No abstract

Co-benefit opportunities Policy action Global climate benefits Local co-benefits Co-costs References Aesthetic and recreational values Conserve water resources Reduces sedimentation and silting Agroforestry CO 2 mitigation and carbon sequestration Biodiversity conservation Use of water-hungry species deplete water resources Protection of watershed Losses in stream flow Prevention of land/soil degradation Amenity values, nature preserves Aesthetic and recreational values Conserve water resources Reduces sedimentation and silting Forest management in plantations CO 2 mitigation and carbon sequestration Biodiversity conservation May affect biodiversity if they replace biologically rich ecosystems Protection of watershed Prevention of land/soil degradation Amenity values, nature preserves Aesthetic and recreational values Conserve water resources Reduces sedimentation and silting 25 Sustainable management of native forests CO 2 mitigation and carbon sequestration Biodiversity conservation

In the developing world, despite official promotion and support, engineered structures continue to fail to take root in post-event reconstruction efforts. Both the 2005 Kashmir and 2001 Gujarat earthquakes are excellent case studies of owner preference in this regard where the overwhelming majority of reconstructed building stock turned out to be non-engineered.Based upon first hand surveys of reconstruction after the Kashmir earthquake and other published studies, this paper attempts to analyse aspects of nonengineered construction that tend to make it more desirable to owners as compared with the engineered options. It finds that these aspects can be divided into two categories. The first one, not entirely specific to non-engineered structures, relates to aspects of physical design such as construction materials and techniques, as well as aesthetic and cultural aspects.The second and critically important aspect is the construction paradigm of the non-engineered structure which takes place within the larger construction milieu of the region. The paper analyses and contrasts the construction paradigm of both types of structures and identifies it as the key difference between the two. It further concludes that improving seismic performance of the non-engineered structure is strongly dependent upon respecting its construction paradigm, and that any change in the culture of construction must be brought about through it.

No abstract