Dian Kuswandini, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | National
The administration should provide economic incentives to homeowners to build safer houses, to reduce its expenditure on reconstruction after earthquakes, a disaster risk management expert proposed Tuesday.
Kenji Okazaki from the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo said it was broadly understood that securing the safety of newly constructed houses and retrofitting existing vulnerable houses was essential to reducing the number of victims and severe damage caused by earthquakes.
"Due to unsafe houses, the government is forced to spend a huge amount of money for relief, recovery, and reconstruction efforts after earthquakes occur," he said during his speech at the International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation in Jakarta.
"A question arises whether it is justifiable to spend a lot of money on affected people who didn't build their houses properly."
This is why, Okazaki said, the government should develop policies which favor those who build houses according to safety standards, as they will contribute to a reduction of recovery costs that could be incurred in future.
"The government could provide incentives through taxation, social security or subsidies. For example, people who maintain or retrofit their houses may pay less property tax, while those who don't must pay more," he said.
In many countries, those who have unsafe houses would receive more financial assistance following a disaster, while those who had made efforts to maintain the safety of their houses would not receive any financial assistance, Okazaki said.
The situation, he said, discouraged people to build safer houses, because the public believe the government would cover any losses.
Communities unwillingness to make their houses resistant to earthquakes was also caused by a limited understanding of the risks.
"Most people do not consider the risk of unsafe houses serious enough to warrant retrofitting them. Besides, a strong earthquake may not occur within the lifespan of a given house. The lifespan of a house is generally much shorter than the return period of a major earthquake.
"So, in promoting retrofitting, the future uncertain risks should be translated into a current certain loss. This could be done by increasing people's awareness of what they would lose due to unsafe houses," he said.
In Japan, the government enforced the 'Act for the Promotion of Retrofitting' immediately after the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, Okazaki said. This act is aimed to promote the retrofitting of important facilities and existing vulnerable houses, and stipulates that owners of buildings must make efforts to monitor seismic activity and retrofit buildings accordingly.
The Japanese government also launched a financial assistance program for seismic diagnosis and retrofitting, opened local consultation desks and enforced the Housing Quality Assurance Act to secure the quality and safety of reconstructed houses.
"But in Indonesia, I found through surveys that the quality of construction and control were very low. For example, the materials used were different from specifications and requirements of drawings, and quality controls were not implemented due to a shortage of qualified supervisors," he said.
Okazaki said this situation was exacerbated by the suspension of the building permit system due to the massive number of construction projects and the limited capacity of the authorities.
"While the permit system could have worked as a mechanism to ensure the quality of construction projects, it was suspended, allowing houses to be repaired without any building permit," he said.
The administration should provide economic incentives to homeowners to build safer houses, to reduce its expenditure on reconstruction after earthquakes, a disaster risk management expert proposed Tuesday.
Kenji Okazaki from the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo said it was broadly understood that securing the safety of newly constructed houses and retrofitting existing vulnerable houses was essential to reducing the number of victims and severe damage caused by earthquakes.
"Due to unsafe houses, the government is forced to spend a huge amount of money for relief, recovery, and reconstruction efforts after earthquakes occur," he said during his speech at the International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation in Jakarta.
"A question arises whether it is justifiable to spend a lot of money on affected people who didn't build their houses properly."
This is why, Okazaki said, the government should develop policies which favor those who build houses according to safety standards, as they will contribute to a reduction of recovery costs that could be incurred in future.
"The government could provide incentives through taxation, social security or subsidies. For example, people who maintain or retrofit their houses may pay less property tax, while those who don't must pay more," he said.
In many countries, those who have unsafe houses would receive more financial assistance following a disaster, while those who had made efforts to maintain the safety of their houses would not receive any financial assistance, Okazaki said.
The situation, he said, discouraged people to build safer houses, because the public believe the government would cover any losses.
Communities unwillingness to make their houses resistant to earthquakes was also caused by a limited understanding of the risks.
"Most people do not consider the risk of unsafe houses serious enough to warrant retrofitting them. Besides, a strong earthquake may not occur within the lifespan of a given house. The lifespan of a house is generally much shorter than the return period of a major earthquake.
"So, in promoting retrofitting, the future uncertain risks should be translated into a current certain loss. This could be done by increasing people's awareness of what they would lose due to unsafe houses," he said.
In Japan, the government enforced the 'Act for the Promotion of Retrofitting' immediately after the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, Okazaki said. This act is aimed to promote the retrofitting of important facilities and existing vulnerable houses, and stipulates that owners of buildings must make efforts to monitor seismic activity and retrofit buildings accordingly.
The Japanese government also launched a financial assistance program for seismic diagnosis and retrofitting, opened local consultation desks and enforced the Housing Quality Assurance Act to secure the quality and safety of reconstructed houses.
"But in Indonesia, I found through surveys that the quality of construction and control were very low. For example, the materials used were different from specifications and requirements of drawings, and quality controls were not implemented due to a shortage of qualified supervisors," he said.
Okazaki said this situation was exacerbated by the suspension of the building permit system due to the massive number of construction projects and the limited capacity of the authorities.
"While the permit system could have worked as a mechanism to ensure the quality of construction projects, it was suspended, allowing houses to be repaired without any building permit," he said.
