This article reviews the current state of practice in seismic risk mitigation, focusing on policies in ten of the most earthquake-prone countries around the world. In particular, the review compares policies to retrofit existing buildings and mechanisms for financing seismic risk mitigation, within the context of seismic risk and design standards for each country. The goal of the review is to identify policy best practices that may be useful for national and local governments that are interested in improving their earthquake resilience. The result is a set of best practice recommendations that are organized conceptually around key stages of the seismic retrofit process: (1) risk assessment; (2) knowledge transfer; (3) setting targets; (4) implementation; and (5) monitoring. While these lessons may be valuable to any earthquake-prone country, the recommendations are framed with particular attention to the United States where seismic risk mitigation is primarily the responsibility of local governments.

The concept of resilience has been used extensively across the sciences in engineering and the humanities. It is applied to ecology, medicine, economics, and psychology. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed an extraordinary challenge to the resilience of healthcare systems, communities, and nations and has profoundly altered our previous day-to-day operations. This paper presents a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of resilient systems. Scenarios are utilized to qualitatively explore key relationships, responses, and paths for recovery across different system types. The purpose is to develop an integrated approach that can accommodate simultaneous threats to system resilience, in particular, impacts from a natural hazard in conjunction with COVID-19. This manuscript is the first to advocate for more in-depth and quantitative research utilizing transdisciplinary approaches that can accommodate considerations across our built environment and healthcare system infrastructures in pursuit of designing systems that are resilient to both natural hazards and pandemic impacts.

The building and construction sector is the largest carbon emitter, accounting for more than one-third of annual global emissions. The emissions can be divided into operational and embodied carbon, associated with building operations and building materials, respectively. To achieve carbon neutral buildings, both operational and embodied carbon should be minimized throughout a building’s life cycle. However, most climate research and action focus on minimizing operational carbon, while efforts to reduce embodied carbon have lagged. In this article, we review the methodologies used to assess embodied carbon emissions at each life cycle stage of a building. We compare the databases and tools designed for life cycle assessments (LCA) and examine the case studies that evaluate carbon reduction strategies. Four strategies are reviewed in this article: resilient design, structural retrofits, frame selection, and material specification. In addition, we identify areas of insufficient knowledge and outline future research needs for embodied carbon assessment and reduction. Finally, we provide an overview of international standards and building codes related to the embodied carbon of buildings. Overall, this review offers valuable guidance and insights to support ongoing decarbonization efforts in the building sector. By highlighting innovative strategies and best practices, it provides a useful resource for industry experts, policy makers, and researchers seeking to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change.

This paper reviews the state of the art in using benefit–cost analysis (BCA) to inform earthquake risk reduction decisions by building owners and policymakers. The goal is to provide a roadmap for the application and future development of BCA methods and tools for earthquake risk reduction. Our review covers three earthquake risk reduction measures: adopting up-to-date building codes for new construction, designing new buildings to exceed code requirements, and retrofitting deficient existing buildings. We highlight the factors that influence the cost-effectiveness of building design and retrofit, as well as tactics for increasing the cost-effectiveness of risk reduction strategies. We also present BCA results, methods, and data sources used in the literature to help researchers and practitioners design and conduct a reliable and robust BCA study. In the process, we develop a set of opportunities and challenges for applying BCA to new areas of research, as well as key gaps and limitations in current BCA approaches, including further investigation of above-code design, incorporation of code implementation and enforcement into BCA, quantification of environmental benefits of seismic retrofits, and optimization of seismic retrofits with energy upgrades. Overall, our review provides practical guidance and useful insights into BCA with the goal of increasing the earthquake resilience and economic efficiency of buildings in the United States.

A qualitative ranking method, Q methodology, was used to assess stakeholder priorities for socioecological services derived from coastal marshes and communities. The goal was to reveal strength of concerns for and tradeoffs among effects of coastal resilience strategies. Factor analysis identified three perspectives that formed a spectrum from high to low priorities on intangible services. Academic and government stakeholders were more likely than local residents to prioritize intangible services, but stakeholder views were diverse. A collaborative learning process promoted some alignment of views and academics showed the most movement – towards residents’ perspectives. Q-sort appeared effective at efficiently synthesizing broad concerns.