Discuss the role of land-use planning and zoning for the mitigation of earthquake

hazards globally [by Ramiro Aznar Ballarín]

Introduction

th
At 4:53 p.m. local time on January 12 2010, the ground under the inhabitants’ feet of

Port-au-Prince trembled. A 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck La Hispaniola Island, just 15 Km

southwest of the Haitian capital, causing thousands of deaths and most of the city buildings

collapse. In addition to Port-au-Prince, according to the United States Geological Survey, there

have been ten more earthquakes with 1,000 or more deaths since the year 2000 (U.S.

Geological Survey, 2009). Earthquakes cause damage through a wide range of effects, from

liquefaction of saturated wet land areas to post-earthquake landslides (Figure 1). The majority

of these impacts were concentrated within Global South countries such as Afghanistan, Algeria,

Indonesia, China or India. It is been argued that these countries are potentially more vulnerable

to natural disasters than their North neighbors due to several interconnected socio-economic,

political and environmental factors (Alcántara-Ayala, 2002) which lead to a lack of hazard

preparedness.

Figure 1 Liquefaction damage at the port of Port-au-Prince: the dock support has failed and the deck has

slipped into the water, taking the crane with it (Google Lat Long Blog, 2010) (a); the earthquake may

have also triggered landslides and shifted earth so that landslides are more likely in the future (NASA

Earth Observatory, 2010) (b).

1
 One way to reduce the physical impacts of disasters such as earthquakes is to adopt

hazard mitigation practices like land-use planning and seismic zonation. On the one hand,

according to Lindell and Prater (2002), land use practices reduce hazard vulnerability by

avoiding construction in areas that are susceptible to hazard impact. They go on to argue that

Government agencies can encourage the adoption of appropriate land use practices by

establishing regulations that prevent development in hazardous locations, providing incentives

that encourage development in safe locations, or informing landowners about the risks and

benefits of development in locations throughout the community. Seismic zonation (or

microzonation), on the other hand, refers to the subdivision of a region into smaller zones that

have relatively exposures to various earthquake effects (Nath et al., 2008) and, therefore, it is

an essential prerequisite to develop good planning.

The purpose of the present work is examined the role of seismic zonation and land-use

planning for reducing earthquake hazards globally. In the first section, I will discuss the

importance of microzonation studies and earthquake-resistant building design as bases for

strategies of earthquake hazards mitigation. Finally, I will examine the achievements and

limitations of land-use planning in earthquake world cities and regions such as California.

Microzonation and earthquake-resistant buildings

According to Bolt (2004), in order to reduce earthquake risk is necessary to draw up an

appropriate set of rules such as seismic safety elements. These documents are usually based

on technical studies called seismic microzonation. Nath et al. (2008) suggests that the

underlying concept in microzonation arises from the fact that earthquakes damage in specific

areas was larger due to site-dependent factors related to surface geologic conditions and local

soils. For instance, in hilly regions, most of the contribution in the site amplification of ground

motion comes from the radiation pattern and topography area while in flat terrains, soil

thickness and near surface low velocity stratigraphy attributes to ground motion amplification. In

addition to local geology and soil condition, other inputs used in this technique are earthquakes

catalogues, information about lineaments, neotectonics and active faults, and geological and

2
geotechnical aspects (peak ground acceleration, liquefaction potential mapping,

geomorphological characterization…) (Nath et al., 2008).

Smith (2001) states that microzonation of land is expensive but necessary in urban

areas where the aim is to convert already developed areas to parkland or other open spaces

and to prevent the further development of hazardous places. He goes on to argue that the

highest priority is to map those areas susceptible to enhanced ground-shaking, as a result of

the presence of soft soils or land fill, because is often the major factor in property damage.

Although microzonation maps, according to Olshansky (2001), can improve the intelligence of

planning, the hazard differential is not sufficient to justify regulating land-use type or intensity.

He goes on to argue that such maps can be used as the basis for requiring further study and

they can help authorities set priorities in managing land-use, enforce building codes, conducting

seismic-strengthening programs for existing buildings, and planning for emergency response

and long-term recovery.

Figure 2 Automobile parking structure at California State University-Northridge collapsed during the 1994

Northridge earthquake.

In addition to geological conditions, land use planning should be sensitive to building

conditions. For example, whilst infrastructure systems (roads, sewers, electrical lines…)

performed well in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, other structures such as universities and

hospitals, accounted for a large proportion of the total damage (French, 1995). In this sense,

according to Abbott (2008), multistory parking garages are common casualties during

3
earthquakes because builders do not want the added expense of shear walls, which eliminate

parking spaces and block the view of traffic inside the parking structure (Figure 2). He suggests

five engineering measures in order to reduce the occurrence of resonance (the major

earthquake impact on buildings): 1) change the height of the building; 2) move most of the

weight to the lower floors; 3) change the shape the shape of the building; 4) change the type of

the building materials; and 5) change the degree of attachment of the building to its foundations.

Land-use planning

In 1755, Lisbon suffered the largest documented seismic event in Western Europe

History. The 1755 Lisbon earthquake destroyed much of the city and its effects were felt in far

places such as the Caribbean and the British Islands. After that, Lisbon was reconstructed and

Portugal became one of the first countries both to innovative policies for urban planning in

earthquake zones and to develop seismic-resistant building codes (Chester, 2001).

As in the case of Lisbon, in the last century, earthquakes have acted as catalysts to

implement earthquake risk mitigation policies in some cities or regions. However most of the

times plans and land-use restrictions are difficult to employ to mitigate losses from seismic

hazards. They also pointed out that, in addition to technical limitations, there are political

barriers because interests favoring growth often dominate local government decision making.

The 1971 San Fernando Valley and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes can be good examples to

evaluate the extent to which seismic mitigation plans could reduce earthquake damage.

On the one hand, according to Abbot (2008), no lessons were learned from the 1971

earthquake by the local authorities and planners in the State of California. He goes on to saying

that the 1994 earthquake was a painfully test to know how well the lessons of 1971 were

learned. French et al. (1996), on the other hand, found that land use planning had a small but

measurable effect in reducing damage in the 1994 earthquake. What is more, Olshansky (2001)

argues that the post-1971 policies did significantly help to reduce damage in the 1994

earthquake; he states that seismic hazard information and seismic safety policies have

generally not affected decisions on location, type or intensity of land uses, but they establish a

4
framework within which engineering requirement and retrofit programs could operate more

effectively. Moreover, Nelson and French (2002) found that fewer homes were damaged when

local governments had developed high-quality factual bases, formulated goals for improving

seismic safety, crafted regulatory policies to manage development in hazardous areas, and

advanced policies that made the public aware of seismic risks. They concluded, thus, that

including a high-quality seismic safety element in land use plans can reduce property damage

associated with seismic events.

Many cities and counties of California have also taken an important step towards a

successful earthquake hazard mitigation plan through several setback ordinances (Smith,

2001). Building setbacks can be recommended where proposed development crosses known or

inferred, faults and slope stability setbacks can be established where unrepaired active

landslides, or old landslide deposits, have been identified. Setbacks can also be used to impose

the appropriate separation for buildings in order to reduce pounding effects. Finally, another

type of setback regulates the distance from buildings to sidewalks to reduce the loss of life and

injury from collapsing buildings during an earthquake. It is also important to highlight that land-

use planning and seismic zoning should not be the lonely policy for mitigating earthquake

hazards. Other approaches such as removing or strengthening particularly vulnerable structures

and providing public and emergency response planning (French and Isaacson, 1984).

Figure 3 Coastal land use planning designed to mitigate tsunami. The beach and the forest are used to

dissipate the energy of the onshore wave whilst development and the coastal evacuation route are located

above the predicted height of the 1:1000 year event (based on Preus, 1983).

Finally, earthquakes are one of the main causes of tsunami. In this context Smith (2001)

suggests that the rezoning of low-lying coastal land at risk from tsunamis, in association with the

structural strengthening of buildings, can be an effective defence (Figure 3).

5
Conclusions

To summarize, seismic microzonation and land-use planning are essential strategies for

mitigation of earthquake hazards. On the one hand, microzonation studies provide useful

information through maps of earthquake hazards to local planners, developers and authorities.

Land-use planning, on the other, despite of not being correctly implemented in the last years,

can act as an effective framework for specific earthquake regulations such as engineering

requirement and retrofit programs.

Further research is needed in order to create reliable microzonation maps in places

where earthquakes are a reality. The resulting zoning should be the foundations to develop a

sustainable land-use planning.

References

Abbott, P.L. (2008). Natural disasters. 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill International Edition, 510 pp.

Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2002). Geomorphology, natural hazards, vulnerability and prevention of

natural disasters in developing countries. Geomorphology 47, 107–124

Bolt, B.A. (2004). Earthquakes. 5th Edition, W.H. Freeman, 378 pp.

Burby, R.J., French, S.P. and Nelson, A.C. (1998). Plans, Code Enforcement, and Damage

Reduction: Evidence from the Northridge Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 14(1), 59-74.

Chester, D.K. (2001). The 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Progress in Physical Geography 25(3), 636-

383.

French, S.P. (1995). Damage to urban infrastructure and other public property from the 1989

Loma Prieta (California) earthquake. Disasters 19, 57-67.

6
French, S.P. and Isaacson, M.S. (1984). Applying Earthquake Risk Analysis Techniques to

Land Use Planning. Journal of the American Planning Asociation 50(4), 509-522.

French, S.P., Nelson, A.C., Muthukumar, S. and Holland, M.M. (1996). The Northridge

Earthquake: Land use planning for hazard mitigation (Final Report to the National Science

Foundation). Georgia Institute of Technology, City Planning Program.

Lindell, M.K. and Prater, C.S. (2002). Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters.

Natural Hazards Review 4(4), 176-185.

Nath, S.K., Thingbaijam, K.K.S. and Raj, A. (2008). Earthquake hazard in Northeast India - A

seismic microzonation approach with typical case studies from Sikkim Himalaya and Guwahati

city. Journal of Earth System Science 117, 809-831.

Nelson, A.C. and French, S.P. (2002). Plan Quality and Mitigating Damage from Natural

Disasters: A Case Study of the Northridge Earthquake with Planning Policy Considerations.

Journal of the American Planning Asociation 68(2), 194-207.

Olshansky, R.B. (2001). Land Use Planning for Seismic Safety: The Los Angeles County

Experience, 1971-1994. Journal of the American Planning Asociation 67(2), 173-185.

Preuss, J. (1983). Land management guidelines for tsunami hazard zones. In: Iida, K. and

Iwasaki, T. (eds.). Tsunamis, Boston, MA: Reidel, 527-539.

Smith, K. (2001). Environmental Hazards. Assessing risk and reducing disaster. 3rd Edition,

Routledge, 392 pp.

Google Lat Long Blog. (2010). New imagery of Port-au-Prince. Page URL: http://google-

latlong.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-imagery-of-port-au-prince.html [seen at 23/1/2010]

7
NASA Earth Observatory. (2010). Potential Landslides near Epicenter of Haiti Quake. Page

URL: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=42333 [seen at 23/1/2010]

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2009). Earthquakes with 1,000 or More Deaths since 1900.

Page URL: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_deaths.php [seen at 25/1/2010]