| dc.description.abstract | Earthquakes can cause extensive damage to buildings, with lengthy impacts in terms of community recovery. As a result, there is a growing interest in design approaches and standards for buildings that ensure postearthquake functional recovery. This paper qualitatively explores barriers and opportunities for achieving functional recovery in the retrofit of existing buildings. The study employs a set of focus groups engaging 21 participants who are experienced in the seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings in the US. Qualitative analysis methods were used to analyze the collected data and to identify the key themes. The thematic analysis revealed three groups of owners and buildings: (1) those for which functional recovery-based retrofit may be achievable, including owners with long ownership time horizons, high-value contents or operations, and buildings whose functions cannot easily be relocated; (2) those for which retrofit for functional recovery is likely not needed nor practical, including buildings whose functions can be distributed to provide geographic redundancy or replaced with remote operations or a different building; and (3) buildings for which life safety retrofits, sustainability upgrades, or other renovations may improve functional recovery even if not explicitly targeted. The study also revealed significant barriers related to retrofit costs, insufficient or inadequate tools and guidelines for retrofit implementation, difficulty in communication of benefits, and a contradiction between community-scale goals and building-scale decisions. Opportunities identified to address these barriers include strategies to improve access to capital and funding, measure and communicate economic and other benefits, and develop tools and guidelines. This study is the first to rigorously explore the feasibility of achieving functional recovery for existing buildings, which make up a major part of the US building stock and are, therefore, significant impediments to postearthquake community recovery. The study suggests actions that can facilitate moving towards functional recovery objectives. | |
