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.

In early October 2016, Hurricane Matthew crossed North Carolina as a Category 1 storm, with some areas receiving 0.38–0.46 m (15–18 in.) of rainfall on already saturated soil. The NIST-funded Center for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning teamed with researchers from NIST’s Engineering Laboratory (Disaster and Failure Studies Program, Community Resilience Group, and the Applied Economics Office) to conduct a field study focused on the impacts of the Lumber River flooding in Lumberton, North Carolina. Lumberton is a racially and ethnically diverse community with higher than average poverty and unemployment rates, a typical civil infrastructure for a city of 22,000 residents, and a city council form of government. The field data described in this paper are from the first wave in an ongoing longitudinal research project documenting the impacts and subsequent recovery processes following the 2016 riverine flooding in Lumberton. The initial data collection for this longitudinal community resilience-focused field study had two major objectives: (1) document initial conditions after the flood for the longitudinal study of Lumberton’s recovery, with a focus on improving flood-damage and population-dislocation models; and (2) develop a multidisciplinary protocol providing a quantitative linkage between engineering-based flood damage assessments and social science-based household interviews that capture socioeconomic conditions (e.g., social vulnerabilities related to race, ethnicity, income, tenancy status, and education levels). This type of interdisciplinary longitudinal research is critical to better understand community processes in the face of disasters and ultimately provide data and inform best practices for enhancing resilience to natural hazards in US communities. This paper describes the development and implementation of this interdisciplinary effort and offers an example of combining an engineering assessment of flood damage to residential structures and social science data to model household dislocation. Dislocation probabilities were primarily driven by flooding damage but also varied significantly among Lumberton’s racial/ethnic populations and by tenure.

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.

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.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic small businesses made headlines as hard hit by customer losses, revenue declines, and business closures. Yet, the impacts have been felt disproportionately by small businesses that suffered interruption due to pre-existing socioeconomic stressors and/or concurrent natural hazards experienced during the pandemic. To illuminate those compound impacts, we conducted a survey of over 1350 U S.-based small businesses. Our findings indicate that those businesses that experienced concurrent natural hazards during the pandemic were associated with relatively greater negative impacts. But importantly, enterprises that are historically underrepresented group operated (HUGO)—minority, women, and veteran-operated businesses— saw largely amplified negative impacts from COVID-19. In terms of the magnitude of COVID-19 impacts, the effect size of belonging to HUGO was more than twice as large as the effect size of experiencing a concurrent natural hazard during the pandemic. These results provide evidence for the disproportionate impacts that HUGOs face due to the pandemic, which are exacerbated when compounded by natural hazards. Given these results, there is evidence that the opportunity gap between HUGO and non-HUGO businesses is significant ahead of additional stressors or shocks. This opportunity gap is further accelerated when compounded with other events, here the compounding of natural hazards and COVID-19. Additional interventions need to be offered to HUGO businesses in areas with high likelihood of overlapping incidents. Further work is required to address social inequity and economic fragility of HUGO businesses, especially those that face the complexity of additional shocks, such as natural hazards.