Does compact development promote a seismic-resistant city? Application of seismic-damage statistical models to Taichung,Taiwan

Abstract

This study examines whether compact development promotes a seismic-resistant city. A statistical model is used to simulate seismic damages under four spatial structure scenarios for Taichung, Taiwan. The existing floor areas of various land uses are allowed to be reallocated for reshaping the spatial structure of the city. This provides an opportunity to find an urban structure that would best resist seismic impacts similar to what have occurred during the past 100 years. The results suggest a polycentric compact form for seismic mitigation. This form, derived from the vision of Taichung, would have less seismic damages by shifting floor areas from the city center to three proposed subcenters, far away from most seismic impacts. One weakness is the seismic impacts from the north. The results also reveal that a monocentric compact form would incur more damages because the downtown area is essentially seismic-vulnerable. This paper advocates the application of a stricter building code in the downtown area. The local government should also not render additional building bulk as an incentive for urban renewal.

Keywords

Seismic hazard vulnerability urban resilience land-use planning urban form

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anas

Arnott

Small

(1998) Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature 36(3): 1426–1464.

Bruegmann

(2005) Sprawl: A Compact History, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Burby

Beatley

Berke

, et al.(1999) Unleashing the power of planning to create disaster-resistant communities. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(3): 247–258.

Burby

Deyle

Godschalk

, et al.(2000) Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review 1(2): 99–106.

Burchell R, Lweenstein G, Dolphin W, et al. (2002) Cost of sprawl -2000 (TCRP Report 74). Washington, DC: Transport Research Board, National Research Council.

CAB (Civil Affairs Bureau), http://www.civil.taichung.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=28547&mp=10201D (accessed 2 February 2018).

Chang

Gregorian

Pathman

, et al.(2012) Urban growth and long-term changes in natural hazard risk. Environment and Planning A 44: 989–1088.

Chen W and Scawthorn C (2003) Earthquake Engineering Handbook. FL, USA: CRC Press.

CPA (Construction and Planning Agency), http://www.cpami.gov.tw/chinese/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10196&Itemid=46 (accessed 2 February 2018).

10.

Dong W, Morrow G, Tanaka A, et al. (2000) Event Report, Chi-Chi Taiwan Earthquake. CA, USA: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

11.

Echenique

Hargreaves

Mitchell

, et al.(2012) Growing cities sustainably. Journal of the American Planning Association 78(2): 121–137.

12.

Ewing

Cervero

(2010) Travel and built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3): 265–294.

13.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2000) Hazards, Disasters and the US Emergency Management System: An Introduction, Session 6: Fundamentals of US Emergency Management, Washington, DC: FEMA.

14.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2003). Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual. Washington, DC: FEMA.

15.

French

Isaacson

(1984) Applying earthquake risk analysis techniques to land use planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 50(4): 509–522.

16.

Fulton WB and Shigley P (2005) Guide to California Planning. CA, USA: Solano Press Books.

17.

Garreau J (1991) Edge city: Life on the new frontier.

18.

Goda

Hong

(2008) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 98(1): 354–365.

19.

Gordon

(1997) Densities, urban form and travel behavior. Town and Country Planning 66(9): 239–241.

20.

Gordon I (2008) Density and the built environment. Energy Policy 36(12): 4652–4656.

21.

Hamin

Gurran

(2009) Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International 33(3): 238–245.

22.

Howard

(1902) The Garden Cities of Tomorrow, London, UK: Kessinger Publishing.

23.

Liu

Dong

(1996) Earthquake Engineering, London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

24.

Hung

Chen

(2007) The application of seismic risk-benefit analysis to land use planning in Taipei City. Disasters 31(3): 256–276.

25.

Kent TJ (1964) The urban general plan. Chandler Pub. Co.

26.

McCann

(2001) Urban and Regional Economics, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

27.

MCEER (Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research) (2007) Engineering Resilience Solutions: From Earthquake Engineering to Extreme Events, University of Buffalo.

28.

Nakanishi

Matsuo

Black

(2013) Transportation planning methodologies for post-disaster recovery in regional communities: The East Japan earthquake and tsunami 2011. Journal of Transport Geography 31: 181–191.

29.

NCREE (National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering) (2003) Taiwan Earthquake Loss Estimation System—TELES. Taipei, Taiwan. (in Chinese).

30.

Nelson

French

(2002) Plan quality and mitigation damage from natural disasters: A case study of the Northridge earthquake with planning policy considerations. Journal of the American Planning Association 68(2): 194–207.

31.

Newman

Kenworthy

(1989) Gasoline consumption and cities: A comparison of U.S. cities with a global survey. Journal of the American Planning Association 55(1): 24–37.

32.

NRC (National Research Council) (2011) National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and Outreach, Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.

33.

Olshansky

(2001) Land use planning for seismic safety—The Los Angeles County experience. Journal of the American Planning Association 67(2): 173–185.

34.

Olshansky

(2001) Earthquake risk analysis for Los Angeles County under present and planned land uses. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28: 419–432.

35.

Randolph (2003) Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Washington DC: Island Press.

36.

Rogers R and Power A (2000) Cities for a Small Country. London, UK: Faber & Faber.

37.

Sampson

Morenoff

Gannon-Rowley

(2002) Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 443–478.

38.

Sharifi

(2016) A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological Indicators 69: 629–647.

39.

Starrett

(1974) Principles of optimal location in a large homogeneous area. Journal of Economic Theory 9(4): 418–448.

40.

TCG (Taichung City Government), http://www.udvision.taichung.gov.tw/ (accessed 2 February 2018).

41.

The Central Weather Bureau (2005) One Hundred Questions About Earthquake. Taipei, Taiwan (In Chinese).

42.

UNISDR (United Nations of Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2009) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction, United Nations.

43.

Wang

C-H

Chen

Chan

S-L

(2017) A gravity model integrating high-speed rail and seismic-hazard mitigation through land-use planning: Application to California development. Habitat International 62: 51–61.

44.

Wang

C-H

Guldmann

J-M

(2015) A land-use allocation optimization model to mitigate potential seismic damages. Environment and Planning B 42(4): 730–753.

45.

Wang

C-H

Guldmann

J-M

(2016) A spatial panel approach to the statistical assessment of seismic impacts and building damages: Case study of Taichung, Taiwan. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 57: 178–188.

46.

Witten

Exeter

Field

(2003) The quality of urban environments: Mapping variation in access to community resources. Urban studies 40: 161–177.