3 ms·
There surely are various solutions and it is also a solution to shift side effects to areas where fewer people are affected (and more easily compensated) - but
by hutzlibu 5y ago
There surely are various solutions and it is also a solution to shift side effects to areas where fewer people are affected (and more easily compensated) - but the tone of that statement above was "who cares for rural areas" at least I read it like this, because why else would rural people not care about it?
- eru 5y agoWhich statement are you referring to? I do agree with the commenter who said that we don't need to earthquake proof agricultural land itself. Especially not against minor wobbles. Fields just lie there. (Just to avoid confusion: any buildings close to agricultural land need to be considered, of course. I am talking purely about the fields.)