Climate change and seismic resilience: Key considerations for Alaska’s infrastructure and built environment

Pipeline [71]. Notably, passive thermosyphons often only effectively function when the air is colder than the ground. Considering the current, and projected, climate change influence on the average winter temperature across Alaska, performance-based design would need to con- sider the reduction in the number of days in the year when passive thermosyphons function. Challenges of human-environment systems and building codes From a coupled human-environment systems perspective, apparent engineering solutions encounter additional challenges. When asked about leading social concerns related to earth- quake and climate impacts, workshop participants identified (1) capacities of small/local/ Indigenous communities, (2) resource distribution, and (3) information access inequality. For example, access to crucial information related to seismic events and public safety is limited in remote areas, including Indigenous villages, though documents produced by the Alaska Earth- quake Information Center and Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Man- agement provide guidance to prepare for and recover from earthquakes at the household level. Participants suggested that opportunities exist to incorporate this information into in-person training-based modules. Among possible options to increase seismic resilience, one advanced by several project par- ticipants was building code implementation to ensure the design of infrastructure systems that resist seismic loading. Widely used model US building codes (the International Building Code

and International Residential Code) have included earthquake safety provisions since the 1990s but states and localities retain broad jurisdiction in the regulation of private construction and may adopt model codes fully, in part, or not at all. Construction in many smaller Alaskan communities falls under the jurisdiction of the state fire marshal, which requires building code adoption but not enforcement. A practicing engineer mentions, Review of building plans, typically for larger structures in more remote communities, will undergo a fire safety review, making sure that the egress and all of these [similar] things are thought through. But there’s no structural engineer reviewing the structural calculations. There’s nobody looking into the real details. In more populated areas, the local government may enforce codes, though requirements can vary between commercially built and owner-built homes, the latter being relatively com- mon in Alaska. The value of building code implementation as earthquake protection was apparent in the 2018 Anchorage earthquake, which occurred after Alaska adopted the 2012 International Building Code. Within the Anchorage municipality, 40 buildings suffered signif- icant structural damage. Of these, 38 were located in an area without code enforcement, sug- gesting that full code implementation can reduce property damage [72]. Practical challenges to building code enforcement in Alaska include difficulties of enforce- ment over large, sparsely populated areas, expensive and time-consuming transportation sys-

tems, and inclement weather. Furthermore, an interviewed geologist noted, People don’t want to be told how to build their building. And people [in Alaska] still have that cowboy mindset of “I just want to build this how I want, and I don’t want the govern- ment to come in and tell me how it should be built.” But then they get in trouble when an earthquake happens and then they try to sell those houses to people that don’t realize that they’re not constructed to code and that’s dangerous. . . In regions where less expensive housing exposes low-income communities to increased seismic hazards, the project participants proposed steps for building code implementation PLOS ONE Climate change and seismic resilience: Key considerations for Alaska’s infrastructure and built environment PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292320 October 18, 2023 10 / 17