Why earthquakes still matter

In the early hours of 6 February 2023, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck west–northwest of Gaziantep, Türkiye. Less than 10 hours later another shock measuring 7.7 shook the same area.

The disaster took more than 60,000 human lives across southern and central Türkiye and northern and western Syria, causing catastrophic damages and suffering.

In the aftermath, national and local authorities and communities have undertaken remarkable reconstruction efforts, ?setting new benchmarks for swift recovery and “build back better” principles.

The upcoming World Resilient Recovery Conference – during the preparatory days of ?the 2025 Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction – will be an opportunity to learn from these experiences.

Rising risks and built environments

This earthquake was another reminder of the high risk of catastrophic losses from earthquakes.

Hydro-meteorological disasters are increasing, keeping them in public policy focus. Earthquakes, however, get overlooked, even while they pose increasing risks, driven by expanding, unsafe built environment.

The Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) estimated in its 2023 Biennial Report that nearly 30% of expected average annual losses globally are linked to earthquakes. ?

There’s a much-repeated adage that goes “it is not earthquakes that kill people, it's ?weak buildings and infrastructure that kill people.” And weak buildings and infrastructure – in other words unsafe built environments – are an outcome of social and economic processes characterized by low awareness (with low social demand for seismic safety), inadequate capabilities (not enough trained engineers, contractors and building artisans), low or no standards (inadequate seismic safety codes and building by-laws), and weak governance capacity (capability to enforce the adoption of seismic safety codes where they do exist).

We have the know-how

Our understanding of the ?physics of earthquakes has improved. We also understand how buildings and infrastructure respond to earthquakes, and we know how to make them safer. From designing a simple structure to a complex physical infrastructure, engineering knowledge is at an all-time high.

Yet the risk of losses from earthquakes is rising in most seismic countries.

But trend is not destiny. It can be arrested. It can be reversed.

Four public policy approaches for seismic safety

1) Take a long view, but start now.

Every long journey starts with a first step. Our stock of unsafe buildings and infrastructure was accumulated over decades, and it is a daunting prospect to consider replacing and retrofitting them quickly. However, if each city and each village in every earthquake-prone region were to resolve to build every new building or infrastructure project to an earthquake-resistant standard, in just a decade we would be having a very different conversation. We need to redouble efforts to develop seismic building codes (where they don’t exist) and enforce them.

For existing buildings and infrastructure, we need to develop shared priorities across communities, governments and the private sector to systematically retrofit and strengthen them. This prioritisation must be underpinned by a clear understanding of the risks, which is the first priority of the Sendai Framework.

Disaster scenarios, such as those created by GeoHazards International ?can allow communities to visualize potential impacts and prioritize mitigation strategies effectively. Using whatever resources are available, we can strengthen one hospital, one school at a time. This will not only improve seismic safety but will also have other co-benefits in terms of enhanced awareness and better quality of built environment for everyday use.

At the same time, we must find retrofitting solutions that are practical, that help prevent the catastrophic collapse of buildings, and that can be implemented at scale. To do this means creating a functioning market for retrofitting– nudged by regulation and fuelled by public sector investments such as advance market commitments. ?

In Kathmandu Valley, Nepal’s National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET) retrofitted 260 schools between 1997 and 2015. Of these, 160 were struck by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, and all experienced, at worst, minor damages – while in other schools more than 25,000 classrooms were destroyed. We have ample proof that investments in retrofitting pay dividends – in avoided losses and in precious lives.

However, these efforts are not easy – they require strengthening disaster risk governance at the local level in very tangible ways.

Innovation is required not just in terms of new technologies but also in risk governance – such as Japan’s introduction of innovative systems after the 1995 Kobe earthquake, involving private sector enforcement of new, stricter codes that mandated retrofitting of older buildings.?

Another example is the innovative approach to owner-driven reconstruction taken by SEEDS India after the 2001 Gujarat earthquake and continuing through multiple seismic events. Their experience demonstrates that empowering homeowners and local masons leads to safe, sustainable, cost-effective, and culturally appropriate housing—achieved at scales and speeds unmatched by contractor-led programmes.

2) Invest in capabilities at all levels.

?Shaping an earthquake-safe built environment requires capabilities in many disciplines and at all levels – urban planning, seismology, earthquake engineering, geotechnical engineering, enhancing disaster resistant construction skills of masons, bar benders, contractors and so on – and in many countries theses capacities are woefully inadequate.

There is no short cut but to systematically invest in developing these capabilities, and to drive demand though regulation and certification.

3) Treat every disaster as an opportunity to learn.

As a fresh architecture graduate, I learned more from the 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake

than from any textbook. Observing the performance of buildings and the mode of their failure under earthquake forces brought my theoretical lessons to life.

We say that every disaster is too precious to waste: we must systematically collect data and undertake forensic analysis after every earthquake, so we can improve building codes and enforcement systems, launch awareness campaigns, and better understand the epidemiology of earthquakes. This involves setting up learning systems in our national and sub-national institutions.

4) Foster public awareness.

Maintaining awareness of less frequent but potentially devastating hazards is always a challenge.

Again, there are no quick fixes. Building public awareness starts in the school (catch them young!) and over time can generate greater social demand for seismic safety.

While we transform our built environment over the long term, in the short term we need to teach people how to manage risks. Awareness of simple protection measures – such as DROP, COVER and HOLD during an earthquake, and fixing non-structural elements like flowerpots on balconies, large cupboards in houses – goes a long way in protecting lives.

The path to seismic safety is well established, with many proven success stories from countries and communities that have persevered to reduce earthquake risks enormously. The 1960 Chile earthquake, for example, was the largest earthquake ever recorded since the measurements began, and its impacts were catastrophic. Just 50 years later – in 2010, the same year that Haiti earthquake caused more than 200,000 deaths – Chile was struck once more, by 8.8 magnitude earthquake and tsunami. While 523 people tragically lost their lives, this is a fraction of the number that could have died had Chile not applied strict building codes during reconstruction.

We need to follow their lead and make seismic safety a global movement. It is a long journey – but the first step must be taken now.