regulations?
• Were there any types of construction using particular materials or structural details that were especially prone
to damage or collapse? Were these common to formal or informal construction? Were they found throughout
the disaster-affected area or only in specific locations? Is there an explanation for this?
• What modern buildings coped well in the disaster? Could the builders be traced to check whether they did
apply standards and regulations? Did they do anything differently or over and above prevailing standards?
Could this help to improve reconstruction standards and regulations?
Damage assessment
A study of damage caused by a disaster can
tell us a lot about how the performance and
implementation of standards and regulations
contribute to the survival or failure of buildings.
Damage assessments are treated in more detail
in PCR Tool 3: Learning from Disasters. To make
such assessments useful for decision making on
standards and regulations for reconstruction, they
should be designed to help answer the following
questions as far as possible:
Scenario evaluation
Once a regulatory audit and damage assessment
have been undertaken, it is a good moment to
bring together the key stakeholders in defining
reconstruction standards and regulations.
They jointly assess the current strengths and
weaknesses of standards and regulations and
their implementation. They then consider the
best option(s) from a number of scenarios that
can be developed to improve the way construction
is regulated to make it safer and more disaster
resistant. It is important for them to consider that
the standards and regulations they put in place
may later be applicable too. Regulators may be
tempted to set high standards and regulations by
the influx of aid money following disasters, but it
is impossible for many people to maintain these
once the aid flow dries up. In the interest of long
term disaster risk reduction, long-term affordability
must therefore be considered. The scenarios may
differ across a disaster area, for example between
rural and urban locations. Potential scenarios could
include, but might not be limited to, the following:
9