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

47. Ferrians OJ. Permafrost Map of Alaska. Map I-445. US Geological Survey; 1965. (Miscellaneous Geo- logic Investigations). 48. Wesson RL, Boyd OS, Mueller CS, Bufe CG, Frankel AD, Peterson MD. Revision of Time-Independent Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for Alaska. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey; 2007 p. 33. Report No.: 2007–1043. 49. Denali Commission. Statewide Threat Assessment. Denali Commission, an Independent Federal Gov- ernment Agency; 2019. 50. Chadburn SE, Burke EJ, Cox PM, Friedlingstein P, Hugelius G, Westermann S. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming. Nat Clim Change. 2017 May 1; 7(5):340–4. 51. ACIA. Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme; 2004 p. 140. 52. Burgess M, Desrochers DT, Saunders R. Potential changes in thaw depth and thaw settlement for three locations in the Mackenzie Valley. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin; 2000. (The Physical Environ- ment of the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories: a Baseline for the Assessment of Environmental Change). 53. Yi Y, Kimball JS. ABoVE: Active Layer Thickness from Remote Sensing Permafrost Model, Alaska, 2001–2015. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Archive Center for Biogeochemical Dynamics; 2020. 54. Anisimov OA, Shiklomanov NI, Nelson FE. Global warming and active-layer thickness: results from transient general circulation models. Glob Planet Change. 1997 Oct 1; 15(3):61–77.

55. Loranty MM, Berner LT, Taber ED, Kropp H, Natali SM, Alexander HD, et al. Understory vegetation mediates permafrost active layer dynamics and carbon dioxide fluxes in open-canopy larch forests of 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 15 / 17

northeastern Siberia. PLOS ONE. 2018 Mar 22; 13(3):e0194014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0194014 PMID: 29565980 56. Anderson CG, Bond-Lamberty B, Stegen JC. Active layer depth and soil properties impact specific leaf area variation and ecosystem productivity in a boreal forest. PLOS ONE. 2021 Dec 31; 15(12): e0232506. 57. Xu G, Yang Z, Dutta U, Tang L, Marx E. Seasonally Frozen Soil Effects on the Seismic Site Response. J Cold Reg Eng. 2011; 25(2):53–70. 58. Yang ZJ, Dutta U, Zhu D, Marx E, Biswas N. Seasonal Frost Effects on the Soil–Foundation–Structure Interaction System. J Cold Reg Eng. 2007; 21(4):108–20. 59. Thornley JD, Moran N, Daggett A, Krzewinski TG. Estimating Liquefaction Potential of Thawing Perma- frost Soils, an Evaluation of Frozen and Recently Thawed Soils. In: Congress on Technical Advance- ment 2017 [Internet]. 2017. p. 141–50. Available from: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/ 9780784481011.014 60. Ghayoomi M, Ghadirianniari S, Khosravi A, Mirshekari M. Seismic behavior of pile-supported systems in unsaturated sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2018; 112:162–73. 61. Turner MM, Ghayoomi M, Ueda K, Uzuoka R. Performance of rocking foundations on unsaturated soil layers with variable groundwater levels. Ge´otechnique. 2021; 0(0):1–14. 62. Turner MM, Ghayoomi M, Ueda K, Uzuoka R. Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction of Inelastic Struc- tural Systems on Unsaturated Soil Layers. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng. 2022; 148(7):04022049. 63. Seed HB, Idriss IM. Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. J Soil Mech Found

73. Schilderman T, Lyons M. Resilient dwellings or resilient people? Towards people-centred reconstruc- tion. Environ Hazards [Internet]. 2011 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 10(3–4):218–31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2011.598497 74. Spoon J, Gerkey D, Chhetri RB, Rai A, Basnet U, Hunter CE. Understanding short-term household recoveries from the 2015 Nepal earthquakes: Lessons learned and recommendations. Prog Disaster Sci [Internet]. 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 10:100169. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S2590061721000296 75. Banerjee T, Loukaitou-Sideris A. The New Companion to Urban Design. London: Routledge; 2019. 714 p. 76. Bartram R. Stacked Decks: Building Inspectors and the Reproduction of Urban Inequality. University of Chicago Press; 2022. 77. Henderson K. Achieving legitimacy: visual discourses in engineering design and green building code development. Build Res Inf [Internet]. 2007 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 35(1):6–17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210600979780 78. Shapiro S. The realpolitik of building codes: overcoming practical limitations to climate resilience. Build Res Inf [Internet]. 2016 Aug 17 [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 44(5–6):490–506. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1080/09613218.2016.1156957 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 16 / 17

79. McFarlane A, Li J, Hollar M. Building Codes: What Are They Good For? Cityscape [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 23(1):101–32. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26999942 80. Tucker W. Building Codes, Housing Prices, and the Poor. Housing America: Building out of Crisis. Transaction Publishers; 2011. 65–82 p. (Housing America: Building out of a Crisis). 81. Bartram R. The Cost of Code Violations: How Building Codes Shape Residential Sales Prices and Rents. Hous Policy Debate [Internet]. 2019 Nov 2 [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 29(6):931–46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1627567 82. Quantitative Spoon J., qualitative, and collaborative methods: approaching indigenous ecological knowledge heterogeneity. Ecol Soc [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Jul 19];19(3). Available from: https:// www.jstor.org/stable/26269613 83. Spoon J, Hunter CE, Gerkey D, Chhetri RB, Rai A, Basnet U, et al. Anatomy of disaster recoveries: Tan- gible and intangible short-term recovery dynamics following the 2015 Nepal earthquakes. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 51:101879. Available from: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420920313819 84. Doering N, Dudeck S, Elverum S, Fisher C, Henriksen JE, Herrmann TM, et al. Improving the relation- ships between Indigenous rights holders and researchers in the Arctic: an invitation for change in fund- ing and collaboration. Environ Res Lett [Internet]. 2022 Jun [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 17(6):065014. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac72b5

85. Egbelakin T, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R, Ingham J. Improving regulatory frameworks for earthquake risk mitigation. Build Res Inf. 2013 Nov 1; 41(6):677–89. 86. Stiles C, Umphlett N, Cottenoir M. Building Adaptive Capacity in Tribal Communities of the Missouri River Basin to Manage Drought and Climate Extremes: A Case Study from the Wind River Indian Res- ervation. J Indig Res [Internet]. 2020;8. Available from: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/kicjir/vol8/ iss2020/3 87. Bankoff G. Design by Disasters: Seismic architecture and cultural adaptation to earthquakes. In: Kru¨ger F, Bankoff G, Cannon T, Orlowski B, Schipper ELF, editors. Cultures and disasters: understanding cul- tural framings in disaster risk reduction. New York: Routledge; 2015. p. 53–71. 88. Ortega J, Vasconcelos G, Rodrigues H, Correia M, Lourenc¸o PB. Traditional earthquake resistant tech- niques for vernacular architecture and local seismic cultures: A literature review. J Cult Herit [Internet]. 2017 Oct [cited 2022 Jul 19]; 27:181–96. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1296207417301681 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 17 / 17