difference was strict adherence to tough zoning and building codes in California compared to Iran and Armenia (see Box 3).

_<u>Box 1: Lives versus property: the differential toll of disasters in countries rich and poor</u>_ <mark>There is</mark> _<mark>absolutely no overlap</mark>_ <mark>between the top twenty most costly insured disasters worldwide 1970-2005 and the top twenty worst catastrophes in terms of lives lost. All of the most costly events in terms of property damage hit wealthy countries (where the density of economic activity is higher), all of the most deadly hit developing countries. In addition, eighteen out of twenty of the most costly were hurricanes, typhoons and storms, eleven out of twenty of the most deadly were earthquakes (from OECD, 2008). Why is this? Earthquake deaths in particular can be prevented by engineering approaches that are widely applied in wealthy countries but rare in the developing world. It is more difficult to comprehensively prevent flood and wind damage using similar approaches.</mark> _<u>Box 2: Poorly constructed buildings collapse in earthquakes</u>_ <mark>In the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, early evidence suggests that non-ductile and un-reinforced concrete buildings were particularly prone to collapse. This has been a ubiquitous problem in the developing World. Jain (2005) suggests that in 1999-2000 over 6,000 school buildings were constructed in Gujarat, India using seismically weak pre-cast construction technology. Three quarters of these schools were seriously damaged or collapsed during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Deaths from the 1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey were blamed on collapse due to poorlyconstructed reinforced concrete frames, construction using concrete diluted with too much sand, and construction near fault-lines (Escaleras, Anbarci and Register, 2007, Anbarci, Escaleras and Register, 2005). The Turkey experience illustrates that, while well-constructed reinforced concrete buildings are less likely to collapse in earthquakes than un-reinforced masonry, construction is technically complex and requires skilled workers motivated to meet high standards. And when such building do collapse because they are poorly built, they are more likely to kill occupants.</mark> It is not that the world lacks the knowledge to considerably reduce the number of fatalities from natural disasters, then. A combination of better land use, better construction practices and improved preparedness would dramatically reduce risk across the full range of disasters. Why, then, are these mitigation measures not adopted in the developing world?

Disaster protection may be a luxury good in economic terms – demand for protection rises more than proportionally as incomes increase. In poor countries such protection may provide lower or more uncertain returns than a number of other investments in wellbeing – the vast majority of people do not die in disasters, and it may be easier and cheaper to prevent other causes of death. Construction of disaster-resistant buildings might be technically complex, taxing limited design and construction capacities in developing countries. The knowledge and understanding of citizens regarding the risks and mitigation measures around disasters may be limited, reducing demand for safe construction and/or the ability to ensure such construction is being carried out. The design and enforcement of regulations to ensure good construction may also be complex 3