BUILDING REGULATION FOR RESILIENCE Converting Disaster Experience into a Safer Built Environment: The Case of Japan Contents Abbreviations 4 Acknowledgments 5 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Japan’s approach to building safety has been repeatedly tested—and proven effective 6 1.2 Japan’s incremental, context-specific approach is relevant for developing countries 10 1.3 Japan’s unique path to improved building safety can be emulated 12 1.4 Japan’s experience offers key takeaways for developing countries 13 2 Legal and Institutional Framework for Building Regulation 14 Overview of the Current Legal Framework 14 2.1 2.2 Stakeholders and Stakeholder Roles 16 How Laws Developed to Meet Changing Needs 17 2.3 3 Incremental Enhancement of Building Standards 22 3.1 Natural Disasters as Triggers for Integrating Resilience into Building Regulation 23 3.2 Collaboration among Government, Academia, and Industry in Technological Research 26 3.3 Concept of Seismic Design in the Building Standard Law 28 Consultation Process for Updating Building Standards 33 3.4 4 Quality Assurance Mechanism for Building Safety: Planning, Design, and Construction 34 Planning Stage: Land Use and Area Planning 35 4.1 4.2 Design Stage: Qualification Systems for Building Practitioners 37 Construction Stage: A Multi-step Process 39 4.3 Private Sector Involvement in Building Quality Assurance 42 4.4 5 Quality Assurance Mechanism for Building Safety: Maintenance, Seismic Retrofit, and Efforts to Improve Building Quality 46 Policy Instruments to Promote Seismic Retrofit 47 5.1 5.2 Advanced Quality Enhancement through Financial Incentives and Voluntary Programs 52 6 Lessons Learned 58 Annexes 62 Annex 2A Japan’s Building Quality Assurance System: Stakeholder Mapping 62 Annex 2B Japan’s Building Quality Assurance System: Stakeholder’s Major Roles 63 Annex 3A Major Construction Types for Residential Buildings in Japan 64 Annex 4A Scope of Activity and Training Programs for Kenchikushi (architect-engineers) 65 Annex 4B Penalties for Misconduct by Kenchikushi (architect-engineers) 68 Annex 4C Quality Assurance Mechanism for Building Materials and Construction Management 70 Annex 4D Government Responsible for Administration of Building Quality Assurance, 71 by Area Population and Building Size Annex 4E Capacity Development and Training Programs for Building Administration 72 Annex 4F Impacts of Private Sector Participation in the Building Quality Assurance System 75 Annex 5A Local Policies and Programs to Promote Seismic Retrofit 77 Annex 5B Statistical Information on Housing in Japan 80 Annex 5C How Japan Met Goals for Housing Quantity 81 Annex 5D Voluntary Systems for Improving Housing Quality 81 Sources and References 84 Chapter 1 84 Chapter 2 84 Chapter 3 85 Chapter 4 86 Chapter 5 86 Annex 3A 86 Annex 4A 86 Annex 4B 86 Annex 4C 86 Annex 4E 87 Annex 4F 87 Annex 5A 87 Annex 5D 87 Abbreviations APSRB Act on Promotion of Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings BSL Building Standard Law CISMID Center for Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation CLITT College of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism CPA City Planning Act FAR floor area ratio GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GHLC Government Housing Loan Corporation ISO International Organization for Standardization JAS Japanese Agricultural Standards JASS Japanese Architectural Standard Specifications JESJ Japanese Engineering Standards JHF Japan Housing Finance Agency JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JIS Japanese Industrial Standards JMA Japan Meteorological Agency MEP mechanical, electrical, and plumbing MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology MLIT Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism RC reinforced concrete 4 Acknowledgments The development of this report was led by Thomas Moullier, Finance Agency; Satoshi Kato, Manager, Japan Housing Senior Urban Specialist, and Keiko Sakoda, Disaster Risk Finance Agency; Shoichiro Konishi, Director, Japan Housing Management Specialist, World Bank, as part of the Building Finance Agency; Tokiwa Terakawa, General Manager, Regulation for Resilience Program under the Global Facility Building Center of Japan; Yukinari Hosokawa, Acting for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR¹), with Director, JICA; Noriaki Saito, Professor, Kwansei Gakuin support from the Disaster Risk Management Hub, Tokyo. University; and Norio Maki, Professor, Kyoto University. The background work and documentation was carried out by a team from Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd., led by Several people contributed valuable information through Ryoji Takahashi and Katsu Kato and generously supported interviews, including Hiroshi Fukuyama, Director, Housing by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Department, National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Tourism (MLIT), Japan. The team appreciates the guidance Management; Naomi Honda, Managing Director, Association of Yukiyasu Kamemura, former Director for International of Living Amenity; Haruki Kasai, Manager for Architectural Building Analysis, and Hideaki Sato, Director for Building Planning Coordination, Yokohama City; and the following Technology Policy Analysis, MLIT. Valuable inputs on individuals from the Building Center of Japan: Noriaki implementation experience and lessons learned were Otsuka, General Manager; Toshiyuki Takei, former provided by the following MLIT retirees and associated General Manager; Mayumi Akamaru, Manager; Hiroko personnel: Yoshitaka Sugiyama, Katsunori Inoue, and Okamoto, Manager; Nanako Sasaki, Assistant Project Wataru Gojo. The report also includes data from building Manager; Sami Taguchi, Assistant Project Manager. damage analysis after the Hanshin Awaji Earthquake, kindly provided by Fumio Yamazaki, Professor, Chiba University. Lastly, the team appreciates feedback and comments provided by Benito M. Pacheco, Professor, University The team appreciates feedback and advice received from an of the Philippines; Ko Takeuchi, Senior Disaster Risk advisory group of Japanese experts that included Tatsuo Management Specialist; Artessa Saldivar-Sali, Senior Narafu, Senior Advisor, Japan International Cooperation Municipal Engineer; and Aris Molfetas-Lygkiaris, Consultant, Agency (JICA); Shoichi Ando, Professor, Kinki University; World Bank. The report was edited by Anne Himmelfarb. Masahiro Kobayashi, Director General, Japan Housing ¹ www.gfdrr.org 5 1 Introduction 1.1 Japan’s approach to building safety has been repeatedly tested—and proven effective On January 17, 1995, the devastating Great Hanshin-Awaji supported this trend: the severe damage declined significantly Earthquake struck southern Hyogo Prefecture, causing 6,437 as the construction year became more recent (figure 1.2). deaths and the collapse of about 100,000 houses. When This pattern was highly significant because it demonstrated the post-disaster damage analysis was complete, it showed the effectiveness of Japan’s seismic design standards and something remarkable: the large majority of collapsed their continuous improvement. The standard had major buildings—76 percent—had been constructed before 1971. revisions in 1971 and again in 1981. Buildings constructed to A much smaller share—21 percent—had been constructed the 1971 standard performed far better than those built to an between 1971 and 1981. Buildings built after 1981 accounted for earlier standard; and buildings constructed to the 1981 just 3 percent of the collapsed buildings (figure 1.1). A detailed standard performed best of all, with only a very small share survey of damaged wooden houses and reinforced concrete suffering collapse. (RC) buildings in two areas affected by the earthquake Figure 1.1 Buildings Damaged in the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, by Year of Construction 1971–81 21% A er 1981 Before 1971 3% 76% Source: Ranghieri and Ishiwatari 2014 using data from MLIT. 6 Figure 1.2 Damage to Building Structures in the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, by Period of Construction a. Wooden Houses b. Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Nishinomiya City in Nishinomiya City (n = 67,992) (n = 10,998) Damaged Damaged houses (%) houses (%) 100 100 80 13,337 80 8,064 60 60 2,462 2,709 8,397 9,393 3,996 40 4,097 40 18,190 20 20 436 3,835 1,872 430 96 807 302 247 293 0 0 1951—71 1972—81 1982—94 1951—71 1972—81 1982—94 c. Wooden Houses d. Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Nada Ward in Nada Ward (n = 22,716) (n = 3,814) Damaged Damaged houses (%) houses (%) 100 100 3,256 80 1,218 80 3,500 1,523 766 906 60 60 1,256 764 40 40 10,517 542 155 20 1,006 20 224 57 384 171 153 126 0 0 1951—71 1972—81 1982—94 1951—71 1972—81 1982—94 Minor/No damage Moderate damage Severe damage Source: Nagao, Yamazaki, and Inoguchi 2010; Yamaguchi and Yamazaki 2000a, 2000b; Yamazaki and Murao 2000. 7 Figure 1.3 Damage to Kashiwazaki City Building Structures in the Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki Earthquake, by Period of Construction a. Wooden Houses b. Reinforced Concrete and (n = 28,253) Steel Reinforced Concrete Buildings (n = 768) Damaged Damaged houses (%) houses (%) 100 100 80 80 5,264 60 6,202 60 1,871 82 149 341 40 40 171 92 2 1 293 215 4 3 7 20 1,370 133 1 20 1,165 7 594 883 9 0 0 1951—71 1972—81 1982—2007 1951—71 1972—81 1982—2007 Minor/No damage Moderate damage Signi cant damage Severe damage Source: Nagao, Yamazaki, and Inoguchi 2010. 8 Figure 1.4 Damage to Building Structures in the Kumamoto Earthquake, by Period of Construction Damaged houses (%) 100 39 179 80 373 196 60 537 40 133 12 20 104 7 214 85 76 0 Before June 1981 June 2000 June 1981 — May200 and a er No damage Slight damage Severe damage Collapse Source: Kumamoto Earthquake Building Damage Investigation Committee. But this damage pattern demonstrates more than the safety by gradually amending building laws in response to effectiveness of the 1981 seismic standard. More broadly, successive earthquakes and socioeconomic and demographic it demonstrates the effectiveness of the Japanese approach changes. Today, in spite of its high exposure to earthquakes and to building quality assurance and to achieving a high level of other hazards such as tsunamis, tropical cyclones (typhoons), success in the implementation, support to compliance and and flooding, Japan has a built environment that is among the enforcement of building regulation. Over the course of a safest and most disaster resilient in the world. century, Japan has worked incrementally to improve building 9 1.2 Japan’s incremental, context-specific approach is relevant for developing countries This report describes Japan’s incremental approach to Notably, Japan’s approach is aligned with that of the Sendai developing, implementing, and facilitating compliance with Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, which building regulation over many decades. It explains Japan’s is now guiding signatory countries in disaster reduction unique path to developing a policy and legal framework approaches.3 The disproportionate impact of disasters on as well as compliance mechanisms that grow out of this developing countries is well documented. As the 2015 Global framework and that function within Japan’s risk profile and Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) climate, culture, and construction practices. Although Japan indicates: “Between 1980 and 2012, 42 million life years were is well known for its advanced engineering knowledge and for lost in internationally reported disasters each year. Over 80 per employing engineering solutions in disaster risk management, cent of the total life years lost in disasters are spread across low it also relies on nontechnical approaches and has created a and middle-income countries, representing a serious setback to legal and quality management ecosystem for buildings within social and economic development” (UNISDR 2015a). which those technical solutions can be successful. This report focuses on seismic risk in part because earthquakes The lessons this report highlights are relevant for policy have been important in driving Japan’s building safety regime, makers, building governance practitioners, and project but also because there are rich data on the impact of, response managers in developing countries who are interested in to, and increasing resilience to earthquakes. The report does creating a safer built environment.2 The lessons grow out of not address Japan’s efforts to improve resilience to fire, tropical Japan’s incremental, context-specific approach to building cyclone (typhoon), and other hazards and should therefore not safety—an approach that is driven by and responds to Japan’s be considered exhaustive. specific hazard profile, geophysical characteristics, climate, culture, construction practices, and legal system. Countries The abundant earthquake data—shown in table 1.1 for facing different hazards, using different construction practices select damaging earthquakes from 1999 to the present— and materials, and operating under different laws can make strikingly clear that Japan suffers far less loss of life nonetheless apply the experience-based, step-by-step approach and property than developing countries in earthquakes of to their own context. comparable magnitude. ² For a discussion of efforts to create safer schools in particular, see another case study of Japan, World Bank and GFDRR (2016). ³ The Sendai Framework’s priorities include strengthening disaster risk governance (Priority 2) and investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience (Priority 3). See UNISDR (2015b). 10 Table 1.1 Japan’s Resilience to Earthquakes versus Experience of Selected Countries with Recent Large-Scale Events Maximum Buildings Deaths Injured Country Earthquake Intensity Magnitudeb damaged (no.)c (no.) (MMI)a (no.)d 1995 (Hyogo-ken Nanbu) >X 7.3 6,437 43,792 249,180 2004 (Niigata-ken Chuetu) >X 6.8 68 4,805 16,985 Japan 2011 (Great East Japan)e >X 9.0 22,010 6,220 400,305 2016 (Kumamoto) >X 7.3 154 2,654 186,669 Turkey 1999 IX 7.6 17,118 50,000 155,000 Iran 2003 IX 6.6 31,000 30,000 18,000 Pakistan 2005 VIII 7.6 86,000 69,000 32,335 Indonesia 2006 IX 6.3 5,749 38,568 578,000 no official China 2008 XI 7.9 87,587 374,177 figures Haiti 2010 VIII 7.0 316,000 300,000 285,667 Nepal 2015 IX 7.8 8,790 22,300 755,549 Sources: Data for Japan are from the JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) website at www.data.jma.go.jp/svd/eqev/data/higai/higai1996-new. html; data for deaths in Nepal are from Government of Nepal (2015); data for deaths in countries other than Japan and Nepal are from the U.S. Geological Survey, “Earthquake Statistics,” https://earthquakeusgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_death.php; data on building damage in Iran are from UN OCHA (2004); data on building damage in Turkey are from NOAA (2000). a. Japan measures earthquake intensity on a JMA intensity scale (roman numerals), as explained at http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en Activities/ inttable.html. The table here provides MMI (Modified Mercalli Intensity) values (arabic numerals) for ease of comparison, though there is no exact correspondence between the scales. See Kunugi (2000, figure 4) for a chart that helps to clarify the complex correspondence. b. Magnitude and intensity measure different characteristics of earthquakes; the U.S. Geological Survey website (https://earthquake. usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php) has a good explanation. Since intensity has direct impacts on building damages, this report uses intensity as the seismic scale. It converts the JMA intensity to MMI based on the correspondence chart presented by Kunugi (2000, figure 4), and on scientific studies on specific events when available (e.g., Sokejima et al. [2004]). c. Deaths also include numbers of missing individuals. d. Damaged buildings include those with partial as well as total damage. e. Most of the deaths and damage caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake were the result of the associated tsunami. It is estimated that about 800 deaths were caused by building damage. 11 1.3 Japan’s unique path to improved building safety can be emulated Following upon the GFDRR’s (2016) flagship report Building for the convenience of architects, engineers and small and Regulation for Resilience⁴, this report offers an in-depth case medium builders. Japan continues to amend its code, based study on the experience of Japan. It is structured around on accumulated knowledge gained from analyzing building the three key components laid out in the flagship report damage after each disaster, and over time it has achieved a as forming the framework for the Building Regulation for highly resilient built environment. Chapter 3 describes this Resilience Program : namely (1) national level legislation and incremental approach to improving building safety. It looks institutions; (2) building code development and maintenance; at the contents and development of Japan’s code, including and (3) local level institutions and implementation. It shares efforts to ensure a reasonable and resilient enough seismic Japan’s historical experience in building code regulation, performance, the code’s inclusion of non-engineered structures including the development of policy, establishment of (conventional wooden houses), and the consultation process enabling enforcement mechanisms, building of capacity across used in updating building standards, which solicits input from public and private sectors, and advancement of engineering the private sector and the general public. knowledge.⁵ Japan took unique steps to develop building regulations and building quality assurance mechanisms that Quality assurance mechanisms. Japan employs quality cater to the specific Japanese context, as highlighted below. assurance mechanisms across all phases of a building’s life At the same time, the philosophy behind the policies, and cycle, including (1) planning, (2) design, (3) construction lessons learned from implementing the policies, provide of new buildings, and (4) maintenance or retrofit of relevant insights for countries facing similar challenges. existing buildings. Chapter 4 describes mechanisms for the first three phases. It looks specifically at oversight of Legal framework. Japan has uniform national building and requirements for Kenchikushi, the Japanese building standards that are implemented by both the national professionals who combine the knowledge of architects government and local governments. Unlike many developed and engineers. It also explains Japan’s building approval countries, which separate regulations from the laws that process, which involves “confirmation” that the building require them, Japan comprehensively defines its building design complies with technical requirements, and which standards under the Building Standard Law (BSL). Chapter 2 gives individual inspectors far less discretion than systems describes the legal framework, along with the background to that depend on “permission.” Finally, it explains the private and process for developing this law. sector’s involvement in building inspection as well as the role played by financial institutions in assuring building Building code. Japan’s building code is recognized as a quality. Chapter 5 addresses quality assurance mechanisms minimum standard. Originally prescriptive, the code was for the fourth phase of the building life cycle, maintenance amended to performance-based in principle in 1998 (enforced and retrofit. It also looks more broadly at Japanese policy in 2000), but some specific provisions remain as prescriptive instruments designed to improve housing quality voluntarily. ⁴ https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/24438/Building0regul0sks0for0safer0cities.pdf ⁵ The terms regulation, code, and standard (all used in this report) are related but not interchangeable. Regulation refers broadly to rules and rule-making; a code is set of rules that a government adopts and enforces; and a standard is a specific technical specification for a material or process. 12 1.4 Japan’s experience offers key takeaways for developing countries Japan’s incremental, context-specific approach to improving building safety includes robust implementation and enforcement of building regulations. The resulting high level of compliance has helped reduce disaster risks and created a high degree of seismic resilience. The lessons learned in Japan over the course of a century are widely applicable. They are discussed in chapter 6 and summarized here: 1. Regulation should be understood as a tool to guide and support the safety of the built environment; though it combines controlling and enabling elements, it should not be seen principally as a means of exerting control. 2. Countries need a clear understanding of their available human, technical, and financial capacity in order to develop an effective approach to building safety. 3. Proactive support for compliance with building regulations—through education and training, financial incentives, and other mechanisms that engage stakeholders—helps create an effective and enabling regulatory environment. 4. Safe construction information, technical services, and professional expertise should be available to anyone who seeks them. 5. Formal regulatory systems should recognize prevalent construction practices, including non-engineered construction, and the risks associated with them. 6. An effective regulatory regime is based on science and requires the participation of academia. 7. Governments can strengthen their regulatory regimes by coordinating action with the building industry. 8. The private sector can play an important role in effective enforcement of building regulation, but only where mechanisms for oversight, fairness, and conflict resolution are robust. 9. Financial mechanisms can play a key role in promoting safety and overall quality in the built environment. 10. A resilient built environment can be achieved through an incremental approach—one that ensures regular impact monitoring, promotes learning and improvement, and serves as the basis for consistent policy updates. 13 2 Legal and Institutional Framework for Building Regulation Key takeaways • Building regulatory reform is an incremental • Understanding a country’s or city’s process, and sustainable and periodic implementation capacity (both public and private) reforms create opportunities to respond is critical for regulatory reform planning. to changing societal needs in accordance with a country’s development stage. Japan’s legal and institutional framework for building regulation, developed over the course of a century, has been essential to its success in creating a safe and resilient built environment. This chapter begins with a brief overview of the legal framework, goes on to describe the participating institutions, and then offers a detailed account of how laws in Japan have developed over time to mitigate disaster risk and meet changing socioeconomic needs. This description of the Japanese legal and institutional framework is not meant to serve as a template for developing countries, whose frameworks must reflect their own capacity and needs. But it sheds light on the incremental process of creating a framework and on the types of challenges that countries are likely to confront. 2.1 Overview of the Current Legal Framework Japan’s current legal framework for building quality assurance regulations on six large cities only, reflecting the government is composed of the Building Standard Law (BSL)—enacted capacity at that time. The BSL applies nationwide. in 1950 and amended multiple times since—and a group of The laws covering building construction and safety (shown laws covering building construction and safety. The objective in figure 2.1) indicate mandatory minimum standards for of the BSL is “to safeguard the life, health, and property urban planning, licensing of building professionals, fire of people by providing minimum standards concerning safety, and consumer protection. Some recent laws also the site, construction, equipment, and use of buildings, include incentives for exceeding minimum requirements and thereby to contribute to the furtherance of the public for safety, building life, energy use, and accessibility welfare”. The earlier Urban Building Law (1919) imposed for elderly and disabled persons (see annex 5D). 14 Figure 2.1 Overview of Major Laws on Building Construction and Safety Design Construction Use/Maintenance Basic Act for Housing Building Articulates Japan’s basic housing philosophy, policy, and plan QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Act for the Promotion of Long-life Quality Housing Establishes standards to increase life of housing, lessen environmental impact Housing Quality Assurance Act Speci es 10-year defect liability for builders, Housing Performance Indication System, process for dispute resolution ensuring enforcement Act on Assurance of Performance of Speci ed Housing Defect Warranty Requires liability bond or insurance for construction companies Law for Promoting Easy Mobility and Accessibility for the Aged and Disabled / Building Energy Conservation Law Act on Promotion of Seismic MINIMUM REQUIREMENT Accessibility standards (obligatory and promotive) Retro tting of Buildings Speci es energy-saving standard for speci c buildings, Explains quali cation process, obligation for noti cation support centers, etc. Building Standard Law, related laws, bylaws CONFIRMATION INSPECTION(S) PERIODIC REPORTING Kenchikushi Law Governs architect-engineers Construction Industry City Planning Fire Services Construction Business Act Real Estate Brokerage Act Act, etc. Law, etc. Governs construction Governs real estate Other companies brokerages DEVELOPMENT NOTICE  CONSENT Industries PERMISSION Mandatory Voluntary Mandatory and Voluntary (up to scale or use of the building) a. The law requires owners of specified buildings to notify the government that certain energy-saving measures are in place. b. Notice applies to small-scale housing. c. Consent applies to fire-prevention districts and mid-scale housing. 15 Unlike some other countries, Japan has a legal framework advantages and disadvantages (table 2.1); for example, that includes building standards within laws. In countries Japan’s approach facilitates compliance for regulators and like the United States and Canada, laws describe a regulatory builders alike, but makes revising the standards more time- framework, objectives, performance requirements, and consuming. Policy makers and researchers need to discuss solutions, but the technical standards themselves are drafted and determine what level of standard should be included in by nongovernmental technical associations and included the law as mandate, and how much flexibility and discretion in separate documents. Each type of framework has both the regulatory system should allow designers and builders. Tablet 2.1 Two Types of Regulatory Frameworks: Standards Included within Law versus Separate from Law Approach Sample countries Advantages Disadvantages Facilitates compliance and con- Makes revision more Building standards Chile, China, Indonesia, Japan, trol, especially in low-capacity difficult and time- contained within the law Republic of Korea, Vietnam environments; ensures mini- consuming mum specification for safety Requires controlling Building standards Makes revision easier; allows authority to have clear Australia, Canada, developed by greater discretion understanding of United States nongovernmental bodies in design compliance framework and associated technical details 2.2 Stakeholders and Their Roles In Japan, both public sector and private sector stakeholders Land and Infrastructure Management and Building Research are involved in building quality assurance, including central Institute, the central government also carries out research and and local governments, a variety of private sector actors development relevant to new building technology and policy. handling confirmation and inspection (referred to in Japan as “designated bodies”), and the licensed Kenchikushi, Local governments also play a role in building quality who act as architect-engineers. The major functions of assurance:⁶ they are responsible for carrying out building these stakeholders are shown in figure 2.2. For a mapping confirmation, structural review, and inspection; for handling of stakeholder relationships, see annex 2A; for more development permissions; for creating bylaws appropriate detail on specific stakeholders’ roles, see annex 2B. for their region;⁷ for issuing citations for building code violations; and for handling retrofit subsidies. Since 1998, local In the central government, the key actor is the Ministry of governments have allowed private sector designated bodies to Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT); it is the carry out design confirmation and construction inspection ministry responsible for developing the BSL and other laws (see section 4.3 and 4.4 for more information)⁸. relating to housing quality, accessibility, energy efficiency, and retrofitting. The quality of building materials is dictated by the Kenchikushi—licensed architect-engineers—are responsible Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) and Japanese Agricultural for building design and construction oversight. They are also Standards (JAS), which are maintained by the Ministry of involved in periodic inspection of special buildings (including Economy, Trade and Industry and Ministry of Agriculture, hospitals, hotels, theaters, department stores, offices, apart- Forestry and Fisheries, respectively. Through dedicated ments, etc.), and seismic diagnosis and retrofitting planning. research arms, such as the state-owned National Institute for ⁶ The local governments most active in building quality assurance are prefectures, large municipalities (those having over 250,000 residents), and those having building officials working under a Designated Administrative Agency. ⁷ Laws passed by the central government apply to the whole country, but local governments also have their own policies for urban development based on local scale, tradition, and culture. To ensure that regulations implemented at the local level are applicable and effective, the central legal system allows local governments to establish bylaws that enhance or supplement regulations. ⁸ MLIT or the prefecture designates the bodies. 16 Figure 2.2 Roles of Major Stakeholders in Building Quality Assurance Central government is responsible for Kenchikushi are responsible for • Laws • Design • Licensing of 1st-class Kenchikushi • Construction supervision • Licensing of national contractors • Periodic inspection of • Designation of designated bodies special buildings • Promotion of high-quality housing • Seismic diagnosis • Promotion and subsidy for retro tting • Research and development Contractors are responsible for • Construction work Local government is responsible for • Retro tting work • Bylaws • Licensing of 2nd-class and wooden Kenchikushi • Licensing of local contractors • Designation of designated bodies Designated bodies are responsible for • Development permission • Design con rmation • Design con rmation • Structural calculation review • Structural calculation review • Construction inspection • Construction inspection • Administrative orders for building violations • Promotion and subsidy for retro tting Planning Design Construction Maintenance Japan Housing Finance Agency Commercial banks • Housing nance • Housing nance • Mortgage-backed securities a. The structural calculation review is conducted by a Designated Structural Calculation Body. Where such a body has not been designated, the local government conducts the review itself (though to date no local government has actually conducted this review). b. The Japan Housing Finance Agency (formerly the Government Housing Loan Corporation) originally financed housing directly; it now does so mainly through support for commercial banks, though it continues some direct financing. 2.3 How Laws Developed to Meet Changing Needs In response to changing socioeconomic needs and the pressure The first building regulation created by the central government, of natural and man-made disasters, Japan’s legal framework the Urban Building Law (1919), did not apply across the for building quality assurance was developed and improved country but focused on six large cities—Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, incrementally over the course of a century. The history of Yokohama, Kobe, and Nagoya. These cities were chosen partly these changes is described below and illustrated in figure 2.3. because they had (or could develop) the necessary human and technical capacity to implement the law’s height restrictions The first building regulations in Japan were municipal and and design specifications, and partly because their rapid growth date from 1888, when Tokyo issued regulations to address fire had resulted in sanitation issues that would be addressed by and hygiene issues. Osaka issued its own regulations in 1909. the law. In 1950, the regulations were extended to the whole 17 country with the passage of the Building Standard Law. The the important point is that from 1950 to the present, as new law also included a planning code (regulating floor area technical and financial capacity grew and socioeconomic ratio [FAR], height, and building use) and a building code and other needs evolved, laws were introduced or changed (dealing with structural safety, hygiene, fire safety, etc.). to optimize regulations. In some cases, regulations were After 1950, the development of Japan’s legal framework for strengthened; for example, the experience of the Niigata building quality assurance falls roughly into three phases: (1) Earthquake (1964) and Tokachi-oki Earthquake (1968) drove post-WWII reconstruction and construction boom, lasting engineering research that led to higher seismic standards. into the 1980s; (2) a period through the 1990s focused on In other cases, regulations were eased; for example, housing quality rather than quantity; and (3) the post-2000 amendment of the BSL in 1987 and again in 2014 eased height period focused on enhanced quality needed to address restrictions for wooden buildings because technical advances changing demographics, environmental protection, and had made construction of taller wooden buildings safe. energy savings. The sections below offer more detail, but Figure 2.3 Incremental Development of Legal Framework for Building Safety Phase 1: Post-WWII reconstruction Phase 2: Shi from Phase 3: Post-millennium and expansion: Improving quality quantity to quality concern with enhanced quality assurance mechanism to ensure minimum quality for growing construction needs Before WWII Post-WWII Reconstruction High Economic Growth Post-millennium Urban Building Standard Continuous Building Law Law Amendment 1888: 1950 Tokyo Town Planning Construction Kenchikushi Law Kenchikushi Law Ordinance Business Act (Amendment) Need for 1950 2000 1909: quali ed Real Estate Local Building professionals Brokerage Act Code of Osaka Housing 1949 1952 Construction 1919 Planning Act National Act on Promotion of Act on Promotion of policy to Seismic Retro tting Seismic Retro tting increase of Buildings of Buildings housing Great Hanshin- (Amendment) supply Awaji Earthquake 2005 1966 1995 Housing Quality Act on Housing Assurance Act Defect Warranty Defective houses 2007 1999 Act for the Promotion Basic Act of Long-life for Housing Quality Housing 2006 2009 Building Energy Energy Kyoto Conservation Law Conservation Law Protocol Focus on building 1979 1998 energy saving 2016 Act for the Act on Law for Promot- Name of law Stable Promotion of ing Easy Mobility Background to/ Living of the Smooth and Accessibility trigger for law Elderly Transportation, for the Aged and etc. of Elderly Disabled 1994 Persons, Disabled Persons, etc. Two laws integrated 2000 2006 18 2.3.1 First Phase: Post-WWII Reconstruction and Construction Boom As Japan carried out reconstruction after World War II, The Kenchikushi Law of 1950. This law established a licensing the housing stock demand grew rapidly with the increase in system for Kenchikushi (architect-engineers). It designated population and sprawling urbanization across the country. them as the only group permitted to design buildings or Establishing a sound quality assurance mechanism for supervise construction works, and required that any buildings construction therefore became a pressing need for the they designed had to comply with the technical requirements government. In parallel, the government began to foster of related laws. the capacity of building professionals and the construction industry, which would support the implementation of safer Development of financial instruments for construction building practices. or purchase of housing. Starting in the 1950s, the Government Housing Loan Corporation (GHLC; now Registration and licensing of building and design Japan Housing Finance Agency, or JHF) began providing professionals. As building reconstruction and construction long-term, low-interest loans for the construction or boomed after WWII, the Construction Business Act (1949) purchase of houses. To improve the quality of construction, sought to ensure the quality of construction by creating a it also took the unique step of establishing proprietary registration system for building contractors. The law has been technical criteria beyond the mandatory minimum BSL amended several times to strengthen its regulations. standard and publishing specifications and technical guidance that carpenters without an engineering background could follow.⁹ See section 5.2.1 for details. Figure 2.4 Relationship between the City Planning Act and the Building Standard Law City Planning Act (CPA) Master Plan (Policy for improvement, development, and preservation) Land use control Planning of Urban development • Area classi cation public facilities projects • Zoning • Roads and parks • Land readjustment • Other • Sewerage and waste projects treatment facilities • Urban redevelopment • Other projects • Other Building Standard Law Regulation of building Restriction of building Restriction of building (BSL) height, building use, and construction in areas construction in areas Zoning codes stipulated other characteristics where public facilities where urban develop- in the BSL as they relate are planned ment projects are to provisions of City planned Planning Act Source: MLIT. ⁹ The Japan Housing Corporation, established in 1955, was another financial institution that played a significant role in ensuring that housing was affordable for those with middle incomes by developing rental properties, properties for sale, and other projects. Its role ended in the 1980s, when its function was shifted to improving urban space and maintaining aged mass-housing buildings as part of the Urban Renaissance Agency. 19 To ensure harmonization of urban development and grant a building confirmation for construction plans that building construction, Japan introduced two legal meet the requirements stipulated in the BSL, in other requirements: builders need to obtain development pertinent regulations (notably those in the Fire Services permission in order to change the size, shape, character, Law)¹⁰, and in regional bylaws. This system, illustrated or use of a plot of land; and local building officials must in figure 2.5, is still in use; see section 4.3.1 for details. Figure 2.5 Application Procedure Prior to Commencement of Building Construction Development Permission Building Consent for Permission for Con rmation Fire Safety “development activity,” Con rms that Consent of the Fire de ned as changes in the size, Commencement of requirements of BSL and Disaster Building Construction shape, character, or use of a and other pertinent Management plot of land for purposes such regulations have Agency granted to as constructing a building or been met building o cials speci c facilities 2.3.2 Second Phase: Shift to Higher Quality in the 1990s As Japan achieved high economic growth in the 1970s building code that defined the seismic standard suffered and 1980s, its focus shifted to quality development. The greater damage than those built to the newer standards devastating Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 revealed of 1981.¹² To encourage seismic diagnosis and retrofitting the construction quality issues that the quality assurance of existing buildings, the Act on Promotion of Seismic mechanism then in place had not addressed. This event Retrofitting of Buildings was established in 1995.¹³ triggered the improvement of the system itself and promotion of large-scale seismic retrofitting work for the country. Consumer protection. In 1999, in response to the large number of structurally defective houses revealed by the Role of financial institutions and instruments in Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, Japan passed the Housing promoting housing quality. In the 1990s, those seeking Quality Assurance Act. This law extended to 10 years the to build or buy a home continued to take advantage of period during which contractors or developers are liable the long-term, low-interest loans provided by JHF to for defects in new houses.¹⁴ It also introduced the Housing incentivize production of higher-quality houses. Performance Indication System, which enables consumers to evaluate their house’s performance against a set of Promotion of retrofitting work. Following the 1995 Great standardized performance indicators (resistance to earthquake, Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, in which 250,000 houses and energy saving, sound insulation, etc.). Results evaluated buildings were fully or partially destroyed,¹¹ retrofitting by a third-party organization can be included in contract was identified as a priority. The post-disaster damage documents and be factored into insurers’ decisions about survey showed that buildings constructed to meet the old seismic insurance premiums (see annex 5D for details). ¹⁰ Other pertinent regulations are contained in the Ports and Harbors Act, Gas Business Act, Water Supply Act, Urban Green Act, and the Act on Promotion of Smooth Transportation, etc. of Elderly Persons, Disabled Persons, etc. ¹¹ The estimate is from Japan’s Fire and Disaster Management Agency. ¹² This point is discussed more thoroughly in chapter 1. See especially figure 1.1. ¹³ The law was amended in 2005 to require prefectural governments to make plans for retrofitting of public facilities and houses, including clear and tangible targets. ¹⁴ This is an exception to the civil code, which stipulates a defect liability period of one year. 20 2.3.3 Third Phase: Post-millennium Concerns As global leaders advanced an agenda concerned with climate Aging population and enhancement of accessibility. change and inclusive development, Japan started to adopt such In response to shifts in Japanese lifestyles and values caused trends into its national development plans. In this context, the by an aging population and falling birth rate, Japan passed the construction sector played a key role by implementing relevant Basic Act for Housing in 2006 to promote a stable housing new acts enacted by the government. supply and improved living environment. In 2006, another law passed in response to shifting demographics was the Law for Further consumer protection. The Act on Assurance Promoting Easy Mobility and Accessibility for the Aged and of Performance of Specified Housing Defect Warranty of Disabled (2006)¹⁵. This law contains comprehensive legal 2007 offered further protections to consumers by requiring regulations for improved accessibility in the built environment construction companies to deposit a bond for defect liability and specifies both mandatory and voluntary accessibility or to purchase housing defect liability insurance. This standards for building construction. Buildings that satisfy the requirement ensured that even financially troubled companies voluntary standard are eligible for looser FAR limits, tax breaks, could be held accountable for defects for 10 years. and subsidies, and are allowed to display the logo indicating that they are a certified accessible facility. Environmental protection. The Act for the Promotion of Long-Life Quality Housing of 2009 established standards Promotion of energy savings. The Building Energy to increase the life of housing to lessen housing’s impact on Conservation Law was established in 2015 to promote energy the environment. In response to the expectation of much savings in buildings. It follows the earlier Energy Conservation longer-lived buildings, a suitable loan system was established, Law (1979), which was passed after the second oil crisis and policies were put in place to encourage preferential tax and which has been revised several times, including the treatment (for income tax, registration license tax, real estate amendment of 1998 in response to the Kyoto Protocol. The acquisition tax, and fixed asset tax) for buildings that met the new law specifies mandatory energy consumption performance standards under the law. standards for new buildings and includes voluntary standards linked to less restrictive FAR specifications. ¹⁵ The law combined the Act for the Stable Living of the Elderly (1994) and the Act on Promotion of Smooth Transportation, etc. of Elderly Persons, Disabled Persons, etc. (2000). 21 3 Incremental Enhancement of Building Standards Key takeaways • To achieve high levels of resilience in the built • Focused academic research on prevalent environment, institutionalizing an incremental building practices in the informal sector reform process is crucial. Japan institutionalized can help integrate informal buildings—built a system to both identify the cause of building based on limited engineering knowledge— failure (through assessments of damaged into formal regulatory systems. buildings) and continuously inform policy decisions to strengthen building regulations. • Practical and realistic reforms can be developed through transparent and inclusive processes • Close cooperation between policy makers and involving a wide range of stakeholders, including the academic community can foster an enabling building regulators, designers, builders, environment for state-of-the-art technologies material manufacturers, representatives from and push the frontier through research. industry groups, and academic communities. Engagement of industry groups will help make the regulation accessible, practical, and scalable, in part by leveraging the private sector’s ability to deliver services and influence consumers. Until early in the post–World War II reconstruction period, Japan was in a situation similar to that of some developing countries today, employing construction that did not adhere to a high seismic standard, having very poor concrete quality, and facing a large housing demand. Only gradually did it achieve the high level of building safety it enjoys today. This chapter explains the gradual process through which Japan improved its building standards, with a focus on four key components: the role of natural disasters in driving research and priorities; the importance of technological advances and specifically the collaboration of government, academia, and industry; the incorporation of seismic design in building standards; and the consultative process used in updating standards. 22 3.1 Natural Disasters as Triggers for Integrating Resilience into Building Regulation The Building Standard Law of 1950 (described in chapter 2) once the necessary technological knowledge is available— has been revised many times, but the milestone revision is that has characterized Japan’s development of seismic design of 1981, which provided a new seismic design method—one standards for the past 100 years (see figure 3.1). The 1981 BSL that was proved effective by several subsequent earthquakes. revision is an especially important example. It represented The 1981 revision took place in response to the 1968 Tokachi- a fundamental change to the old law to reflect the most Oki Earthquake, which caused substantial damage to recent technology in engineering methods and materials, reinforced concrete (RC) buildings designed to the Building and serves as the basis for the seismic standards in effect Standard Law (BSL) standard in effect at that time. That event today. But there are other important examples as well: made clear the necessity of upgrading the seismic design standard, and as a result, the Ministry of Construction (the • The 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake led to passage precursor of MLIT) started a five-year research project to of the Urban Building Law in 1924, which comprehensively improve anti-seismic technology and develop contained Japan’s first seismic standards. a new seismic design method. The draft version of the new • The original 1950 BSL was passed partly in method was completed in 1977; further improvements were response to the Fukui Earthquake of 1948. made based on the damage caused by the 1978 Miyagi-oki Earthquake; and the BSL was revised in 1981 to incorporate the • The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995, which new standard. confirmed the performance of the 1981 standards, led to passage of the Seismic Retrofitting Promotion law This pattern—a disaster event reveals deficiencies in the and widespread efforts to ensure that older buildings current building standards, and the law is changed in response were retrofitted to meet the 1981 seismic standards. 23 Figure 3.1 Earthquakes as Triggers for Incremental Improvements in Seismic Design Standards 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake 1948 Fukui Earthquake 1964 Nigata Earthquake 1995 Hanshin Awaji Earthquake 2004 Nigata Chuetsu Earthquake 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake 1891 1923 1948 1968 1978 1995 2004 2005 2011 Nobi Earthquake Great Kanto Fukui Tokachioki Miyagiken-oki Hanshin-Awaji Nigata Chuetsu Falsi cation of Great East Japan MMI > X Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake structural Earthquake M8.0 MMI > X MMI > X MMI > X MMI > VII MMI > IX MMI > IX calculation MMI > X M7.8 M7.2 M7.9 M7.4 M7.3 M6.8 documents M9.0 1892 1919 1924 1950 1970-71 1981 1995 1998 2000 2006 2013,2014 Urban Building Urban Building Building Standard Building Standard Building Standard Seismic Building Standard Building Standard Building Standard Building Standard Law Law Law Law Law Retro tting Law Law Law/Seismic Law/Seismic (Enforcement) (Amendment) (Replacement of (Amendment) (Amendment) Promotion Law (Amendment (Amendment) Retro tting Retro tting Urban Building Law) (Enforcement) Promotion Law Promotion Law (Amendment) (Amendment) Investigation No seismic First structural Minimum Strengthening New seismic Measures and Performance Alternative Designation of New regulation Committee on requirement calculation standard and of RC standards code: guidelines for code seismic design structural for large Disaster (mostly for urban regulation updated seismically method calculation wooden planning) against • Medium-scale (response and limit Prevention structural Introduction of de cient Designation of review body; buildings seismic force earthquake deformation) Building calculation FAR in all areas existing private sector strict review (seismic coe cient: (C=0.2) does not cause permission by buildings bodies to process (large Easier process C=0.1) damage buildings) police perform for structural Con rmation by • Large-scale building review local govern- Seismic earthquake con rmation ment retro tting does not cause and inspection Mandatory promotion collapse seismic Adjacent road plan by local diagnosis of 2.7m -> 4.0m government large public buildings Building/seismic design Building confirmation and inspection Retrofitting promotion Environmental regulations Note: RC= reinforced concrete; FAR= floor area ratio. 24 25 3.2 Collaboration among Government, Academia, and Industry in Technological Research As the previous section suggests, Japan’s ongoing improvement important policies are designed; leading academics are typically of its building standards has depended in part on continuing appointed to serve as chair of study groups in these cases. technological research and advances. In Japan, this research The General Technology Development Project is an example has long been carried out by government, universities, and of collaboration among Japanese government, academia, and industry working collaboratively. This approach originates industry. Initiated in 1972, it is an ongoing, comprehensive in the mission of Japanese universities, which were founded research effort aimed at developing construction technologies to train government personnel and private sector leaders. in response to important and pressing needs in the Especially during periods when the government and private construction sector. Under MLIT’s leadership and with sector had limited capacity, academia played an important the participation of academia and the private sector, it has role in furthering knowledge. Japan’s government research contributed to the development of multiple laws and technical institutions continue to have close ties with the universities guidelines, including the drastic amendment of the BSL in 1981. today. The government now has a mechanism in place to As of fiscal year 2011, 61 research projects had been completed organize multiple stakeholders into advisory committees when under its auspices. Table 3.1 shows some key examples. Table 3.1 Sample Contributions of the General Technology Development Project Project Duration Contribution Development of new seismic 1972–1976 Revision of BSL in 1981 design code Development of housing Development of evaluation criteria for housing performance performance comprehensive 1973–1977 (later used by financial institutions offering housing loans) evaluation system Presentation of building construction system based on Development of new building 1995–1997 performance evaluation and development of guidelines for construction system performance evaluation (draft) Development of technology for Verification of reduction measures; provision of information ~2001– countermeasures against sick for revision of BSL related to the countermeasures against sick 2003 building syndromeª building syndrome a. Sick building syndrome refers to illness suffered by building occupants; symptoms, which include headache, respiratory irritation, dizziness, and nausea, seem to worsen as people spend longer periods in the building. 26 The first project included in table 3.2, development of new research institutes (Public Works Research Institute and seismic design code, was a major achievement because it Building Research Institute), university professors, and formed the basis for the 1981 BSL revision that imposed a experts from private companies. The Building Research new, higher seismic standard. Before 1981, seismic design Institute, a national research institute, had a particularly was based on a static design method that did not consider important role in coordinating and finalizing the project. the dynamic characteristics of structures. This approach was the result of a limited understanding of earthquake ground Comprehensive research into all aspects of seismic motion and the response of structures subject to earthquake design ultimately produced the new seismic design generated excitation, which is an important element for method. Just after the completion of the project, the estimating the seismic loads. But building damage caused Miyagiken-oki Earthquake occurred; its damage verified by a series of earthquakes—the Niigata Earthquake (1964), the concept of the new design method and led to the Tokachi-oki Earthquake (1968), and Los Angeles Earthquake revision of the BSL in 1981 to include the new method.¹⁶ (1971)—showed the need for a new seismic design method. The Ministry of Construction thus initiated the five-year In general, where policy making concerns itself with Development of New Seismic Design Code project in disaster preparedness and seismic risk reduction, 1972. A number of partners were involved in the project, technical experts have a key role to play. This is true not including the Ministry of Construction and its affiliated just in Japan but more generally, as box 3.1 shows. Box 3.1 How Academic Research Supports Policy Making Japan shares its own experience with countries facing similar challenges. From 1986 to 2012, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) supported a number of countries in building their seismic research capacity, including Mexico and Peru. In both countries, the technical projects have had a direct influence on policy making and on updating and enhancement of seismic performance standards for buildings. These experiences suggest the wider applicability and success of Japan’s collaborative model, in which academia and government work together to ensure that policy making reflects state-of-the-art technology. Mexico Peru JICA’s technical cooperation project in Mexico ran from Under JICA’s seismic center project in Peru, which 1990 to 1997. Under the project, Mexico (1) developed an ran from 1986 to 1993, the Japan-Peru Center for earthquake strong motion observation network, (2) created Earthquake Engineering Research and Disaster guidelines for seismic structure design and construction for Mitigation (CISMID) was created. CISMID conducts masonry structures, and (3) trained construction engineers research into structural and geotechnical engineering in Central and South America as well as in Mexico. The and disaster mitigation planning. The center also National Center for Disaster Prevention (CENAPRED), which provides consultant services to the government (e.g., the project supported, is now a core organization in the civil National Institute of Civil Defense and the Ministry of protection system of Mexico, involved in creating, managing, Housing Construction and Sanitation) on seismic risk and promoting public policies related to disaster prevention assessment and emergency damage inspection. As a and in keeping technical seismic regulations up to date. member of several national level committees—including a science and technology advisory committee, a scientific committee on natural disasters, and the seismic design standard committee—it is also involved in the policy- making process for seismic disaster risk reduction. Sources: López, 2005; Ishiyama 2005; JICA 1999. ¹⁶ The researchers looked specifically at (1) earthquake ground motion, (2) dynamic characteristics of soil, (3) dynamic characteristics and seismic resistant capacity of structural elements, (4) dynamic characteristics of structures and earthquake response analysis method, (5) seismic design method for structures, and (6) earthquake disaster mitigation countermeasures. 27 3.3 Concept of Seismic Design in the Building Standard Law The new seismic design method included in the 1981 BSL technology that made analyzing earthquake dynamic response revision still serves as the core of Japan’s seismic design easier. The new method has several distinctive features: code today. This section shows how the new design method • It determines earthquake load by ground condition significantly improved seismic safety of RC buildings and and buildings’ vibration characteristics. wooden buildings—two building types that are widely used • It includes a seismic design for both medium- and large- in developing countries as well as in Japan. These examples earthquake ground shaking. For medium-earthquake are relevant for developing countries in part because of the ground shaking, it prevents building damage through building types they deal with, and more broadly because the elastic design method; for large-earthquake ground they demonstrate how context-specific research can inform shaking, it accounts for nonlinear response and ultimate development of a seismic standard that caters to a country’s load-bearing capacity. The basic concept is that in extreme specific needs. cases, building collapse should be avoided to save lives. In essence, any seismic design must (1) determine the seismic • It analyzes dynamic response for buildings taller load, and (2) develop a structural design to resist that load. than 60 m using the method authorized by MLIT. The new 1981 method, unlike the old, took into account the The new standard has proved effective in mitigating dynamic response characteristics of buildings and employed earthquake damage in RC buildings and wooden houses. an elastic design method. Its development was facilitated by (Details on the relative shares of different building types in the accumulation of data on strong earthquake ground motion, Japan are in annex 3A). along with dramatic advances in computers and computing 3.3.1 Reinforced Concrete Structures RC is one of the most common building types. In Japan, the severely damaged. In response, Japan incorporated a two-part RC design standard was first created in 1933 and then revised seismic design in the 1981 BSL: the standard addresses both the many times based on the experience of earthquakes. In the structure’s strength and its deformation capacity. As explained 1968 Tokachi-Oki earthquake, for example, there was extensive above, for a medium-scale earthquake (once in several brittle failure of columns, a condition that may cause sudden decades), the structure must be able to recover to its original building collapse; in response, Japan revised the standard for condition, while for a large-scale earthquake (once in several strengthening the shear capacity (for example, by shortening hundred years), the structure must not collapse—though it the hoop interval from 30 cm to 10 cm). In the 1978 Miyagiken- may suffer severe damage—in order to save people’s lives. The Oki earthquake, buildings that used piloti structures,¹⁶ such two-part design is illustrated in figure 3.2. as apartments with a parking garage on the first floor, were ¹⁶ Pilotis are posts, pillars, or similar structures that support a building and serve to raise it above ground level. 28 Figure 3.2 Major Conceptual Change in the 1981 Seismic Standard Accounting for Both Building Strength and Deformation Capacity Medium-scale earthquake Large-scale earthquake JMA intensity 5+ JMA intensity of 6+ to 7 Size of force (nearly MMI VIII) (nearly MMI X or more) that acts Collapse or Failure Allowable Relationship between unit stress force working on a (maximum force member and deformation * Damage (deformation) remains even a er that a member removal of force. can sustain) No damage Original (structure Condition remains intact) Range of Range of calculation of calculation of * Original condition is recovered a er removal allowable unit ultimate lateral of force (i.e., a er earthquake). stress strength Deformation Source: MLIT website, http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000188539.pdf (in Japanese). Note: Japan measures earthquake intensity on a JMA intensity scale (roman numerals), as explained at http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/ Activities/inttable.html. The figure here provides MMI (Modified Mercalli Intensity) values (arabic numerals) for ease of comparison, though there is no exact correspondence between the scales. See Kunugi (2000, figure 4) for a chart that helps to clarify the complex correspondence. Magnitude and intensity measure different characteristics of earthquakes; the U.S. Geological Survey website https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php) has a good explanation. Since intensity has direct impacts on building damages, his report uses intensity as the seismic scale. It converts the JMA intensity to MMI based on the correspondence chart presented by Kunugi (2000, figure 4), and on scientific studies on specific events when available (e.g., Sokejima et al. [2004]). The effectiveness of the new seismic design standard for RC was demonstrated during the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995. Of the 1,026 RC buildings in Nishinomiya and Nada wards severely damaged in this event, 46 percent had been built before 1971, 39 percent between 1971 and 1981, and 15 percent after 1981.¹⁸ With this clear evidence for the 1981 standard’s effectiveness, Japan undertook a nationwide program to retrofit structures built before 1981 (see section 5.1 for details). 3.3.2 Wooden Houses Wooden structures have been popular in Japan since ancient Japan from North America in the 1950s, whose main shear times; they form a large share of existing housing (especially load–bearing elements are walls. Japan’s wooden houses detached houses) and continue to be built (see annex 3A). were originally considered “non-engineered” and relied on Two different construction methods are used for detached conventional knowledge; but standards for the houses were wooden houses: (1) the modified traditional Japanese method, gradually improved based on modern engineering whose main shear load–bearing elements are columns, beams, knowledge, so that today’s wooden houses are considered and braces;¹⁹ and (2) the wood frame method introduced to engineered structures. ¹⁸ The data are from Nagao, Yamazaki, and Inoguchi (2010); Yamaguchi and Yamazaki (2000a, 2000b); and Yamazaki and Murao (2000). ¹⁹ The main difference between the traditional method and the modified method is that the latter requires diagonal braces, concrete strips, and mat foundation, while the former does not. 29 Older wooden houses, mostly built by carpenters untrained Currently, the BSL does not require structural calculations in engineering principles, fared badly in the Great Hanshin- for wooden houses less than three stories if a Kenchikushi Awaji Earthquake; some 180,000 buildings were destroyed is involved in their design and construction. The quality or collapsed because of inadequate or poor-quality bearing of wooden houses is assured through simple design walls, unbalanced distribution of walls, and poor connections specifications that allow the house to be built by carpenters between sill and foundation. The damage caused by the 2016 without advanced knowledge of seismic engineering. By Kumamoto Earthquake shows the same tendency. During the including these small-scale wooden houses—which used to nearly 70 years since the creation of the Building Standard be considered as non-engineered structures in the Japanese Law, the seismic performance of wooden houses has gradually context—within the scope of building regulations, their been enhanced by the lessons learned from earthquakes. The quality can be assured through the relevant specifications. key milestones for upgrading the specifications of wooden The introduction of licensed Kenchikushi for design and houses under the BSL are summarized in table 3.2. Note the oversight of wooden structures, along with training of especially strong enhancement of 2000, which was based on carpenters, has also helped improve the quality of wooden the lessons learned from the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, houses. Box 3.2 describes training of carpenters; box 3.3 and the specification developed by the GHLC for its voluntary describes how other countries have incorporated non- advanced quality enhancement system (described more engineered structures in their building regulations. extensively in section 5.2). Table 3.2 Incremental Improvement of Specifications for Wooden Houses under the Building Standard Law Regulation for Wooden Houses Building Connection Quantity of between Standard Law bearing wall Balance of Diagonal structure and Foundation (cm/m2) bearing wall brace foundation Use of clamp, Use of clamp 8 1950 nail, or bolt for fixing 12 for fixing Use of clamp for fixing 12 1959 21 Use of plate hardware by 1971 JHF (beginning around 1979) Concrete or Use of plate Use of hold- RC strip 15 hardware (from down hardware 1981 29 around 1981) (from around 1988) Mat or strip Established wall Use of brace Use of hold- depending on balance hardware down hardware soil-bearing for fixing capacity 1/4 2000 1/4 1/4 1/4 Source: Adapted from KEN-Platz–Nikkei BP website http://kenplatz.nikkeibp.co.jp/atcl knpcolumn/14/505663/061300t014/?SS=imgview&FD=1421851125. 30 Box 3.2 Training the Next Generation of Carpenters Skilled construction workers are important actors in assuring Labor and Welfare offers grants to employers that train building quality in Japan. In particular, carpenters play an carpenters to build wooden houses. The Ministry is also important role in assuring the quality of Japan’s characteristic promoting a national qualification system designed to wooden houses. As carpenters skilled in this style of housing improve carpenters’ skills. MLIT has established a three- have aged, however, fewer individuals with the requisite skills year carpenter training program in the form of a school run have been available to do this type of work. by a private organization. The school enrolls 18- to 25-year- olds, and it offers subsidies to builders who teach there. To help preserve Japan’s housing inheritance and train Unfortunately, the number of builders who can conduct the younger workers in the requisite skills, the Ministry of Health, necessary trainings is declining. Box 3.3 Building Regulations for Non-Engineered Buildings Non-engineered construction is common around the Figure B3.1 JICA Poster Showing Key world—and is also especially vulnerable to earthquakes. Requirements for Safe Confined Drawing on Japan’s experience of incrementally improving Masonry Structures the safety of non-engineered wooden structures through building regulations, JICA has offered technical support to PERSYARATAN POKOK other countries seeking to establish non-engineered building MEMBANGUN RUMAH YANG LEBIH AMAN Bangunan tembokan dengan bingkai beton bertulang The Project on Building Administration and Enforcement Capacity Development for Seismic Resilience standards. Both in Indonesia and El Salvador, the results B a g i a n 1. B A H A N B A N G U N A N Bagian 3. I K ATA N A N TA R S T R U K T U R U TA M A - Gunakan semen tipe I - Gunakan pasir dan kerikil bersih of scientific research were put into practice, and building - Gunakan kayu berkualitas baik dengan ciri-ciri : keras, kering, berwarna gelap, tidak ada retak dan lurus. FONDASI - BALOK PENGIKAT (SLOOF) BALOK PENGIKAT (SLOOF) - KOLOM - Untuk Fondasi gunakan batu kali yang keras Begel 8 mm Tulangan kolom dilewatkan BETON 1 semen + 4 pasir M O R TA R Angkur Besi ø 10 mm ke sloof dengan panjang Tulangan Utama 1 semen + 2 pasir + 3 Kerikil Jarak maksimum antar angkur 1m lewatan minimal 40 D (40 cm) 10 mm Batu kali/gunung Adukan Beton Sloof regulation systems were adopted as national policy. The + + + + + Batu kosong Fondasi MINIMAL 40 cm Lantai Kerja & Pasir Air 1 Semen 2 Pasir 3 Kerikil ½ Air 1 Semen 4 Pasir Secukupnya KOLOM - DINDING KOLOM - BALOK KELILING (RING) occurrence of disasters in both countries accelerated the Catatan: Perlu diperhatikan penambahan air dilakukan sedikit demi sedikit dan disesuaikan agar beton dalam keadaan pulen K AY U Tulangan kolom dilewatkan (tidak terlalu encer dan tidak terlalu kental) ke balok ring dengan panjang Syarat kayu: Begel baja ø 8 mm lewatan minimal 40 D (40 cm) - Berkualitas baik Pasangan ½ bata Pengujian sederhana * Tulangan Utama - Keras Letakkan beton di tangan baja ø 10 mm - Kering seperti gambar berikut: - Berwarna Gelap process of establishing non-engineered standards. The brief * Dikutip dari Buku Constructing Seismic - Tidak ada retak Resistant Masonry Housing in Indonesia, Tulangan Begel Teddy Boen, 2006 - Lurus Dok: Iman S baja ø 8 mm Tulangan Utama baja ø 10 mm B a g i a n 2 . S T R U K T U R U TA M A BALOK KELILING (RING) - KUDA KUDA Pengikatan kuda-kuda pada balok keliling/ ring dapat juga dilakukan Angkur/Baut Tanam min dengan cara berikut: Diameter 10 mm Angkur menggunakan besi case studies presented here offer lessons on how to ensure kuda-kuda kayu diameter 10 mm yang diatanam Ikatan angin Alat untuk membengkokkan angkur: kedalam balok keliling/ ring pipa besi diameter minimium 3 inchi Bingkai Ampig/ Gunung-gunung dengan 2 lubang Balok keliling/ Ring dari bertulang dinding ½ batu bata Gunung gunung yang telah diplaster dari pasangan bata Dikutip dari Buku “Constructing Seismic Resistant the safety of non-engineered construction. the number of Masonry Housing in Indonesia”, Teddy Boen, 2006 Balok pengikat/ sloof GUNUNG GUNUNG (AMPIG) - KOLOM kolom beton bertulang Fondasi builders who can conduct the necessary trainings is declining. Tulangan sengkang dengan diameter minimal 8 mm FONDASI DINDING Tulangan utama dengan diameter minimal 10 mm Gunakan batu kali atau batu gunung yang keras, - Dinding menggunakan pasangan bata dengan tebal siar 1,5 cm Jangan lupa untuk memasang angkur bata pada dengan ukuran sebagai berikut: - Dinding diplaster dengan campuran 1 sement : 4 pasir dengan gunung - gunung.Angkur besi minimum 10 mm Dikutip dari Buku “Constructing Seismic Resistant tebal 2 cm. Sepanjang 40 cm, setiap 6 lapis bata Masonry Housing in Indonesia”, Teddy Boen, 2006 - Jarak maksimum antar kolom adalah 3 m atau luas maksimum Detail A Detail B dinding adalah 9 m² IKATAN ANGIN Pertemuan ikatan angin Pertemuan ikatan angin Dinding bata Luas area tembok dengan gunung-gunung dengan kuda kuda diplaster maksimum 9 m² Dok: Iman S 1 semen :4 pasir tebal 2 cm Jarak maksimum kolom 3 m BETON BERTULANG Kayu 6/ 12 Baut Diameter (Balok pengikat/ sloof, kolom, balok keliling/ ring, dan bingkai ampig) Detail A Detail B Ikatan angin 10 mm menggunakan kayu 6/ 12 Kuda kuda kayu Beton bertulang menggunakan tulangan utama diameter 10 mm, dan Tulangan begel diameter 8 mm dengan interval 15 cm. Tebal selimut beton untuk kolom dan balok pengikat/ sloof adalah 1,5 cm sedangkan untuk balok keliling/ ring dan bingkai ampig adalah 1 cm (lihat gambar) Tulangan begel Bagian 4. PENGECORAN BETON Tulangan utama baja 8 mm 1,5 cm 1,5 cm baja 10 mm 1 cm 135° PENGECORAN KOLOM 15 cm - Pastikan cetakan rapat dan kuat/kokoh. 15 cm 15 cm panjang 20 cm tekukan - Pengecoran kolom dilakukan secara bertahap setiap 1 m 135° 1,5 cm 1,5 cm minimal 5 cm - Pada saat pengecoran beton dirojok dengan besi tulangan atau bambu agar tidak ada yang keropos. 1,5 cm 15 c m 12 cm - Pelepasan bekisting minimal 3 hari setelah pengecoran 15 cm Dok: Iman S Dok: Iman S Balok Pengikat/ Sloof Kolom Balok Keliling/ Ring Tekukan pada begel Jarak begel dan Bingkai Ampig KUDA KUDA KAYU Detail 2 12 8/ Detail 1 Gording 6/12 6/12 Baut min. Ø 10 mm 1m 8/12 Detail 2 Dok: Iman S Beton dirojok dengan besi Pastikan Bekisting/ cetakan tulangan atau bambu Detail 3 benar-benar kuat dan rapat 12 Pengecoran pertama setinggi 1 m agar tidak ada yang keropos 8/12 8/ Detail 4 Plat baja tebal 4 mm, lebar 40 mm atau Papan PENGECORAN BALOK tebal 20 lebar 100 mm 8/12 - Tulangan dirangkai diatas dinding Detail 3 Baut min. Ø 10 mm - Cetakan pada balok gantung harus diberi penyangga 8/12 - Cetakan dapat dilepas setelah 3 hari untuk balok yang menumpu di dinding), dan 14 hari untuk balok gantung Detail 4 Dapat dilepas Dok: Iman S Detail 1 Balok Ring Dapat dilepas setelah 14 hari setelah 3 hari Gording 6/12 Gording 6/12 2 8/1 Plat baja tebal 4 mm dan lebar 40 mm 8/12 atau Papan tebal 20 lebar 100 mm Baut min. Ø 10 mm 12 8/ Klem baja Dok: Iman S 4.40 mm 8/12 penyangga cetakan (bekisting) Poster ini diajukan sebagai PERSYARATAN POKOK UNTUK RUMAH YANG LEBIH AMAN untuk pengembangan di masa mendatang demi menghindari jatuhnya korban jika terjadi gempa bumi. Di Nasehati oleh: Mr. Teddy Boen, Prof. Priyo Suprobo, Prof. Sarwidi, Dr. Krishna S. Pribadi, Ir. Mudji Irmawan A, Dr. Iman Satyarno, Dr. Ashar Saputra 31 Box 3.3 Building Regulations for Non-Engineered Buildings CONTD. Indonesia The main issue for disseminating the seismic standard After the Central Java Earthquake in 2006, JICA helped is the economic capacity of low- to middle-income Indonesia develop a system to support reconstruction homeowners, who cannot afford to hire experts for design of one-story non-engineered houses. To improve the and construction and often construct their own houses. In seismic performance of these traditional structures, three these contexts, a building permit without a plan, and even key requirements were identified, all of which needed to construction without a building permit, is not uncommon. consider locally available and affordable methods. The Building permits are not always carefully checked, requirements concerned (1) the quality of materials, (2) the partly due to legal ambiguities surrounding the building structural section of main members, and (3) the connection permitting process; individual building officials may have of structural members. To promote adoption of these wide discretion, or they may lack the technical expertise requirements, the government tied them to its conditional to verify. Formulating and publicizing the standard cash transfer scheme. By 2014, about half of all districts is obviously only the first step, and dissemination in and cities in Indonesia had adopted this approach. As of the field and ensuring uptake from the community are December 2016, that figure had increased to 86 percent. another challenge. Stakeholders in El Salvador continue to discuss how these issues should be addressed. In February 2016, the government of Indonesia formally enacted regulations for building permits, including the Conclusion key requirements for non-engineered buildings, and also These examples illustrate how education, compliance established a data acquisition system to manage compliance support, and financial incentives, rather than coercive with the permitting regulations. Reducing the vulnerability enforcement, can help increase the quality of non- of these highly vulnerable buildings saves lives in the event engineered structures. They also draw attention to of a disaster, and the establishment of a legal framework the importance of institutionalizing procedures for for building regulation is a major step toward improved technical support and inspection so those processes building safety. can be sustained over the long term. These procedures “should be part of a broader disaster risk strategy El Salvador rather than confined to short-term disaster recovery Earthquakes in January and February 2001 partially or totally programs”; they will require long-term financial destroyed about 20 percent of El Salvador’s 1.36 million support and entail participation by “national and homes, more than half of which belonged to poor households. local governments, community-based organizations In response to this event, JICA implemented a seismic (CBOs), universities, and the private sector, resistance project that tested four construction methods including the building sector” (GFDRR 2016, 99). commonly used for low-income housing: (1) block panel, (2) reinforced adobe, (3) soil-cement confined masonry, and (4) concrete block. A second phase of the project developed a Sources: Honda (2013) and Sawaji (2015) for El draft seismic standard for the four construction methods, Salvador; Kamemura et al. (2016) for Indonesia. carried out experimentation and research for standard analysis, and supported development of a dissemination system. In March 2014, the government enacted legislation specifying seismic standards, and local regulatory officials were trained to screen homes based on the new seismic criteria. 32 3.4 Consultation Process for Updating Building Standards The consultation process for revising laws and standards public comments were collected through the Internet. Based is not identical in every case, but certain elements, such as on the results, an investigative commission was formed; it public involvement and a multi-sectoral approach, are now had 25 members and held 11 meetings. Members discussed the common. Japan introduced a public comment system in 1999 to results of the interviews and public comments and over the encourage greater impartiality and transparency in developing course of eight meetings debated the issues at stake. Those regulations and rules, and the system was institutionalized meetings formed the basis for the draft results. Once these in 2005. The process by which the BSL was amended in 2014 were discussed by the commission, they were made available (illustrated in figure 3.3) is a good example of how standards to the public. MLIT then discussed the results internally and are updated. First, local governments, designated bodies, invited public comment before the amendment was made. private sector stakeholders, and others were interviewed, and Figure 3.3 Consultation Process for Updating the Building Standard Law in 2014 Process for Updating the Building Standard Law Stakeholders Interview and public comment 2010 and earlier Building o cials in Designated Con rmation local governments and Inspection Bodies Investigative Commission 2010 Designated Structural Relevant parties, (11 meetings with 25 members) Calculation Review including users and Bodies experts 1. Sharing of issues and results from interviews and public comments Architects and Internet public comment contractors (653 comments) 2–4. Presentations and discussions on design, Organizations related to design, housing, construc- construction, production, consumer concerns, tion, real estate, distribution, consumer concerns, insurance, users, and review and insurance (total of 22) 5–9. Additional presentations and discussions on above themes, plus building certi cation, structural University professors Local governments (3) calculation review, and others (chair + 3 others) Private companies (including architects and those 10. Discussion based on rst dra of amendment dealing with construction, structure, and building examination) and users (total of 6) 11. Discussion based on second dra of amendment Related organizations, including architects, labor unions, and organizations dealing with building Publicizing of the output structure, production, facilities, insurance, consumer concerns, and laws (total of 12) Discussion, public comment, modi cation by MLIT Legal procedure, issuance and enforcement 2014 33 4 Quality Assurance Mechanism for Building Safety: Planning, Design, and Construction Key takeaways • An integrated regulatory system that includes • The private sector can be strategically a planning code and a building code can leveraged to strengthen the capacity effectively control land use and urbanization as of building regulators, but only where well as support disaster risk management. mechanisms for oversight, fairness, and conflict resolution are robust. • Combining a qualification system for building practitioners and a nationwide capacity-building program can increase the number of qualified professionals. A successful qualification system should operate alongside capacity-building programs that attract and incentivize industry groups and individuals to obtain qualification. The mechanism for assuring building quality in Japan has several components: relevant laws and standards, the licensing system for design and construction, and the building regulatory framework. These function as a system to ensure the high quality and safety of the built environment. This chapter looks in detail at the process for building quality assurance as it operates over the first three phases of a building’s life cycle: planning, design, and construction itself (the fourth phase of the life cycle, maintenance and retrofit, is explained in the next chapter). The chapter concludes with a look at the private sector’s role in assuring building quality in Japan. The four phases are shown and briefly summarized in figure 4.1 34 Figure 4.1 Quality Assurance System in Japan Seismic National Per ormance Standard BUILDING CODE BUILDING MATERIAL Existing Building Chapter 3 Annex 4C MAINTENANCE New Construction Advanced Quality PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION Enhancement 5.2.2 Land Use and Quali ication Systems Con irmation and Area Planning or Building Practitioners Inspection, 4.1 4.2 Construction RETROFIT PROMOTION Management 4.3 Seismic Diagnosis and Retro it Promotion 5.1 • Planning. Building regulatory procedures start at the • Construction. Construction begins after the design planning stage and involve decisions about land use. To has been formally confirmed as adhering to the ensure that land use regulations and building regulations requisite technical standards. Interim and final work in concert, Japan has harmonized the City Planning inspections are conducted during this stage. Act (CPA) and the Building Standard Law (BSL); in • Maintenance. Buildings are checked periodically other words, planning codes stipulated in the BSL take for safety and are retrofitted (as needed) to account of and are related to the contents of the CPA. improve seismic resistance (see chapter 5). • Design. At the design stage, licensed Kenchikushi design buildings in accordance with the quality and safety standards of the BSL, which (as shown in chapter 3) have been incrementally revised to ensure that the building code stipulates optimal seismic performance. 4.1 Planning Stage: Land Use and Area Planning 4.1.1 Land Use in City Planning In Japan, city planning regulations apply in both City Planning (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial). The BSL Planning Areas and Quasi-City Planning Areas are coordinated through Code regulates buildings’ volume, height, and use according the City Planning Act (CPA) and Building Standard Law (BSL). to each land zone, while the BSL Building Code stipulates City Planning Areas are divided into Urbanization Control the requirements for safety, hygiene, fire prevention, etc. for Areas, which impose strict control on development, and individual buildings (table 4.1). Schools and hospitals, Urbanization Promotion Areas, which promote development. for example, can’t be built in areas that are designated as The CPA specifies the land use zones that local governments industrial zones. may designate in an Urbanization Promotion Area 35 Table 4.1 Building Code and Planning Code Coverage Purpose Contents Site, structure, fire Assure the quality of Building Code All areas prevention, facilities, individual buildings evacuation, etc. Assure urban functionality Land use, floor area City Planning Area and Planning Code and quality of living volume, building form, Quasi-City Planning Area environment adjacent roads, etc. 4.1.2 Permitted and Restricted Development City planning regulations under the BSL and CPA assure the are designated as Areas Regulated for Housing Land safety of buildings in part by limiting where development Development. Because site development could potentially may take place. Where building is deemed appropriate in increase landslide risk, development within these areas City Planning Areas or Quasi-City Planning Areas, those requires permission at the design phase and site inspection wishing to undertake large-scale development must obtain once construction is completed. Owners of land within permission in advance from the local government and must these areas are required to keep their residential lots safe. also take necessary safety measures (e.g., ground improvement, construction of retaining walls). In areas where disaster Restrictions apply to a number of different types of land: risk is significant, development is generally prohibited. • Urbanization Control Areas. This land may be subject to flooding, tsunami, or storm surge. Under the CPA, The BSL stipulates building standards such as height and development is prohibited out of safety concerns. type, while the CPA stipulates the criteria that development • Disaster Risk Areas. This land is subject to projects must meet in order to obtain permission. tsunamis, high tides, and other floods. Under the Technical criteria for permission relate to securing of BSL, construction of houses is prohibited, and roads, water supply and drainage facilities, measures for other restrictions on construction may apply.²⁰ disaster prevention, etc. Specific criteria related to disaster prevention include the vulnerability of infrastructure and • Landslide areas. These areas are common in public service facilities, and the necessity for preventing Japan, where there are many steep slopes. Under landslides, flooding, subsidence, etc. Under the Act on the the Disaster Prevention Act, activities that Regulation of Housing Land Development (1969), urban may induce slope failures, such as discharging areas having a high risk of landslides and related hazards water or cutting down trees, are restricted. ²⁰ An example of such restrictions can be found in the Nagoya City Disaster Countermeasures Outline, which went into effect following the Ise Bay typhoon of September 1959. The ordinance regulates structure types and floor levels by city location in order to mitigate impacts of future storms. 36 4.2 Design Stage: Qualification Systems for Building Practitioners Under Japan’s Kenchikushi Law, building design and As construction types have diversified in Japan in response construction management can be carried out only by licensed to socioeconomic changes, the required scope of activities Kenchikushi. These architect-engineers play an important for Kenchikushi has also expanded. Each type of Kenchikushi role in ensuring the quality and safety of buildings. receives a different level of training and is responsible for different types of construction depending on building use, The Kenchikushi Law was enacted in 1950, when there was structural design, and scale. All three types of Kenchikushi a large demand for housing. To ensure that there would may undertake design of small wooden buildings, but three- be enough licensed professionals to design and oversee story buildings can be undertaken only by first- or second- construction of houses, the law established several levels of class Kenchikushi; only first-class Kenchikushi can undertake Kenchikushi with different qualifications and levels of expertise. buildings taller than 13 m. More details on the scope of The three types of Kenchikushi currently recognized in Japan activity by type of Kenchikushi are in annex table 4A.1. are shown in table 4.2, from most to least extensively trained. To be certified as Kenchikushi, candidates must pass a test that has an academic component as well as a drafting and design component.²¹ The qualifications that each type of Kenchikushi must demonstrate are stipulated in the Table 4.2 Types of Kenchikushi Kenchikushi Law and differ depending on the Kenchikushi type. First-class Kenchikushi, for example, must show knowledge Licensing of planning, MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) Type Authority systems, relevant laws and regulations, and construction work. The other two levels can substitute work experience First-class Kenchikushi Minister of MLIT for educational experience. Figure 4.2 gives more detail on the required qualifications of the different Kenchikushi types. Prefectural Second-class Kenchikushi governors In addition to these three types of Kenchikushi, other Mokuzo (wooden) Prefectural types of certification exist to recognize specific Kenchikushi governors expertise, such as in structural design, MEP design, and architectural office management. Kenchikushi are Source: MLIT. required to hold these certificates in order to implement the relevant work. To obtain the certificates, Kenchikushi must complete the courses of training stipulated in the Kenchikushi Law (see annex table 4A.2 for details). 21 Not surprisingly given the different levels of knowledge required of them, the different Kenchikushi pass their qualifying exams at different rates: the pass rate is 12.4 percent for first-class Kenchikushi, 21.5 percent for second-class Kenchikushi, and 27.3 percent for Mokuzo (wooden) Kenchikushi in 2015. 37 Figure 4.2 Qualifications for Each Type of Kenchikushi and for Specific Kenchikushi Licenses (according to Kenchikushi Law) No education in High school graduate University, 2- or University, 2- or architecture or in architecture or 3-year college, or 3-year college, or engineering civil engineering technical college technical college course graduate in civil graduate in engineering course architecture course Needs 7 years Needs 3 years Needs 1 year Needs no of work experience of work experience of work experience work experience 2nd-class Kenchikushi / mokuzo (wooden) Kenchikushi University graduate: Needs 2 years of work experience Needs 4 years 3-year college graduate: Needs 3 years of work experience of work 2-year college graduate: Needs 4 years of work experience experience Technical college graduate: Needs 4 years of work experience 1st-class Kenchikushi MEP design Structural design Managing Kenchikushi 1st-class Kenchikushi 1st-class Kenchikushi • Needs more than 3 years • Needs more than 5 years of MEP • More than 5 years of structural business experience in design design experience as 1st-class design business experience as works as 1st-class, 2nd-class, Kenchikushi 1st-class Kenchikushi or mokuzo Kenchikushi • Must complete the MEP design • Must complete the structural • Must complete Managing 1st-class Kenshikushi training design 1st-class Kenshikushi Kenshikushi training training a. Managing Kenchikushi are responsible for managing a Kenchikushi office in accordance with the provisions of the Kenchikushi Law. To stay current with building laws and regulations as well as these data make it possible to confirm individuals’ training evolving construction technologies and methods, all types history and their exposure to the latest information on laws, of Kenchikushi must attend trainings every three years (see design, and construction management. In general, Kenchikushi annex table 4A.3 for details). These regular trainings, held are held to a high ethical standard, and Japanese law stipulates by an agency registered by MLIT, are compulsory under the fines or jail sentences for breaches of their duty. See annex Kenchikushi Law. Careful records are kept of attendance, and table 4B.1 for details. 38 4.3 Construction Stage: A Multi-step Process Quality assurance at the construction stage is a multi-step process that involves preconstruction confirmation, structural calculation review, and interim and final inspections (figure 4.3). The process differs somewhat depending on the building’s scale, use, and construction type. Quality assurance of building materials is also extremely important for ensuring building quality and performance; see annex 4C for information on Japan’s national standards for building materials. Figure 4.3 Quality Assurance Steps for New Buildings Building Design Construction Work Occupancy Building o cial (local government) or BUILDING INTERIM FINAL Designated Con rmation CONFIRMATION INSPECTION INSPECTION and Inspection Body (private sector) Designated Structural STRUCTURAL Calculation Review CALCULATION Body REVIEW Applicable to all buildings Applicable to larger-scale buildings, such as department stores and hotels 4.3.1 Confirmation Generally, in cases where a building is to be constructed, The building regulatory authorities who carry out extended, rebuilt, or relocated, the owner must apply for and confirmations and inspections may belong to either the receive building confirmation—that is, confirmation that the public or the private sector. The Designated Administrative building conforms to legal technical regulations (not limited Agencies are part of local government, and the Designated to those in the BSL). These regulations relate to both the Confirmation and Inspection Bodies are private entities; planning code (for example, requirements for building use and table 4.3 shows the main differences between them. height within the land use zone) and the building code (for Owners seeking confirmation can choose to apply to either example, requirements for structural stability and fire safety). a private entity or a local public sector authority, though most choose private entities because they tend to provide In requiring confirmation rather than permission before more rapid service. There are also some differences in the construction begins, Japan’s quality assurance process is roles of Designated Administrative Agencies depending somewhat unusual. Unlike some permission processes, the on the population of the administrative area in question confirmation process allows virtually no discretion; if the and the size of building being dealt with; see annex 4D. building plan meets technical requirements, it is confirmed. Box 4.1 provides more detail. The reasons for and consequences of private sector participation in Japan’s process for building quality assurance are discussed in more detail in section 4.4. 39 Table 4.3 Building Regulatory Authorities: Public versus Private Sector Designated Administrative Designated Confirmation and Agencies (public sector) Inspection Bodies (private sector) Private entity (either for profit Part of prefectural or municipal government Attributes or nonprofit) 449 Designated Administrative Agencies Number of staff, 133 organizations organizations 1,624 prefectural and municipal (as of 2016) 3,087 private building inspectors building officials Must pass a qualifying examination; must be certified as first-class Kenchikushi; and Must pass a qualifying examination must have two or more years of practical Staff qualifications conducted by MLIT and must be experience related to building administration registered with MLIT or confirmation and inspection work Building confirmation and inspection Building confirmation and inspection (officials conduct about 20 percent of building (officials conduct about 80 percent of confirmations) Main responsibilities building confirmations) Correction of violations No role in correction of violations Box 4.1 From Building Permission to Building Confirmation A salient feature of Japan’s quality assurance process for construction is its reliance on confirmation rather than permission. That change is illustrated in the following figure and described below. Figure B4.1.1 Changes in Authorities Responsible for Building Permission or Confirmation 1919 1950 1998 2006 Urban Building Law Building Standard Law Building Building Building “Con rmation” “Permission” “Con rmation” by Building O cial or by Police by Building Designated Con rmation and O cial Inspection Body; Introduction of Introduction of Interim inspection Structural Calculation Review (for large buildings) Only six All of Japan largest cities (gradual expansion) 40 Box 4.1 From Building Permission to Building Confirmation CONTD. Under the Urban Building Law of 1919, Japan’s system Thus when the Building Standard Law was enacted in involved issuing permission, as is usual in most countries. 1950, it replaced building “permission” with building Permissions were issued by the police department for large- “confirmation”—that is, confirmation that a building scale buildings (for smaller buildings, such as detached met technical requirements. The preliminary review of houses, a notification system was used). But as Miyake the building plans by the administrative authority was (2014) explains, the system was inefficient and potentially prescribed as a purely technical decision. This change arbitrary; for example, approval could be refused merely at transferred responsibility from the police to building the discretion of the prefectural governor, and reviews could officials in the prefectures and municipalities. take several months. Moreover, after World War II, when The different procedures for permission and construction of new housing boomed, the permission system confirmation are shown in the figure below. was perceived as inadequate to keep up with demand. Figure B4.1.2 Differences between “Permission” and “Confirmation” in Japanese Context Permission BUILDING PLAN Con rmation Application Meets requirements of BSL Administrative agencies have discretion in deciding YES whether or not to permit Permission may be Must be arbitrarily denied. approved. The BSL also accommodates a degree of flexibility to cope with special circumstances if appropriate. As such circumstances entail additional time and considerations, applicants must obtain necessary approval from a relevant authority before commencement of confirmation procedures. 4.3.2 Structural Calculation Review To confirm structural safety, certain buildings in Japan reinforced concrete buildings that are 20 m or taller; and steel are subject to a structural calculation review. The relevant structure buildings that have four or more stories (excluding buildings are those taller than 60 m and those using advanced the basement levels). A building confirmation cannot be structural calculation methods (these must also be approved issued for any of these buildings until one of the Designated by the MLIT minister); wooden or steel buildings that are Structural Calculation Review Bodies conducts a review. 13 m or taller, or that have eave heights of 9 m or more; 41 4.3.3 Interim Inspection The content of the interim inspection varies depending on the were made as part of the 1998 amended BSL. The value of an type and function of the building. As explained below (section interim inspection was demonstrated when houses financed 4.4), Japan began strict enforcement of interim inspections by the Government Housing Loan Corporation (GHLC), (along with other changes to the inspection and confirmation which required interim inspections under its loan agreement, process) after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 performed better than others in the Great Hanshin-Awaji revealed widespread building deficiencies. The changes Earthquake. 4.3.4 Final Inspection Within four days of a building’s completion, the owner must to relevant regulations. A new building cannot be used until notify a building official or a Designated Confirmation and the owner has obtained a final inspection certificate.²² Some Inspection Body so that a final inspection can take place. financial institutions require the final inspection certificate This inspection determines whether the building conforms among the documents submitted for loan execution. 4.4 Private Sector Involvement in Building Quality Assurance Japan introduced private sector involvement in building The inability of public sector inspectors to keep up with regulation in 1998, when it became clear that the public demand was due mainly to Japan’s socioeconomic growth. sector lacked the capacity to handle the required number of Before the 1998 amendment of the BSL, each local government inspections and confirmations with adequate scope and depth. official was responsible for more than 600 confirmations a year. In 2016, thanks to private sector participation, the rate for final Given these circumstances, the decision was made to allow inspections was more than 90 percent—compared to a rate fair and neutral private sector engineers to undertake building of less than 40 percent before 1998. It was the Great Hanshin- confirmation and inspection. Since building confirmation was Awaji Earthquake in 1995 that revealed the consequences of the a technical check that did not admit of discretion (see box 4.1), low inspection rate: the damage pattern showed construction this approach did not seem to raise any legal issues. deficiencies (such as lack of bearing walls for wooden houses) that final inspection would have detected and required The effect of private sector involvement can be seen in the remediation for. In response, Japan made changes in its system increasing share of inspection certificates issued by the private for confirmation and inspection, including the use of private Designated Confirmation and Inspection Bodies (shown in sector building inspectors to meet demand. figure 4.4) and in the current high final inspection ratio (shown in figure 4.5). ²² There are a few exceptions to this rule. Small buildings (wooden detached houses of two stories or less) may be used before the owner obtains the final inspection certificate. Buildings may also be used before they are inspected if the building authority allows temporary use or if seven days have elapsed from the day on which the application for a final inspection was received. 42 Figure 4.4 Trend in Issuing of Inspection Certificates: Public versus Private Inspectors, 1998–2012 Number of certi cates 900k 800k 700k 600k 500k 400k 300k 200k 100k 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 FY Designated Con rmation Building o cials and Inspection Bodies (local government) Source: MLIT. 43 One benefit of private sector involvement in building quality assurance is that it allows government staff to fulfill other responsibilities, including correction of violations. Figure 4.5 shows the trend in the amount of administrative guidance issued and number of violations corrected since private sector involvement began. Figure 4.5 Administrative Guidance, Correction of Violations, and Final Inspection Rate, 1998–2011 Number Final inspection ratio 14k 100% 11,668 11,703 90% 12k 80% 9,222 8,933 10k 70% 7,965 7,628 7,569 7,581 7,551 60% 8k 6,558 5,185 6,091 5,935 5,973 50% 4,585 5,521 6k 40% 4,155 4,161 3,901 3,667 3,736 3,297 3,168 4k 30% 2,782 2,469 2,250 2,385 2,307 20% 2k 10% 615 474 377 348 311 201 162 124 136 80 40 59 56 67 0 0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 FY Administrative Violations Corrective measures Final inspection ratio guidance provided corrected taken according to building code (removal, relocation, reconstruction, condemning, etc.) Source: MLIT. 44 Contrary to expectations, private sector involvement initially revised, training sessions are organized to ensure that staff increased (rather than decreased) the workload of the are up to date. When the approach to structural calculation local administrative authorities, as inexperienced private was revised in 2006, for example, the Japan Building Disaster sector staff continually turned to them for guidance. To Prevention Association implemented training sessions. address this problem, local administrative offices further systematized the confirmation and inspection processes— The policy choice to integrate private sector engagements for example, they developed lists of issues along with the in building quality assurance should be accompanied by methods and criteria to use in making determinations. appropriate safeguard mechanisms that favor the public This approach allowed the Designated Confirmation and interest over private profits. The following are specific lessons Inspection Bodies to proceed with less guidance, and from Japanese experience; global lessons, including some the workload of administrative officers decreased. from Japan, can be found in the World Bank Group (2018, p. 45–50) ²³. Another consequence of private sector involvement in Japan • The roles of each actor must be clear, and all actors was a loss of public sector capacity as local government must have the same understanding of their roles. officials performed fewer building confirmations and inspections. To address this issue, local governments have • Ensuring the quality of private sector staff is crucial. In focused on human resource development and technical Japan, the quality of the Designated Confirmation and transfer, and have implemented trainings and study sessions Inspection Bodies is ensured through a system (operated for building officers to help them maintain and improve by MLIT) that includes examination,²⁴ registration, and their technical capacities. In addition, the College of Land, occasional on-site observation. Misconduct is punished Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (CLITT) managed by by severe penalties, including business suspension. MLIT carries out trainings to enhance practical skills and to provide the latest information from academics, practitioners, • Continuing education is essential. Each local and MLIT officers. (For further detail on capacity enhancement government conducts seminars and trainings for public building officials and the training program offered on building certification and inspection for the by CLITT, see annex 4E.) Finally, when a relevant law is Designated Confirmation and Inspection Bodies to ensure their knowledge and skills stay current. For further discussion of how private sector participation affects building quality assurance, see annex 4F. ²³ Doing Business 2018, World Bank Group (http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/Annual-Reports/ English/DB2018-Full-Report.pdf) ²⁴ To help ensure that the requisite number of private sector candidates passes the examination, test preparation courses are offered by MLIT, local governments, and private companies. 45 5 Quality Assurance Mechanism for Building Safety: Maintenance, Seismic Retrofit, and Efforts to Improve Building Quality Key takeaways • When coupled with technical specifications, • A package of financial and technical incentives, housing finance can be leveraged as an along with effective communication with building instrument to improve structural safety. owners, can create an enabling environment for retrofitting at scale and for meeting numerical retrofit targets at both national and local levels. • Retrofitting requires long-term commitment, particularly where the building stock is extensive. Targeting high-priority buildings can make retrofitting more efficient, while sustainable monitoring mechanisms can help accelerate scaling up of retrofitting activities. Collecting data on buildings’ completion status can illustrate remaining gaps and show where efforts and financing should be directed. The previous chapter looked at how the first three stages of the building life cycle function in Japan to assure building quality. This chapter looks at the fourth stage, building maintenance, which is broadly understood here to include seismic retrofit and larger efforts to improve building quality. At its most basic, building maintenance entails periodic safety checks of buildings by the Designated Administrative Agencies. These required checks are carried out at periodic intervals (ranging from six months to three years) by Kenchikushi (architect-engineers) or other qualified inspectors, and the results are reported to the Designated Administrative Agency. Different buildings may require different types of inspection, but for buildings of a certain size such as hospitals, hotels, department stores, theaters, apartment houses, and office buildings, the safety inspection typically looks at fire-prevention and other building equipment and at elevators and escalators. The inspection report notes the condition of the site and building equipment, including the state of any damage, corrosion, or deterioration. These various mechanisms have also contributed to a safer built environment through higher rates of implementation of safe building practices and regulatory compliance, including critical building maintenance and retrofit requirements. 46 5.1 Policy Instruments to Promote Seismic Retrofit In Japan, the retrofit of seismically vulnerable buildings is a and revised in 2006 and 2013. Among other things, the APSRB fundamental element of building quality assurance. The main makes local governments responsible for setting numerical policy instrument for seismic retrofit is the Act on Promotion targets for retrofit, outlines a consulting system to share and of Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings (APSRB), which was diffuse knowledge on retrofit, and develops guidelines for enacted in 1995 following the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake seismic retrofit. Figure 5.1 presents an overview of the law. Figure 5.1 Overview of the Act on Promotion of Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings (APSRB) Basic policy prepared by national government • Numerical targets for seismic safety of houses and buildings of a certain size used by many people, such as hospitals, hotels, etc. (75% in 2003; > 90% in 2015] • Policy to develop consulting system for dissemination of knowledge • Policy to promote seismic resistant measures • Method for seismic diagnosis and seismic retro tting (guidelines) Seismic retro tting promotion plans prepared by local government • Targets for seismic retro tting of houses and buildings of a certain size used by many people, such as hospitals, hotels, etc. • De nition of measures to achieve targets • Target for seismic resistance of public buildings • Designation of emergency routes (prefectures and municipalities) and evacuation facilities (prefectures) (1) Control measures for promotion of (2) Measures for e cient promotion of seismic-resistant buildings seismic-resistant buildings Types of noncomplying buildings targeted for Authorization of building modi cation plans to guidance and advice increase seismic resistance • Buildings of a certain size used by many people, such as • Includes exceptions for buildings exempted under other hospitals, hotels, etc. (non-seismic-related) regulations • Storage processing facilities handling a certain • Includes exceptions for re-proof buildings and quantity and/or of explosives or oil those with certain building coverage ratios and oor • Houses and small-scale buildings area ratios Types of noncomplying buildings targeted to Approval of needed seismic retro t of receive local government's instructions and to buildings for unit ownership have seismic status publicized • Eases requirements for resolution of cases where large-scale seismic retro t is being attempted • Buildings of a certain size used by many people, (exemption of the section ownership law) including people having di culty in evacuating • Buildings along the evacuation routes designated by Seismic performance indication system prefectural or municipal government (voluntary) • Buildings of a certain size used for storage and/or • Recognizes buildings that have achieved acceptable processing of a certain quantity of explosives or oil seismic performance Types of large-scale buildings required Seismic Retro tting Support Center to conduct seismic diagnosis and • One-stop shop providing information on and support for publicize results: seismic diagnosis and retro t Large-scale buildings whose safety must be con rmed (high priority) Other supporting programs • Buildings used by large numbers of people (such as • Subsidies and tax bene ts for seismic diagnosis and hospitals and hotels) and large-scale buildings used by retro tting works for existing building stocks. people having di culty in evacuating • Large-scale buildings used for storage and/or processing of explosives or oil Large-scale buildings whose safety must be con rmed • Buildings along the emergency routes designated by prefectural or municipal governments • Designated evacuation facilities and government buildings used as emergency operation hubs 47 To encourage building owners to carry out needed retrofit measures, Japan has implemented a system of financial incentives that divides the cost of works between the central government, the local government, and the building owners. This has been delivered through tax breaks, loans, and subsidies. The current system is shown in figure 5.2. Figure 5.2 Subsidy Coverage for Seismic Diagnosis and Retrofitting as a Share of Required Costs Regular subsidies Limited-time promotional measures (subsidies timed up to the end of FY 2018) Financial responsibility for Subsidy from central government When subsidy not o ered by local seismic diagnosis increased to 50%; subsidy from government local government could be increased up to 33% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 50% 33%– 16.6 33.3% 66.6% 50% –0% Central Local Building Central Local Building Central Building government government owner government govt. owner government owner Financial responsibility for Subsidy from central government When subsidy not o ered by seismic retro tting increased to 50%; subsidy from local government local government could be increased up to 33% 11.5 11.5 77% 11.5%– 55.2%– 11.5 % % 33.3% 33% 33.3% 88.5% % Cent. Local Building Central Local Building Cent. Building govt. govt. owner government govt. owner govt. owner For buildings on evacuation routes and buildings designated by local governments as emergency management hubs: Subsidy from central government increased up to 40%; subsidy from local government could be increased up to 40% 40% 33.3%– 26.6%– 40% 33.3% Central Local Building government govt. owner Supplemental instrument for houses only Tax exemption Loans o ered by JHF Source: MLIT, http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001123670.pdf (in Japanese). 48 About 80 percent of municipalities also offer financial incentives to encourage seismic retrofit. This share has increased gradually over time, as shown in figure 5.3. Figure 5.3 Share of Municipalities Offering Subsidies for Seismic Diagnosis and Retrofitting, 2005–2015 a. Seismic Diagnosis b. Seismic Retro t Municipalities (%) Municipalities (%) 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 04/2005 07/2006 01/2007 04/2008 04/2009 04/2010 04/20011 04/2012 04/2013 04/2014 04/2015 04/2005 07/2006 01/2007 04/2008 04/2009 04/2010 04/20011 04/2012 04/2013 04/2014 04/2015 Detached houses Apartment houses Nonresidential buildings Source: MLIT. 5.1.1 Seismic Retrofitting for Public Buildings When a disaster occurs in Japan, public buildings are usually has offered special assistance for these facilities. As a result, utilized as evacuation facilities and shelters. For this reason, the seismic resistance rate for schools had reached nearly seismic retrofitting for public buildings has been a priority 100 percent in 2016 (World Bank and GFDRR 2016) ²⁵. and has served as an entry point for increasing the country’s seismic resistance rate and resilience. Since 2006, the year For information on local policies to promote seismic after enactment of the APSRB, all types of public buildings have retrofit, see annex 5A. For a discussion of the technical increased their seismic resistance rate (figure 5.4). Seismic criteria used to decide when a building qualifies for retrofitting for schools has been a priority, and the Ministry of retrofitting and when it should be demolished, see box 5.1. Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) ²⁵ http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/148921478057894071/110216-drmhubtokyo-Making-Schools-Resilient-at-Scale.pdf 49 Figure 5.4 Seismic Resistance Rates for Public Buildings, 2006–2014 Seismic resistance rate (%) 100 Cultural and educational facilities 95 Fire- ghting facilities Medical facilities 90 Social welfare facilities 85 Police facilities 80 Gymnasiums Others 75 Public halls, community centers 70 Local government o ces 65 Total 60 55 50 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 FY Source: Fire and Disaster Management Agency. 5.1.2 The Role of Statistical Data in Seismic Retrofitting Statistical data play a crucial role in setting policy for government devised specific policies to strengthen seismic seismic retrofit and more generally in efforts to promote resistance—such as setting the target value of the seismic an earthquake-resilient society in Japan. After the Great resistance rates and securing subsidies for the retrofitting of Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, when a large number of houses. The Housing and Land Survey, which is conducted buildings designed under the old seismic design code every five years, has served to monitor the progress of the performed poorly, the Housing and Land survey sought to seismic resistance rate. The statistical evidence collected determine how many buildings were not adhering to the new through the monitoring activities is then used to inform standard. Based on the finding of 13 million buildings, the policy decisions and amendments where necessary. 50 Figure 5.5 shows the trend in both the actual seismic resistance Figure 5.5 Tracking of Seismic Resistance rates and the targets. The 2008 Housing and Land Survey Rates against Government Target to showed a 2 percent gap between the target and the actual rate. Identify Gaps These data prompted the government to devise policies such as subsidies that would help close the gap—an example of the key Earthquake role statistical data can play in policy making. resistance ratio (%) 100 Japan conducts a number of different surveys that help the government understand and monitor building quality; 95 these are listed in annex 5B. 90 85 2% gap 80 Once gap is identi ed, 75 government considers policy 70 changes to close it so target can 65 be met 60 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Actual value Target value Source: Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 51 Box 5.1 Retrofit or Demolition? For the purpose of retrofitting, the structure seismic Table B5.1.1 Relationship between Is and resistant capacity index (Is) is generally used for seismic Building Seismic Capacity diagnosis.ª Table B5.1.1 lists the relationship between Is and building seismic capacity subject to the Japan High possibility of severe Meteorological Agency (JMA) intensity 6 to 7. Is < 0.3 damage or collapse Possible severe damage or 0.3 ≤ Is < 0.6 collapse Low possibility of severe 0.6 ≤ Is damage or collapse a. Structure seismic resistant capacity index Is, which is used to indicate the seismic capability of a building, is calculated as the product of three indexes that consider the strength and deformation capacity, irregularity, and age of the building. Thus Is = E0 × SD × T, where E0 represents the structural index of the building calculated from the product of strength index C and ductility index F, SD is the index accounting for unbalanced distribution of stiffness both in the horizontal plane and along the height, and T is the index that considers the deterioration of strength and ductility due to building age. For buildings with insufficient seismic capacity, the question Figure B5.1.2 Procedure for Determining is whether to retrofit or demolish them. Several factors whether to Retrofit or Demolish a Building go into answering this question: how low the current seismic capacity is, the target level of retrofitting, the availability of retrofitting methods, the cost of the two approaches, the level of satisfaction with the building’s Building before 1981: is ≥ 0.6 YES Leave as is current function and facilities, and plans for future use of the building. But there exists no simple measure to determine which choice is optimal. A general procedure NO for reaching a conclusion is shown in figure B5.1.2. Determination of strengthening target and retro tting method Under the original (1995) Act on Promotion of Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings, seismic diagnosis and retrofitting were not mandatory. The revised version Special building to be preserved YES of the act (2013) requires seismic diagnosis of private large-scale buildings, such as hospitals, hotels, schools, and commercial facilities, and also requires that NO diagnosis results be made available to the public. Retro t Calculation for retro tting and rebuilding cost Judgment about cost-e ectiveness, future YES functionality, etc. NO Demolish Source: MLIT, “Basic Policy for Promoting Seismic Diagnosis and Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings,” Notice of Minister no. 184 (in Japanese). 52 5.2 Advanced Quality Enhancement through Financial Incentives and Voluntary Programs In Japan today, the quantity of housing is sufficient (see annex households, the elderly, people with disabilities, and other 5C), but the quality of housing does not meet the needs of the groups with special housing needs. Note that even though country’s aging population or address the country’s increasing seismic performance is no longer the main concern, it still environmental problems. In response to this situation, Japan constitutes part of housing quality and is improving as an is seeking a major shift in the housing policy framework, one integral part of broader housing quality improvements. that focuses on raising residential living standards in general while also providing safety nets for low- and middle-income Figure 5.6 summarizes the evolution of housing policy in Japan. Figure 5.6 A History of Housing Policy in Japan, 1945–2008 1945 E ort to resolve 1975 Change from quantity to 2000 Consideration of 2006 Realization of enhanced housing shortage quality orientation market and residential living housing stock standards 1958 1968 1973 1978 1988 1998 2003 2008 Housing units (million) 1,793 2,559 3,106 4,201 5,025 5,389 5,389 5,759 Households (million) 1,865 2,532 3,284 3,781 4,435 4,726 4,726 4,997 Population (million) 9,177 10,133 11,519 12,275 12,647 12,762 12,762 12,769 Housing shortage Number of housing Number of housing Less than 10% of Half of households of 4.2 million units units exceeds the units exceeds the households live in nationwide achieve the by end of WWII number of households number of households dwellings below the targeted housing nationwide in each prefecture minimum housing standards 1950 2007 Government Housing Loan Corp. Japan Housing Finance Agency Promoting quality housing through nancing Promotes housing construction through long-term and lower-interest loans 1951 Publicly operated housing Supplies a ordable housing to low-income people with housing problems 1955 2004 Japan Housing Corp. Urban Renaissance Agency Engages in construction of re-resistant housing and large-scale land development in metropolitan areas 1966 2006 3rd 4th 5th 8th Five-year housing Basic Act 1976 1981 1986 2001 for Housing construction programs Target: Target: Living Target: Surpassing of Target: Housing Target: Housing construction Housing environment housing standards performance standard Basic Plan during next ve years (including standard standards for accessibility for for Housing publicly funded housing) the elderly Source: Building Center of Japan 2016. 53 5.2.1 Incremental Improvement of Japanese Housing Quality In the past, Japan has successfully relied on financial incentives houses built after WWII were financed by the GHLC (figure to encourage better housing quality. The GHLC helped 5.7). Moreover, it is likely that the high technical criteria, improve the quality of houses by establishing proprietary construction specification, and thorough construction technical criteria beyond the mandatory minimum standard of inspection required of GHLC-financed houses triggered the BSL, as well as by publishing specifications and technical additional financing from private banks by giving them guidance that building practitioners could easily follow. In confidence in the quality of the construction. This additional this way, the GHLC created an enabling environment in financing may have helped ensure completion of construction which buildings could achieve higher structural performance by filling any remaining construction funding gaps. with minimum effort. Approximately 30 percent of the Figure 5.7 Number of Houses Financed by GHLC, 1950–2006 Million units 25 35.0% 30.0% 20 25.0% 15 20.0% 15.0% 10 10.0% 5 5.0% 0 0.0% 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 FY Cumulative number of houses nanced by GHLC GHLC share to total housing starts Source: JHF. In 2007, after GHLC had done so much to meet the demand for then, JHF has shifted its major business focus, and rather than high-quality housing, the Japan Housing Finance Agency (JHF) act as a direct loan provider, it promotes securitization of fixed- was established to carry out part of GHLC’s mandate. Since rate housing loans originated by private financial institutions. 5.2.2 Voluntary Program for Improving Housing Quality More recently, Japan has leveraged financial incentives to and that complement mandatory building requirements. These encourage voluntary adoption of high housing standards. It is include the Lower Long-Term Fixed-Rate Housing Loan, the using this approach to meet the goals of its current housing Housing Performance Indication System, and the Certification policy, which emphasizes improvements in the overall quality of Long-Life Quality Housing. They are summarized in table of residential life, including the residential environment and 5.1 and table 5.2; one of the systems, the Lower Long-Term accessibility for the elderly and those with disabilities. Fixed-Rate Housing Loan (Flat 35/35S offered by JHF), is described in detail in the next section to suggest the kind The Basic Act for Housing of 2006 and related National Basic of instruments available for improving housing quality and Plan for Housing served to establish several voluntary programs making enhanced residential living standards available to that offer financial incentives for improving housing quality all. The other two programs are described in annex 5D. 54 Table 5.1 Overview of Voluntary Compliance Programs Administering Category Program Contents Incentives Authority Housing Performance Housing Performance Compares building • Can utilize financial Indication System Evaluation Bodies performance by support (through Legal basis: Housing registered by MLIT categorizing key Flat 35/35S, etc.) Quality Assurance Act housing factors according to the performance level Indicator of • Offers smooth and high housing quick process for performance settling disputes over construction quality • Offers discount for seismic insurance premium Lower Long-Term Japan Housing Lower long-term, fixed- • Offers lower long- Fixed-Rate Housing Finance Agency rate housing loan term, fixed-rate Loan (Flat 35, Flat 35S) housing loan with high Inspection institutions technical criteria (Evaluation) • Offers interest rate High-quality reduction for higher- housing with quality housing financial incentives Certification of Long- Local government Certification of Long-Life • Offers tax deduction Life Quality Housing Quality Housing to help for housing loan, Housing Performance reduce the environmen- property tax reduction Note: Legal basis: Act for Evaluation Bodies tal impact of high-quality • Can utilize preferential Promotion of Long-Life registered by MLIT houses, etc. interest rate Quality Housing (Evaluation) Table 5.2 Comparison of Technical Criteria in Voluntary Compliance Programs Technical criteria/indicators 7. Luminous and visual (based on the 4. Ease of maintaining aged and the disabled 9. Accessibility for the 1. Structural stability Housing Performance structural members 5. Energy efficiency building syndrome Indication System) prevention of sick 6. Ventilation and 3. Durability of 2. Fire safety environment environment 10. Security 8. Acoustic utilities Other Voluntary program Housing Performance Indication System Size of houses, Flat 35/35S connection of road, etc. Residential Long-Life Quality environment, Housing maintenance plan, etc. 55 5.2.3 Lower Long-Term Fixed-Rate Mortgage with High Technical Criteria (Flat 35/35S by JHF) Flat 35 is a long-term (35-year) fixed-rate mortgage provided Figure 5.8 Framework for Lower Long- through a collaboration between private financial institutions Term Fixed-Rate Mortgage with High and the JHF, which is a semi-public institution. It encourages Technical Criteria Offered by JHF purchase of high-quality (e.g., earthquake resilient, energy- efficient) housing by offering buyers lower interests rates for a certain period of the loan repayment. It also provides several other benefits: (1) its fixed interest rate makes repayment safe and predictable; (2) it does not charge a guarantee fee or fee Technical for prepayment; and (3) it entails JHF’s technical criteria to Criteria support housing. Under this program, the JHF applies proprietary technical criteria, clarifies such criteria with specification documents, Housing Inspection of Construction and conducts on-site inspections after checking design Construction Specification drawings (figure 5.8). If the construction works are done in accordance with the criteria, funds are disbursed. This framework, unique among government housing finance institutions in the world, was vindicated in 1995, following the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake: a post-disaster survey Source: JHF. conducted by the JHF showed that houses financed by GHLC (predecessor organization of JHF) performed significantly better than privately financed houses. More than twice as many construction supervision imposed by the GHLC. JHF’s current of the latter were heavily damaged or destroyed as the former business model is shown in figure 5.10, and details on the (figure 5.9), and the survey analysis found that the difference technical criteria for the Flat 35/35S program are shown in in performance was due to the requirements for design and figure 5.11. Figure 5.9 Share of Wooden Houses Destroyed or Heavily Damaged in the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake: GHLC-Financed Houses versus Others Wooden houses damaged in earthquake (%) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 GHLC-FINANCED OTHER WOODEN- HOUSES STRUCTURE HOUSES Source: JHF 2012. 56 Figure 5.10 Current Business Model of JHF Financial Japan Housing Customer Institutions Finance Agency Investors 1 3 5 Applying for Flat 35 Selling housing loans Issuing MBS 2 7 6 Reimbursement for Proceed for MBS Disbursement of Flat 35 purchased housing loans 8 9 10 Applying for Repayment Delivery of Pass-through payment of inspection of recovered money principal & interest to MBS construction 4 investors Issuing compliance certi cates Entrusted housing loan as collateral 5 Collateral for MBS Inspection Trust banks, etc. instructions Source: JHF 2016. Note: MBS = mortgage-backed securities. For details of the JHF business model, please refer to the agency’s website at http://www.jhf.go.jp/english/index.html Figure 5.11 Technical Criteria for Flat 35/35S Durability and Energy-Saving Earthquake Accessibility Flexibility Performance Resistance Safety and Comfort Selection Criteria Housing with Housing with Housing with Housing with high durability high energy- high high Flat 35S and exibility saving earthquake accessibility performance resistance performance Required Criteria Housing with Housing with Housing with durability and energy-saving safety and Flat 35 exibility performance comfort for living (size of house, connection to road, etc.) Source: JHF brochure. 57 6 Lessons Learned 1. Regulation should be understood as a tool to guide and support the safety of the built environment; though it combines controlling and enabling elements, it should not be seen principally as a means of exerting control. One key lesson of Japan’s experience is that stand-alone regulation doesn’t work. Nor does a top-down approach that loses sight of the purpose of regulation. A safe built environment cannot be achieved through regulation alone but depends on an enabling environment that facilitates compliance and that includes accessible public services, mechanisms to incentivize meeting or even exceeding existing standards, and proactive educational support for capacity development in both the private and public sectors. See in particular the following discussions: • Accommodating changing social needs within regulations in a timely manner (section 2.3 ) • Capacity-building and training programs for building officials (section 4.4, annex 4E) • Capacity enhancement of building practitioners (section 4.2) • Improving efficiency of building confirmation and inspection by engaging the private sector (section 4.4, annex 4F) • Incentivized housing finance and technical guidance package for improving housing performance (sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3; annex 5D) • Establishing a technical support unit and subsidies for promotion of seismic retrofitting (section 5.1.1, annex 5A) 2. Countries need a clear understanding of their available human, technical, and financial capacity in order to develop an effective approach to building safety. This understanding ensures that initial standards are realistic and appropriate and also facilitates targeting of institutions for capacity building and raising of standards over time. By taking capacity into account at every stage of reform, Japan ensured that a given standard could be implemented and complied with. Its quality assurance efforts began at the municipal level; the first national building code was piloted in only six cities (with relatively high capacity in both the public and private sectors) and then expanded to targeted areas as capacity was simultaneously increased. Legal provisions likewise started from minimum requirements for specific goals, such as hygiene and fire safety, and then grew into a framework that addresses all relevant issues in the entire institutional ecosystem. Japan also targeted specific types of public buildings for standard enhancement(e.g., schools) as an entry point for applying the standard more broadly. See in particular the following discussions: • Incremental development of laws (section 2.3) • Incremental enhancement of building standards and targeted areas (section 3.1) • School retrofitting program at scale (annex box 5a.1) • Seismic retrofitting of public buildings (section 5.1.1) 58 3. Proactive support for compliance with building regulations—through education and training, financial incentives, and other mechanisms that engage stakeholders—helps create an effective and enabling regulatory environment. After World War II, Japan shifted from a permitting system for building approval, which was based on top-down command and control, to a confirmation system, which requires only that certain predefined criteria have been met. This step was part of a larger movement toward a more enabling regulatory environment designed to proactively support compliance rather than rely on coercion. Japan also introduced training and licensing of building professionals and set up loan programs offering tax breaks and other incentives for houses that exceeded the mandatory minimum standard. This type of environment makes complying with codes easier, hence increases compliance—and overall safety. See in particular the following discussions: • Transition from building permission to building confirmation (box 4.1) • Response to socioeconomic needs through timely building regulation (section 2.3) • Easing of regulation based on practical needs on the ground: (section 2.3) 4. Safe construction information, technical services, and professional expertise should be available to anyone who seeks them. A well-functioning regulatory system ensures that technical knowledge and services are available to and utilized by all segment of the population, regardless of education or economic status. In Japan, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) has established systems to train, qualify, and continually educate authorities involved in building quality assurance (including special trainings to ensure authorities stay current with technological advances or changes in the code), and it offers training to private sector designers and builders as well. The government has also developed various communication materials that promote safer construction and publicize resources available to consumers. In addition, Japan met a growing need for capacity in building confirmation and inspection by allowing private sector agencies to perform these tasks. This expanded capacity has resulted in a much higher rate of interim and final inspection of buildings, as well as much shorter wait times for building confirmation. See in particular the following discussions: • Advanced Quality Enhancement through Financial Incentives and Voluntary Programs (section 5.2) • Capacity enhancement of building practitioners (section 4.2) • Capacity-building and training programs for building officials (section 4.4, annex 4E) • Improving efficiency of building confirmation and inspection by engaging the private sector (section 4.4, annex 4F) • Promoting seismic retrofitting in scale (section 5.1) • Offering financial incentives and technical assistance to individual households through subsidized housing loans (section 5.2) 59 5. Formal regulatory systems should recognize prevalent construction practices, including non-engineered construction, and the risks associated with them. In Japan, the wooden housing structures characteristic of the country—originally non-engineered—have grown gradually safer and more earthquake-resilient. These improvements stem from the decision to establish standards for non-engineered construction, to include these standards in the formal building code, to incrementally increase the standards (until today wooden structures are considered engineered), and to provide training to the carpenters and architect-engineers who specialize in wooden construction. These experiences show that formal recognition of prevalent construction types can drive significantly improved resilience through targeted guidance. See in particular the following discussions: • Recognition of locally and widely used construction practice in the formal building code (section 3.3.2) • Training in traditional building practices for carpenters (box 3.2) • Technical assistance programs in Indonesia and El Salvador to improve seismic safety of non-engineered construction (box 3.3) 6. An effective regulatory regime is based on science and requires the participation of academia. Japan’s ongoing improvement of its building standards has depended in part on continuing technological research, which is carried out by scientists, researchers, and engineers in academia working collaboratively with government and industry to solve technical problems related to building safety. This approach ensures that any changes to regulations are based on an accurate scientific assessment of post-disaster building behavior and damage. The involvement of academia in building regulation has been especially important in Japan during periods of limited government and private sector capacity. Today, Japan’s policy making is informed by government research institutions and by continued close ties to the universities. See in particular the following discussions: • Partnership with academic community (section 3.2) • Public consultation process for updating building standards (section 3.4) 7. Governments can strengthen their regulatory regimes by coordinating action with the building industry. This coordinated approach has allowed Japan to scale up enforcement of building regulations and achieve improved levels of compliance with building safety requirements (through effective supply of materials of standardized quality, for example), has encouraged healthy private sector competition, and has ensured that regulations reflect current social and economic demands from the consumers (such as demands for certain construction materials or services). This approach has also helped promote transparency and fairness. When considering a change in regulation, for example, the Japanese government invites public comment from local governments and private sector stakeholders, and addresses these concerns in a series of discussions before finally amending the rule. See in particular the following discussions: • Public consultation process for updating building standards (section 3.4) • Mass production of housing and leveraging market mechanisms for competitive capacity increase (annex 5c) 60 8. The private sector can play an important role in effective enforcement of building regulation, but only where mechanisms for oversight, fairness, and conflict resolution are robust. The private sector can offer governments additional capacity, but its resources must be tapped responsibly. The experience in Japan shows that there must be clarity and agreement about the roles and responsibilities of private sector personnel, and that their quality must be assured through accreditation and ongoing training. Moreover, their actions must be subject to careful oversight, with punishment meted out for any fraud or dishonesty. See in particular the following discussions: • Private sector involvement in building quality assurance (sections 2.2, 4.4; annex 4F) • Code violation (box 4B.1) 9. Financial mechanisms can play a key role in promoting safety and overall quality in the built environment. Since 1950, Japan has relied on the Government Housing Loan Corporation (now the Japanese Finance Housing Agency) to support its housing goals. The various programs JHF offers consumers include financial incentives to comply with building standards in excess of the mandatory standard. These programs have made a significant contribution to building safety in Japan; analysis of damage following the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 showed that GHLC/JHF-financed houses performed significantly better than privately financed houses, and that this difference was due to requirements for design and construction supervision. See in particular the following discussions: • Financial incentives for meeting higher than mandatory standard, and development of technical guidelines (section 2.3) • Better earthquake performance of houses built to GHLC/JHF specifications (sections 4.3, 5.2) • GHLC/JHF’s creation of an enabling environment for high structural performance (section 5.2) 10. A resilient built environment can be achieved through an incremental approach—one that ensures regular impact monitoring, promotes learning and improvement, and serves as the basis for consistent policy updates. Notwithstanding the significant gains made over the last century, Japan continues its efforts to increase building resilience through regulation. The incremental approach requires establishing and continuing to develop a base of technical knowledge, as well as an institutional system to assess disaster damages and translate into practice the lessons learned from each disaster. It also requires an enabling environment that facilitates periodic amendment of regulations to ensure that they meet current socioeconomic requirements. Japan’s experience shows that where effective building regulation is concerned, reform is not a destination but a journey—and that accumulated knowledge and data are powerful and necessary tools to bring along. See in particular the following discussions: • Measuring the impact of implementing building regulations (section 1.1) • Incremental enhancement of building regulations (section 3.1) • Technology development and research as basis for policy making (section 3.2) • Reflecting disaster damage analysis in code development (section 3.2) • Dedicated research institutes and enabling partnerships with the academic community (section 3.2) • Role of statistical data in seismic retrofit (section 5.1.2) • Surveys undertaken in Japan in order to monitor and assess building quality (annex 5B) 61 7 Annexes Annex 2A Japan’s Building Quality Assurance System: Stakeholder Mapping Figure 2A.1 Japan’s Building Quality Assurance System: Stakeholder Mapping Local government Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) Central government Certi cate Consultation Technical information Re-insurance Urban planning Infrastructure development council BRI, NILM, projects, etc. Bylaw Law JIS METI Building New Insurance Earthquake JAS material material company Planning insurance MAFF (land use) New construction Existing building Small Periodic Retro tting of buildings Building con rmation Construction Final inspection of buildings built Design inspection special before 1981 Other Consent of Struct. Cal. Interim buildings buildings re insp. review inspection Housing Fire Contractors Owners nance inspectors Technical support Certi cation Certi cation Certi cation Supervision Retro tting Inspection Subsidy License Report Designated structural calculation review bodies Commercial banks Designated administrative agencies, building o cials Designated con rmation and inspection bodies Funding support Designated performance evaluation bodies SRSC JHF Kenchikushi (architect and building engineer) License License Regular training (1st-class) (2nd-class, wooden) Designated bodies MLIT Local government Central govt. Public BRI = Building Research Institute JAS = Japan Agricultural Standards Private JHF = Japan Housing Finance Agency JIS = Japanese Industrial Standards MAFF = Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries METI = Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry NILIM = National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management SRSC = Seismic Retrofitting Support Center Note: “Small buildings” are wooden houses less than two stories with an area less than 500 m². “Other structures” are- single-story buildings with an area less than 200 m². “Special buildings” are designated by local governments and include hospitals, hotels, theaters, department stores, offices, apartments, etc. 62 Annex 2B Japan’s Building Quality Assurance System: Stakeholder’s Major Roles Table 2B.1 Japan’s Building Quality Assurance System: Stakeholder’s Major Roles Organization Status Major Role for Building Quality Assurance Ministry of Land, Develops legal system for building quality assurance, issue Infrastructure, Transport Ministry licenses for 1st-class Kenchikushi (architect-engineers) and large- and Tourism scale building contractors Ministry of Economy, Responsible for creation of Japanese Industrial Standards, Ministry Trade and Industry applicable to building materials like cement, rebar, etc. Ministry of Agriculture, Responsible for creation of Japanese Agricultural Standards, Ministry Forestry and Fisheries applicable to building materials like wood, etc. National Institute for Research institute affiliated with MLIT; responsible for Land and Infrastructure Under MLIT conducting research in the field of housing and public capital to Management support MLIT to plan and propose its technology policies Research institute affiliated with MLIT; responsible for Building Research Institute Under MLIT implementing the research and development for technology related to housing, building, and urban planning Independent administrative agency; provides funding support Japan Housing Finance Under MLIT and Ministry for smooth and efficient financing necessary for housing Agency of Finance construction through general financial institutions Designated Administrative Responsible for building confirmation in design stage and Local government Agency interim and final inspection in construction stage Private entity; responsible for building confirmation Designated Confirmation Designated by MLIT or in design stage and interim and final inspection in and Inspection Body prefecture construction stage Private entity; responsible for evaluation of building design Designated Performance Designated by MLIT and structural calculation using 10 criteria (such as safety and Evaluation Body efficiency) and for issuing certification Private entity; responsible for supporting building confirmation Designated Structural Designated by MLIT or by reviewing and checking the adequacy of structural Calculation Review Body Prefecture calculations for specified buildings Private entity; responsible for conducting research and Seismic Retrofitting Designated by MLIT providing information related to seismic diagnosis and seismic Support Center retrofitting of buildings 63 Annex 3A Major Construction Types for Residential Buildings in Japan In Japan, residential buildings are typically built of wood, RC, or steel reinforced concrete. According to the 2013 Housing and Land Survey (Statistics Bureau 2013), the residential building stock consists of 52.1 million units, including 30.1 million wooden houses (57.8 percent), 17.7 million RC and steel reinforced concrete buildings (33.9 percent), and 4.2 million steel buildings (8 percent) (figure 3A.1). Among newly constructed buildings built during fiscal year 2013 (April 2013–March 2014), about 88 percent of detached houses and 24 percent of apartment buildings were wooden structures (figure 3A.2). Figure 3A.1 Existing Residential Buildings by Structural Type Wooden 34% Reinforced concrete and steel reinforced concrete 58% Steel 8% Source: Statistics Bureau 2013. Figure 3A.2 Share of Wooden Buildings among New Construction (FY 2013) Total: 987,254 units Detached Houses: 493,005 units Apartments: 494,249 units Wooden 116,391 (24%) Wooden 434,761 (88%) Nonwooden 377,858 (76%) RC, S, etc. Nonwooden 58,244 (12%) Source: MLIT. 64 Annex 4A Scope of Activity and Training Programs for Kenchikushi (architect-engineers) Different building types (as determined by building use, scale, and structural design) require the involvement of different types of Kenchikushi with different levels and types of expertise. Table 4A.1 gives details. Table 4A.1 Scope of Activity for Different Types of Kenchikushi, by Type of Building Height of building ≤ 13m and height of eave ≤ 9m Height of Height and structure building Wooden Nonwooden > 13m or height of Up to 2 3 stories eave > Total floor area (m2) 1 story 2 stories 3 stories stories or more 9m Permissible area ≤ 30 Permissible for anyone for anyone (need not be 30 < area ≤ 300 licensed Kenchikushi) Permissible for 1st-class, 100 < area ≤ 300 2nd-class, or Mokuzo 300 < area ≤ 500 Permissible only for 1st-class and 2nd-class Kenchikushi General-purpose buildings Permissible only for 500 < area Special-purpose buildings 1st-class Kenchikushi ≤ 1,000 Permissible General-purpose buildings for 1st-and 2nd-class Special-purpose buildings Source: MLIT. Note: Special-purpose buildings are schools, hospitals, theaters, cinemas, grandstands, public halls, assembly halls with auditoriums, and department stores. 65 In order to conduct certain technical works, Kenchikushi must complete specific training courses. Table 4A.2 summarizes who may take the courses, what they cover, and how participants are tested. Table 4A.2 Additional Qualification Training for Kenchikushi Type of Qualifications Course content Examination certificate Structural 1st-class Lecture—2 days 1-day multiple-choice test design Kenchikushi with • Structural design overview (choosing one of 4 branches) 1st-class 5 years or more • Relevant laws and regulations; and written questionnaire Kenchikushi of business certification of compliance with law • Subject related to experience in relevant structural • Basics of structural design structural design regulations (certification • Seismic diagnosis, seismic reinforcement of compliance with law) • Specific structural designs • Subject related to building structure (Structural design) MEP design 1st-class Lecture—3 days 1-day written questionnaire plus 1st-class Kenchikushi with • Design technique for drafting and design Kenchikushi 5 years or more electrical equipment • Subject related to MEP of business • Design technique for air conditioning regulations (certification experience in of compliance with law) facilities and ventilation equipment MEP • Design technique for plumbing • Subject related to building and sanitary facilities MEP (MEP design) • Design technique for transportation facilities • Building equipment related to laws and regulations • Building equipment design overview • Certification of compliance with law Managing Kenchikushi with Lecture—5 hours 1-hour true/false test, 30 Kenchikushi 3 years or more • Subjects related to Kenchikushi Law questions of experience in and other relevant laws and regulations • Subjects related to design works • Subjects related to building Kenchikushi Law and other quality assurance relevant laws and regulations • Subject related to building quality assurance Source: Japan Architectural Education and Information Center website, http://www.jaeic.or.jp/index.html. 66 To ensure that they stay current with knowledge of architecture and engineering, including changes in laws and regulations and development of new technologies, Kenchikushi must attend related training sessions every three years. As shown in table 4A.3, five periodic training programs are offered by the training agencies, though not all courses are open to all types of Kenchikushi.²⁶ Table 4A.3 Kenchikushi: Continuous Professional Training Requirements Eligible to Content of training Examination (true/false test — 1 hour) enroll (lecture — 5 hours) • Subjects related to All 1st-class construction laws 40 questions Kenchikushi and regulations • Subjects related to construction laws and regulations belonging to • Subjects related to design firmsª • Subjects related to design and construction management design and construction management • Subjects related to 35 questions All 2nd-class construction laws • Subjects related to construction laws and regulations Kenchikushi and regulations • Subjects related to design and construction management belonging to • Subjects related to design firms (except for buildings as defined in Article 3 of the design and construction Kenchikushi Law) management • Subjects related to All Mokuzo 30 questions construction laws (wooden) • Subjects related to laws and regulations for wooden building and regulations Kenchikushi construction • Subjects related to belonging to • Subjects related to design and construction management for design firms design and construction wooden buildings management • Subjects related to All Structural 40 questions structural regulations Design 1st-class • Subjects related to structural regulations • Subjects related to Kenchikushi • Subjects related to structural design structural design • Subjects related to All MEP Design 40 questions MEP regulations 1st-class • Subjects related to MEP regulations • Subjects related to Kenchikushi • Subjects related to MEP design MEP design Source: Japan Architectural Education and Information Center website, http://www.jaeic.or.jp/index.html. a. A design firm is a registered Kenchikushi office that engages in design, construction administration, and other related services, in accordance with the Kenchikushi Law. ²⁶ According to the MLIT website (http://www.mlit.go.jp/en/index.html), as of 2016 there were nine registered training agencies, including some nonprofit organizations and private institutions, that provided such training. 67 Annex 4B Penalties for Misconduct by Kenchikushi (architect-engineers) Kenchikushi are held to a high standard of professional conduct and are subject to fine or imprisonment for violations of the Kenchikushi Law, as detailed in table 4B.1 Table 4B.1 Penalties for Violations by Kenchikushi and Building Owners Law Target Violation Penalty Owner or installer of the Construction without Imprisonment (one year or less) or fine building equipment confirmation (building (JPY 1 million or less); corporations more confirmation, interim heavily penalized inspection, final inspection) Violation against a correction Imprisonment (three years or less) or order for the building, fine (JPY 3 million or less); corporations suspension of construction more heavily penalizedª Building work Standard Law Kenchikushi Violation against major Imprisonment (three years or less) or substantive section of fine (JPY 3 million or less); corporations law such as technical more heavily penalizedª requirement for structural capacity or fire prevention (Excluding small-scale buildings) Operation of business without a license Imprisonment (one year or less) or fine (JYP 1 million or less); corporations more Violation of an order to Kenchikushi heavily penalized Kenchikushi suspend business Law Revocation of license, suspension of Name lending, false business, etc. certification of structural safety a. The penalty applies only in relation to work on specified buildings such as schools, hospitals, and apartments. 68 The best-known case of misconduct among Kenchikushi involved falsification of structural calculation documents and is described in box 4B.1. Box 4B.1 How Japan Improved Qualification Requirements for and Supervision of Designated Confirmation and Inspection Bodies: The Aneha Scandal In October 2005, MLIT received a report from a Designated In addition, it revealed some key institutional problems and Confirmation and Inspection Body about the possibility that showed that neither the Kenchikushi qualification system structural calculation documents attached at the time of nor the confirmation and inspection system was building confirmation had been falsified. MLIT investigated functioning properly. and announced to the public on November 17, 2005, that the alleged falsification had been confirmed. To address these problems and prevent any recurrence of similar fraud cases in the future, the government reviewed It emerged that Mr. Aneha, a first-class Kenchikushi, had the building quality assurance process and made falsified structural calculation documents for buildings that some changes: did not meet design standards. This violation of the law and breach of professional ethics allowed construction of • The Building Standard Law was reformed in 2006 buildings with clear design flaws to proceed. Mr. Aneha was to introduce a structural calculation review by the stripped of his first-class Kenchikushi status in December Designated Structural Calculation Review Body for 2005 and was arrested in April 2006. buildings over a certain size. • The interim inspection was made mandatory for The falsified structural calculation documents were apartments of three stories or more, though each applied without being checked by the primary contractor’s Designated Administrative Agency can decide on the design office, and were certified in the process of building target buildings, as before. confirmation. Neither building officials nor the Designated Confirmation and Inspection Bodies saw through the fraud: • The requirements for becoming a Designated the falsification was overlooked in 29 of the Designated Confirmation and Inspection Body were made stricter, Administrative Agencies and six of the Designated and the waiting period was extended from two years to Confirmation and Inspection Bodies. five years for re-designation after revocation of designation. All told, there were over 100 cases in which structural • The Kenchikushi Law was reformed in 2006 to calculation documents were falsified by Mr. Aneha and strengthen penalties for violations and to add related companies. Those responsible had their licenses requirements for reporting and regular training. revoked or were subject to prohibition/suspension • The Act on Assurance of Performance of Specified of business. Housing Defect Warranty was enacted in 2007 to protect consumers. The “Aneha scandal” called into question the seismic resistance of a large number of apartments, and hence Sources: MLIT 2006a, 2006b the safety of many residents. It also left the public feeling unsure of whether they could rely on the seismic resistance of buildings, and created distrust in the confirmation and inspections bodies. 69 Annex 4C Quality Assurance Mechanism for Building Materials and Construction Management Quality assurance for building materials and construction ISO does not include all the standards required for every management is extremely important for ensuring buildings’ country’s national standards, but its importance has quality and performance: grown as international trade has increased. This creates an incentive to incorporate international standards into • Various public and private organizations issue the national standards, and the current JIS and JAS are specifications for construction to assure quality. The consistent with ISO. Specification for Public Building Construction issued • Standardization of building materials makes rapid, low- by MLIT governs all public construction. For private cost mass production possible. In Japan, standardization construction works, the MLIT specification is used as has been promoted jointly by the public and private a base, with the JASS (Japanese Architectural Standard sectors. The government established the Industrial Specifications) issued by the Architectural Institute of Standardization Law so that the deliberations and Japan often applied for part of the works. paperwork related to the industrial standard could be • A standard specification not only helps ensure building handled efficiently and quickly. The private sector helped quality and performance, it also facilitates a more efficient make the use of mass-produced products more common and rational construction process. Under this process, and helped disseminate and promote the techniques for the contractor selects and procures the building materials using them. according to the specifications, and the construction • Only manufacturers certified by the registered manager checks all the building materials or—depending authorities can mark JIS or JAS on their products.²⁷ To on the specification—conducts a spot check. The be certified, the manufacturer must pass an examination materials manufacturer issues the material certificate demonstrating that manufacturing and inspection have to the purchaser at the time of product delivery. This been carried out in accordance with JIS or JAS standards. certificate is one way for the construction manager to The quality of the products is also examined by accredited check the conformity of the building materials to the test laboratories through random sampling tests. standard and to demonstrate at the interim and final • Material quality is checked across the various inspections that the standard has been met. manufacturing and construction phases. During the • Two sets of standards are relevant for Japan’s quality manufacturing process, the manufacturer conducts the assurance mechanism for building materials: national necessary inspection according to JIS or JAS for quality and international. National standards include Japanese assurance. At the construction stage, material quality is Industrial Standards (JIS) and Japanese Agricultural checked at the construction site both by the contractor Standards (JAS). Materials that do not meet the and by the construction manager, in accordance with the specifications of JIS or JAS must be certified by MLIT specification. to be used as building materials. Both JIS and JAS have been revised every five years in response to safety As an example of the quality assurance process for building improvements, technology development, and other materials used in construction, figure 4C.1 shows the process changes. The main international standards are those of for ready-mixed concrete, including the responsibilities of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). different actors and the standards that apply. ²⁷ The registered authorities are organizations registered with the relevant minister. As of 2016, there were 12 national organizations and 3 foreign organizations registered as JIS authorities, and 4 national organizations and 10 foreign organizations registered as JAS authorities related to civil engineering and architecture. 70 Figure 4C.1 Quality Assurance Process for Ready-Mixed Concrete Responsibilities of ready-mixed Responsibilities of purchaser (contractor) concrete manufacturer Transportation Placement, Concrete Manufacturing Transportation Unloading Acceptance Curing at site compaction structure Quality Quality Quality Quality inspection inspection inspection during inspection during during during unloading and acceptance construction manufacturing transportation Material Transportation Quality of ready-mixed concrete Waiting time Height/speed Humidity Finishing Mixed design time Sampling of concrete Temperature Strength placement Temperature Curing period Compaction method Related standards JIS A 5308 JIS A 5308 JASS 5 Source: Japanese Architectural Standard Specifications. Annex 4D Government Responsible for Administration of Building Quality Assurance, by Area Population and Building Size Table 4D.1 Government responsible for administration of building quality assurance Area Large buildings Small buildings Administrative area of municipal government with a population of more than 250,000 Municipal governments Municipal governments (major cities; 231 local governments designated) Administrative area of designated municipal government with a population of less than 250,000 (mainly small cities; 171 local Prefectural governments Municipal governments governments designated) Areas not otherwise specified (most town and villages; around Prefectural Prefectural governments 1,300 local governments) governments Note: “Small buildings” include one- or two-story detached houses. “Large buildings” include all other buildings. The number of local governments is as of April 2016 (data from Japan Conference of Architectural Examination). 71 Annex 4E Capacity Development and Training Programs for Building Administration The College of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism knowledge and improve their administrative capabilities. (CLITT) is a comprehensive training institute affiliated Each year CLITT systematically carries out about 200 with MLIT that carries out training programs for MLIT training courses covering diverse fields and receives about officials, local governments, and independent administrative 8,000 trainees. To train and enhance the capacity of Japan’s agencies, as part of a continuous professional development public building officials, CLITT holds regular trainings process. These programs help participants increase their sessions; some data on participation are in figure 4E.1. Figure 4E.1 Capacity Enhancement for Building Officials through CLITT Training a. Number of Designated Administrative Agencies b. Training for Building Officials, FY 2007–FY 2012 Participating in Training Activity, 2012 (out of 448 agencies) 0 100 200 300 400 Total number Total number Total of building Participation in lectures/trainings of lectures/ number 361 officials trainings of days participating On-the-job training 147 Internal study meetings 1,117 27,077 1,644 137 Source: MLIT. Note: The number of lectures/training sessions includes private sector lectures and trainings, which public building officials may attend. 72 Summary of training for building administration. CLITT revisions to the BSL, the time devoted to structural calculation conducts a long training course for building administration. and explanations of interim inspection, etc., have increased About 70 people enroll each year; the total number of trainees since 2000. Training in 2006—the year after the Aneha scandal from 1965 to 2015 exceeds 3,000. The training mainly focuses (see annex box 4B.1)—emphasized the structural calculation on the basic contents of, and common subjects related to, program and the exercises on dynamic response and limit the Building Standard Law and other relevant laws and capacity calculation. In 2016, based on lessons learned from revisions. It also addresses current issues and trends. For the Great East Japan Earthquake, the training added technical example, in 1965 and 1966, training devoted more time to standards related to preventing ceilings from falling. Figure countermeasures against building violations than in other 4E.2 shows the trend in the number of trainees in CLITT over years (24 hours in 1966 versus 3 hours in 2015). Because of time, and table 4E.1 shows a sample training curriculum. Figure 4E.2 Trend in the Number of Trainees in CLITT, 1965–2015 Number of Number of trainees trainees (annual) (total from 1965) 100 3,500 90 3,000 80 70 2,500 60 2,000 50 1,500 40 30 1,000 20 500 10 0 0 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (FY) Total number of trainees from 1965 Number of trainees (annual) Source: MLIT. 73 Table 4E.1 Training Curriculum for Building Officials (example from 2015) Subjects Hours Content Special Subject Opening Lecture 1.0 Building Standard Law (General remarks) 1.5 Revision history of the Building Standard Law Legal status of building confirmation and building officials, Building Standard Law (Jurisprudence) 3.0 relationship between the Building Standard Law and the Basic Subjects Civil Code, the State Redress Act, etc. Common Subjects Building Standard Law (Fire safety requirement) 2.0 Building Standard Law (Fire safety requirement) Building Standard Law (Equipment requirement) 2.0 Building Standard Law (Equipment requirement) Legal relationships and legal responsibilities surrounding Legal liability of Kenchikushi 2.0 Technical Kenchikushi Subjects Correction and prevention of violation buildings 3.0 Corrective guidance of violation buildings Outline of the Fire Service Law, relationship between fire Fire Service Law and building guidance 1.5 management and building guidance administration Relevant Subjects Building Energy Conservation Law (new law) and Latest trend about the Building Energy Conservation Law 2.0 energy saving standard (new law) and energy saving standard Others Entrance ceremony/Completion ceremony etc. 2.5 Common Subjects Subtotal 20.5 Building Standard Law (Structural requirement) 3.0 Building Standard Law (Structural requirement) Basic Subjects Building Standard Law (Planning codes) 1.5 Building Standard Law (Planning codes) Latest trend of guidance and efforts for disaster risk Building Standard Law and management guidance, outline of the Act of Promotion 2.0 Disaster Risk Management Guidance of Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings and seismic diagnosis etc. Trends and case studies of litigation related to Building Judicial precedents in building administrative disputes 3.0 Standard Law Concrete method of interim inspection 2.0 Concrete method and example of interim inspection Accessibility 1.5 Outline of laws and regulations related to the accessibility Building Guidance Course Technical Judgment of the sky factor 1.5 Outline of judgment of the sky factor Subjects Efforts of building administration in Kyoto city 1.5 Efforts of building administration in Kyoto city Allowable unit stress calculation and horizontal load-carrying Allowable unit stress calculation and horizontal load- 2.5 capacity calculation carrying capacity calculation Response and limit capacity calculation 1.6 Response and limit capacity calculation Technical standards related to measures against dropping Technical standards related to the measures against 0.4 of ceiling dropping of ceiling Fire safety verification method 2.0 Fire safety verification Evacuation safety verification method 2.5 Evacuation safety verification method Measures to improve narrow road 2.0 Measures to improve narrow road Relevant Subjects Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment 2.0 Efficiency (CASBEE) Efficiency (CASBEE) Current issues concerning building guidance Discussion Discussion 16.0 administration Building Guidance Course Subtotal 45.0 Total 65.5 Source: CLITT. 74 Annex 4F Impacts of Private Sector Participation in the Building Quality Assurance System Private sector participation in Japan’s building quality the number of private building inspectors has grown. Figure assurance system has in general had a positive impact on 4F.1, which shows the trend in the number of inspectors for the system. This annex offers data on some of the specific building confirmation, indicates that the number of private changes brought about by involvement of the private sector. building inspectors surpassed the number of public sector building officials after 2007. With private inspectors now taking Increased number of private inspectors. Since the building major roles in building confirmation and inspection, the burden inspection process opened to include the private sector in 1998, on local public building officials has decreased significantly. Figure 4F.1 Trend in the Number of Inspectors: Public and Private, 1997–2011 Number of inspectors 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 FY Number of building Number of private Total o cials (local government) building inspectors Source: MLIT. 75 Drastic improvement in completion of interim inspections. Private inspectors have for some years performed the large majority number of interim inspections, as shown in figure 4F.2. This trend has led to a gradual decrease in the amount of administrative guidance issued and violations corrected. Figure 4F.2 Trend in the Number of Interim Inspections: Public versus Private, 1999–2011 Number 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0.0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 FY Number of interim inspection Number of interim inspections Total issued by building o cials issued by Designated Con rmation and Inspection Bodies Source: MLIT. Reduced time for building confirmation. Figure 4F.3 shows both the public and private sector trend in the length of wait for building confirmation—that is, the number of days between the filing of an application for confirmation and the performance of the confirmation. On average, confirmation by the private Designated Confirmation and Inspection Bodies takes place approximately 10 days earlier than confirmation by local public building officials. Figure 4F.3 Reduction in Time for Building Confirmation as Triggered by Private Sector Engagements Days 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2 9 11/ 09 07 09 09 09 0 11/ 0 0 2 11/ 2 0 9 1 11/ 1 1 0 1 2 1 09 01 0 12 11 2 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 20 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 03 09 05 07 05 03 09 01 07 03 09 05 07 01 03 05 01 Total days (average) Working days by applicant Con rmation days by Con rmation days by building o cials Designated Con rmation (local government) and Inspection Bodies Source: MLIT. 76 Efficiency gained through private sector engagement for Building Confirmation. The number of building confirmations per building official has been decreasing since private sector involvement began, as shown in figure 4F.4. This trend means that building officials have more time to attend to original administrative task works such as violation correction. The cost of private inspection is typically higher than for public, but more applicants chose private inspection because it allows for quicker confirmation (as shown in figure 4F.3). Figure 4F.4 Reduction in Building Confirmations per Building Official as Triggered by Private Sector Engagements, 2000–2011 Number of Number of building inspectors con rmations 2,500 500 2,000 400 1,500 300 1,000 200 500 100 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (FY) Building o cials Ratio of new housing starts (local government) Source: MLIT. Annex 5A Local Policies and Programs to Promote Seismic Retrofit Some policies for promoting seismic retrofit are made at the local government level. Table 5A.1 gives examples of local efforts to encourage owners to retrofit their buildings. Table 5A.1 Efforts by Local Governments to Encourage Seismic Retrofit Public awareness programs Technical assistance • Dedicated websites for promoting earthquake resistance • Contest and award for innovative seismic design and retrofitting construction works • Brochures explaining seismic diagnosis, etc. • Dispatch of experts for seismic diagnosis • Events to promote earthquake resistance • Introduction of seismic reinforcement technology • Seminars and learning sessions to disseminate knowledge about earthquakes • Introduction of seismic retrofitting example • Publication of seismic diagnosis guidelines • Technical training for seismic diagnosis engineers 77 The central government has prioritized certain buildings for seismic resistance and set target seismic resistance rates for them. By 2015, 90 percent of public and other important buildings were supposed to be seismically resistant. Local governments have set their own targets as well. Table 5A.2 shows the target rates and actual rates for Yokohama city. Table 5A.2 Seismic Resistance Rates in Yokohama City: Target versus Actual Seismic resistance rate End of FY 2015 End of FY 2020 Type of building Target rate Actual rate Target rate Houses 90% 89% 95% Private buildings (hospitals, hotels, department stores, etc.) 90% 89% 95% Public buildings (governmental offices, schools, hospitals, 100% 99% fire stations, police stations, etc.) Source: Seismic Retrofitting Promotion Plan, Yokohama City. 78 Public buildings can play an important role in disaster management; schools, for example, may be used as emergency shelters (see box 5A.1). Local governments should therefore prioritize the seismic resistance of public buildings and use this work as an entry point to promote the seismic resistance of private houses. Box 5A.1 Japan’s School Retrofit Program Seismic retrofit programs have focused on public buildings On the other hand, local governments are responsible and large-scale buildings as well as houses, in part because for deciding whether to reconstruct or retrofit schools. public buildings such as schools and governmental offices Local governments also decide which method to use often serve as disaster management base facilities and for seismic retrofitting (steel-frame bracing, RC shear evacuation sites. School facilities in particular have played wall, etc.) based on the type of structure, condition of an important role as temporary shelters. For this reason, the building, duration of the construction, costs, etc. seismic diagnosis and retrofit of school facilities should Program implementation is carried out at the local level. be promoted as a disaster risk reduction measure. Japan’s experience also offers several lessons to The Program for Earthquake-Resistant School Buildings— developing countries seeking to improve the seismic the national government’s initiative for making schools safety of their schools: earthquake-resistant—began in 1978 and continues today. It was initiated to address the schools’ poor seismic capacity 1. Experiences from previous disaster events and the government’s slow pace in conducting school can be used to accelerate retrofitting. retrofit. Under the program, school infrastructure has been 2. Accumulating data can help encourage program inventoried, and data on earthquake risk (such as damage implementation and development. to buildings) continue to be collected. These data allow the national government to prioritize necessary actions, and 3. Each actor in the disaster risk management have been incorporated in laws to promote risk mitigation. process, including retrofit efforts, should have clearly defined roles and functions. The national government carries out the program through 4. Developing comprehensive and flexible programs MEXT, which directs and supports local governments. with clear priorities and targets is important. MEXT is responsible for providing local governments 5. Continuing advances in engineering research are with technical support and assistance for preparation the basis for developing a retrofitting program. of financial measures that facilitate school building retrofitting. MEXT is also responsible for monitoring 6. Proactive support by the national government, the project’s progress and for determining how to use strong initiative on the part of program the seismic diagnosis results to prioritize vulnerable implementers, and clearly defined roles for buildings, as outlined in the “Guidelines for Promotion of schools within the disaster management context Earthquake-Resistance School Building” (MEXT 2003). are critical to retrofit of school facilities. Note: For a full case study, please see World Bank and GFDRR, “Making Schools Resilient at Scale: The Case of Japan,” http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/148921478057894071/110216-drmhubtokyo-Making-Schools-Resilient-at-Scale.pdf. 79 Annex 5B Statistical Information on Housing in Japan Japan has implemented various surveys in order to comprehend and monitor building quality. These data are the basis for policy review and are utilized in devising policy instruments. Table 5B.1 shows several examples of statistical data related to buildings in Japan. Table 5B.1 Examples of Statistical Data on Buildings in Japan Survey name Survey purpose Main information collected Survey method Interval • Number and area of dwelling To acquire basic data rooms (in units of for formulating various tatami mats) housing-related policy • Construction materials measures. Investigates • Number of stories of building Questionnaire Housing and Land actual conditions of • Type of building to selected Every five years Survey dwellings and other • Year of construction households occupied buildings • Floor space area; building area to clarify the present • Whether enlargement, conditions and trends. remodeling, refurbishing etc. is taking place Collection by To reveal the dynamics • Location prefecture based of buildings, and to • Schedule of construction on the building Building Dynamic Monthly/yearly/ obtain basic data • Structure type construction Statistics Survey every fiscal year regarding construction • Total floor area notification and housing. • Number of stories stipulated by the BSL, etc.ª To obtain basic data Same as Housing required for promoting • Evaluation of housing and and Land housing policies by living environment Survey; target Comprehensive investigating housing • Matters related to changes is households Survey of Living and living environments in residence status over Every five years chosen at Conditions and matters related to the last five years • Matters related to random from changes in residence future lifestyles, etc. Housing and status over the last five Land Survey years. For custom-built To obtain basic data for houses: Mail the study and planning survey of future housing • Comparison of current policies by revealing houses with previous houses For houses built Housing Market actual conditions of • Financing method for for sale, existing Yearly Trend Survey individual houses, housing construction houses, private purchase of new and • Housing Performance rental houses, existing houses, moves Indication System, etc. and renovated to rental housing, and houses: In- renovations. person survey by enumerator a. The BSL stipulates that building owners who intend to construct or demolish a building must notify the local government. 80 Annex 5C How Japan Met Goals for Housing Quantity Immediately after WWII, Japan faced a housing shortage of sector as well as by the central and local governments. The 4.2 million units. In response to this deficit, the government government also promoted mass-produced (prefabricated) took three steps that would serve as the foundation of a housing in the publicly operated sector, and this approach publicly funded system for housing supply: it enacted the was later adopted by the private sector. Factory production Building Standard Law; it established the GHLC (now of housing components, including paneling and unitization, JHF) to provide long-term, low-interest finance for the began in the late 1950s. Factories also produced industrial construction or purchase of houses; and it enacted the Publicly materials such as lightweight steel frames and plastics Operated Housing Act to provide subsidies that allowed local whose quality was controlled by construction material governments to supply low-rent (publicly operated) housing. standards. These factory-produced “industrialized houses” helped ensure housing quality as well as quantity. In 1955, when an influx of people to cities further strained the urban housing supply, the Japan Housing Corporation In 1968, as a result of technological innovation, enhancement (now Urban Renaissance Agency) was established to supply of quality, and lower manufacturing costs related to mass housing, and land for housing, to working people. In 1966, production, the number of new houses in Japan exceeded 1 the Housing Construction Planning Act was enacted to million units. In 1973, the total number of houses exceeded stimulate housing construction: under this law, the cabinet the total number of households in all prefectures. Japan began to adopt comprehensive five-year housing construction had reached its goal of one house per household. programs, which included construction by the private Annex 5D Voluntary Systems for Improving Housing Quality This annex describes two voluntary systems that offer financial incentives for improving housing quality: (1) the Housing Performance Indication System, and (2) the Certification of Long-Life Quality Housing. The Housing Performance Indication System, based on the Housing Quality Assurance Act enacted in 1999, is a voluntary system that evaluates houses according to 10 broad fields and 33 specific items. The evaluation is carried out by Registered Housing Performance Evaluation Bodies, which are registered by MLIT. Figure 5D.1 shows the 10 fields of the system. Figure 5D.1 Ten Fields of the Housing Performance Indication System 2 1. Structural stability 1 2. Acoustic environment 10 3. Security against instrusion 4. Indoor air environment 9 3 5. Consideration for maintenance and remodeling 6. Measures for the aged and the handicapped 4 7. Protective measures against degradation 8. Fire safety 8 9. Luminous and visual environment 7 6 5 10. Thermal environment Source: Building Center of Japan 2013. 81 The Housing Performance Indication System is closely related to the Flat 35/35S (described in section 5.2.3). It offers financial incentives—such as a lower long-term fixed-rate housing loan and discounted earthquake insurance premiums—for achieving higher quality. In addition, if a dispute arises concerning a house evaluated by this system, the Designated Dispute Settlement Commission will handle the matter and resolve the dispute swiftly and efficiently. Figure 5D.2 shows the share of houses issued a housing performance evaluation report since 2000. Currently, about 20 percent of new houses use the Housing Performance Indication System. Figure 5D.2 Trend in Houses Issued a Housing Performance Evaluation Report, 2000–2015 Units Ratio 180,000 25.0% 160,000 20.0% 140,000 120,000 15.0% 100,000 80,000 10.0% 60,000 40,000 5.0% 20,000 0 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 FY Detached house Apartment house Ratio of new housing starts Source: Housing Performance Evaluation Association; Statistics Bureau; Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Certification of Long-Life Quality Housing is based on the Under the Act for the Promotion of Long-Life Quality Act for the Promotion of Long-Life Quality Housing enacted in Housing, “Long-Life Quality Housing” is defined 2009, and reflects the goals of that act as well as those of the as superior housing with features to support long- Basic Plan for Housing (National Plan), enacted in September term use in good condition. Housing that meets the 2006 and revised in March 2016. The goal is for Japan to necessary requirements (shown in figure 5D.3) is become a society that lessens its environmental impact certified by the Designated Administrative Agency. by meeting housing needs with existing stock (rather than through new construction). This has resulted in measures that aim to extend the useful life of housing. Currently, the average actual age of demolished houses in Japan is about 30 years. 82 Figure 5D.3 Requirements for Long-Life Quality Housing (for wooden detached house) Seismic resistance Energy-saving performance Planned maintenance Measures against deterioration Size of house Easy maintenance/renovation Source: Building Center of Japan Approved long-life quality housing is eligible for expanded housing loan tax deductions, exemptions from registration taxes, and reductions in real estate acquisition taxes and fixed asset taxes. Figure 5D.4 shows the trend in houses certified as long-life quality housing. Currently, over 10 percent of new housing is certified as long-life quality housing. Figure 5D.4 Trend in Houses Certified as Long-Life Quality Housing Units Ratio 140,000 14.0% 120,000 12.0% 100,000 10.0% 80,000 8.0% 60,000 6.0% 40,000 4.0% 20,000 2.0% 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 FY Detached house Apartment house Ratio of new housing starts Source: Housing Performance Evaluation Association; Statistics Bureau. The cost of housing under voluntary systems such as long-life quality housing includes the cost of enhancements (seismic stability, energy-saving performance, etc.). Such housing also qualifies for financial benefits such as tax deductions and preferential interest rates. These benefits offset part of the cost for high-quality, long-life housing. 83 References UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2015a. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment Report. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Chapter 1 ———. 2015b. “Sendai Framework for Disaster GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction Risk Reduction.” http://www.unisdr.org/ and Recovery). 2016. Building Regulation for files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf. Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. UN OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination Government of Nepal. National Planning Commission. 2015. of Humanitarian Affairs). 2004. “Iran: UNDAC Mission “Key Findings.” Vol. A of Nepal Post-Disaster Needs Report Following the Bam Earthquake of 26 Dec 2003.” Assessment. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/ http://reliefweb.int/report/iran-islamic-republic/iran-undac- resources/PDNA%20Volume%20A%20Final.pdf. mission-report-following-bam-earthquake-26-dec-2003. Japan Architectural Education and Information U.S. Geological Survey, “Earthquake Statistics.” https:// Center. 2016. “Research on Building Technology earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/stats.php and Architectural Engineering Education.” World Bank and GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2016. “Making Schools Resilient at Scale: JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) website. The Case of Japan.” World Bank, Washington, DC. www.data.jma.go.jp/svd/eqev/data/higai/higai1996-new.html. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/148921478057894071/110216- drmhubtokyo-Making-Schools-Resilient-at-Scale.pdf. Kumamoto Earthquake Building Damage Investigation Committee report (in Japanese). Yamaguchi, N., and F. Yamazaki. 2000a. “Fragility Curves for https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001147336.pdf. Buildings in Japan Based on Damage Surveys after the 1995 Kobe Earthquake.” 12th World Conference on Earthquake Kunugi, Takashi. 2000. “Relationship between Japan Engineering. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/2451.pdf. Meteorological Agency Instrumental Intensity and ———. 2000b. “Re-estimation of Strong Ground Instrumental Modified Mercalli Intensity Obtained from Motion in Nishinomiya City Based on Damage Survey K-NET Strong-motion Data.” J-STAGE. https://www.jstage. Data with Detailed Building Information.” Journal of jst.go.jp/article/zisin1948/53/1/53_1_89/_pdf (in Japanese). Japan Society of Civil Engineers 640/I-50: 203–13. Nagao, T., F. Yamazaki, and M. Inoguchi. 2010. “Analysis Yamazaki, F. 2016. “Building Regulation for Resilience: of Building Damage in Kashiwazaki City Due to the 2007 Experience in Japan.” Paper presented at the Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake.” Proceedings of the 32nd Understanding Risk Forum, Venice, May 16–20. Asian Conference on Remote Sensing. Paper No. 228, Taipei. Yamazaki, F., and O. Murao. 2000. “Vulnerability NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Functions for Japanese Buildings Based on Damage Data 2000. “Data Catalogue, Izmit (Kocaeli) Turkey Earthquake, due to the 1995 Kobe Earthquake: Implications of Recent August 17 1999, Set 2, Structural Damage.” https://data.noaa. Earthquakes on Seismic Risk.” In Innovation in Structures gov/dataset/dataset/august-1999-izmit-kocaeli-turkey-images and Construction 2, 91–102. Imperial College Press. Ranghieri, Federica, and Mikio Ishiwatari. 2014. Chapter 2 Learning from Megadisasters: Lessons from the Great East This chapter draws on Japanese-language materials Japan Earthquake. Washington, DC: World Bank. distributed by MLIT at meetings on amending the Building Standard Law (http://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/build/ Sokejima, S., Y. Nakatani, K. Kario, K. Kayaba, M. k99_kenchikukijunminaoshi01.html) and on the following: Minowa, and S. Kagamimori. 2004. “Seismic Intensity MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and and Risk of Cerebrovascular Stroke: 1995 Hanshin- Tourism). “Summary of Building-Related Laws.” Awaji Earthquake.” Prehospital and Disaster Medicine https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000134703.pdf (in Japanese). 19, no. 4 (October–December): 297–306. 84 Chapter 3 López, T. Murata Óscar. 2005. “Explanation of the Building Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. 2013. “APEC and Housing Technical Cooperation Project No. 3: JICA Building Codes, Regulations, and Standards: Minimum, Technical Cooperation Project in Mexico” (in Japanese). Mandatory and Green.” http://publications.apec. org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1442 Nagao, T., F. Yamazaki, and M. Inoguchi. 2010. “Analysis of Building Damage in Kashiwazaki City Due to the 2007 Building Center of Japan. “History of Japanese Niigata-ken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake.” Proceedings of the 32nd Building Structure Standard.” Asian Conference on Remote Sensing. Paper No. 228, Taipei. ———. 1979. “Report on Trial Planning and Analysis Based on the New Seismic Code.” Narafu, Tatsuo. 2014. “Basic Study on Strategies for Earthquake Disaster Mitigation on Buildings in Building Performance Standardization Association. Developing Countries: Lessons from Experience of “Survey of Technical Standards System in the Building Building Permit Scheme in Japan.” Paper Summaries 34, Regulations of Foreign Countries.” https://www.mlit. Institute of Social Safety Science. May (in Japanese). go.jp/common/000995437.pdf (in Japanese). Sawaji, Osamu. 2015. “Building Safer Houses in El Salvador and Building Research Institute. 1977. “Report on Beyond.” Japan Journal (January): 17–19. http://www.kenken. Development of New Seismic Code.” go.jp/english/contents/topics/japan-journal/pdf/jj2015jan.pdf. Building Standard Law (in Japanese). Sokejima, S., Y. Nakatani, K. Kario, K. Kayaba, M. Minowa, and S. Kagamimori. 2004. “Seismic Intensity GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Risk of Cerebrovascular Stroke: 1995 Hanshin- and Recovery). 2016. Building Regulation for Awaji Earthquake.” Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. 19, no. 4 (October–December): 297–306. Honda, N. 2013. “Earthquake-Resistant Technical Yamaguchi, N., and F. Yamazaki. 2000a. “Fragility Curves for Standard for Housing for Low-Middle Income Group Buildings in Japan Based on Damage Surveys after the 1995 in El Salvador.” Kenchiku Bosai [Building Disaster Kobe Earthquake.” 12th World Conference on Earthquake Prevention Journal]. June (in Japanese). Engineering. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/2451.pdf. ———. 2000b. “Re-estimation of Strong Ground Ishiyama, Y. 2005. “Explanation of the Building and Motion in Nishinomiya City Based on Damage Survey Housing Technical Cooperation Project No. 5: JICA Data with Detailed Building Information.” Journal of Technical Cooperation Project in Peru” (in Japanese). Japan Society of Civil Engineers 640/I-50: 203–13. JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 1999. Yamazaki, F. 2016. “Building Regulation for Resilience: “Aftercare Research Project Report on JICA Seismic Experience in Japan.” Paper presented at the Research Center Project in Peru” (in Japanese). November. Understanding Risk Forum, Venice, May 16–20. http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11574811.pdf. Yamazaki, F., and O. Murao. 2000. “Vulnerability Kamemura, Y., S. Kinoshita, K. Shirakawa, and T. Narafu. Functions for Japanese Buildings Based on Damage Data 2016. “Structural Standard for Non-engineered Housing in due to the 1995 Kobe Earthquake: Implications of Recent Indonesia.” Jyuutaku [Housing Journal]. July (in Japanese). Earthquakes on Seismic Risk.” In Innovation in Structures and Construction 2, 91–102. Imperial College Press. Kunugi, Takashi. 2000. “Relationship between Japan Meteorological Agency Instrumental Intensity and Instrumental Modified Mercalli Intensity Obtained from K-NET Strong-motion Data.” J-STAGE. https://www.jstage. jst.go.jp/article/zisin1948/53/1/53_1_89/_pdf (in Japanese). 85 Chapter 4 and Tourism). “Basic Policy for Promoting Seismic Building Center of Japan. 2013. “Introduction Diagnosis and Seismic Retrofitting of Buildings.” to the Building Standard Law.” Public notice no. 184 (in Japanese). ———. 2016. “A Quick Look at Housing in Japan.” ———. 2006a. “Report of the Urgent Investigation https://www.bcj.or.jp/form/mail.cgi?id=quicklook02. Committee for Falsification Problem of Structural Calculation Documents.” April (in Japanese). Hayami, Kiyotaka. 2009. “60th Anniversary of the ———. 2006b. “Report on the Way of Building Administration Kenchikushi Law.” Kenchikushi Journal (in Japanese). for Ensuring Safety of Buildings.” August (in Japanese). World Bank and GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Japan Architectural Education and Information Center Reduction and Recovery). 2016. “Making Schools Resilient website. http://www.jaeic.or.jp/index_e.htm. at Scale: The Case of Japan.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Japan Association for Real Estate Sciences. 2014. Annex 3A “The Actual Situation and Problems to Be Solved Statistics Bureau. 2013. Housing and Land Survey. Concerning the Designated Building Confirmation http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jyutaku/results.htm. and Inspection Bodies in Japan.” Journal of Japan Real Annex 4A Estate Society 24, no. 4 (March) (in Japanese). Japan Architectural Education and Information Center website. http://www.jaeic.or.jp/index_e.htm. Japan Federation of Architects & Building Engineers Associations website. MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and http://www.kenchikushikai.or.jp/ (in Japanese). Tourism). “Summary of Building-Related Laws” https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000134703.pdf (in Japanese). Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. 2008. “New Paradigm of Housing Industry” (in Japanese). Annex 4B MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism). 2006a. “Report of the Urgent Investigation Tourism) website. http://www.mlit.go.jp/en/index.html. Committee for Falsification Problem of Structural Calculation Documents.” April (in Japanese). Miyake, Hiroshi. 2014. “The Enactment Process of ———. 2006b. “Report on the Way of Building Administration the Building Application Procedure in the Building for Ensuring Safety of Buildings.” August (in Japanese). Standard Law.” Journal of Architecture and Planning 79, no. 698 (April): 959–64 (in Japanese). Annex 4C Chugoku Regional Development Bureau, MLIT. 2008. World Bank Group. 2018. “Doing Business 2018 Reforming “Tips for Supervisory Staff (Concrete)” https://www.cgr. to Create Jobs”, page 45-50. http://www.doingbusiness. mlit.go.jp/mametisiki/concrete.pdf (in Japanese). org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/ Annual-Reports/English/DB2018-Full-Report.pdf. Hasegawa, Ryoichi. 2012. “The Concept of ‘Standardization’ in Modern Japan.” Standardization in Japan Report on Chapter 5 Research Project No. 217. February (in Japanese). Building Center of Japan. 2016. “A Quick Look at Housing in Japan.” https://www.bcj.or.jp/form/mail.cgi?id=quicklook02 Japan Industrial Standards Committee website. http://www.jisc.go.jp/index.html (in Japanese). JHF (Japan Housing Finance Agency)website. http://www.jhf.go.jp/english/index.html. Japan Lumber Inspection & Research Association website. http://www.jlira.jp/zenmokuken_info.html (in Japanese). JHF (Japan Housing Finance Agency). 2012. “Disclosure Booklet.” http://www.jhf.go.jp/files/100506467.pdf. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ———. 2016. “Disclosure Booklet. website. http://www.maff.go.jp/ (in Japanese). http://www.jhf.go.jp/files/300325965.pdf. ———. 2016. “Flat35 Technical Requirement and Inspection Guidebook” (in Japanese). MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport 86 Annex 4E Official Statistics of Japan portal site. CLITT (College of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/eStatTopPortalE.do. Tourism) website. http://www.col.mlit.go.jp/?page_id=5019. Yokohama City. 2016. Yokohama City Seismic Retrofitting MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Promotion Plan. http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/ Tourism). “Training Curriculum of the Construction kenchiku/kenbou/bousai/bousai/sokushinkeikaku/ Training Institute and CLITT, 1971–2015” (in Japanese). h28-sokushin-keikaku.pdf (in Japanese). Annex 4F Annex 5D MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport Building Center of Japan. 2013. “Introduction and Tourism). “Investigation of Efficient and Effective to the Building Standard Law.” Confirmation and Inspection System.” ———. 2016. “A Quick Look at Housing in Japan.” https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000228036.pdf (in Japanese). https://www.bcj.or.jp/form/mail.cgi?id=quicklook02. Annex 5A Housing Performance Evaluation Association website. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association https://www.hyoukakyoukai.or.jp/ (in Japanese). website. http://www.kenchiku-bosai.or.jp/. MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and and Tourism. “Preferential Tax Treatment for Technology. 2003. “Guidelines for Promotion of Earthquake- Long-Life Quality Housing.” https://www.mlit. Resistance School Building.” go.jp/common/001089280.pdf (in Japanese). https://www.nier.go.jp/shisetsu/pdf/e-taishinsuishin.pdf. Recruit Sumai Company. 2013. Survey for Consideration MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and of Housing Purchase and Construction (in Japanese). Tourism). “Statistical Information.” http://www.mlit. Statistics Bureau. go.jp/statistics/details/jutaku_list.html (in Japanese). 87 The Japan-World Bank Program for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Contact: Management (DRM) helps developing countries drive large-scale World Bank Disaster Risk Management Hub, Tokyo investment to increase their disaster resilience. Through the Phone: +81-3-3597-1320 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, the World Email: drmhubtokyo@worldbank.org Bank DRM hub in Tokyo connects officials, practitioners, and Website: http://www.worldbank.org/drmhubtokyo development professionals with leading Japanese and global DRM expertise and solutions. 88