{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01675977653631285, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.059113300492611, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective

Although many countries have experienced significant losses from earthquakes, governments have a difficult time creating effective seismic hazard mitigation policies. Traditional building-oriented policy mechanisms, such as land-use regulation and building codes, are minimum standards for public health and safety, but more specialized hazard zone development restrictions are difficult to enforce at the local level where more salient issues typically dominate. Some hazards' insurance policies link the cost of coverage to mitigation, but as a broad policy, the availability of insurance often encourages rather than discourages poor site selection and development planning. In recent years, there has been a strong divergence between knowledge and policy. Public utilities, large corporations, museums and educational institutions have developed risk management models to safeguard critical functions, protect valuable contents and limit downtime. These self-generated mitigation plans could be replicated in other organizations and institutions if hazard mitigation policies were designed to reward innovation and allow flexibility. Policies such as performance-based design standards that create incentives for mitigation, accommodate change and allow the negotiation of means for desired objectives are needed to replace rigid and prescriptive regulatory models.