NIST-FEMA post-earthquake functional recovery workshop report
Authors: Abrahams Leslie , Van Pay Lisa , Sattar Siamak , Johnson Katherine , McKittrick Alexis , Bartels Lauren , Butcher L Max , Rubinyi Lara , Mahoney Michael , Heintz Jon , Kersting Ryan , McCabe Steven 
Published: July 2021

To strengthen America s resilience, the Federal Government recognizes a need to reduce interruptions to services and jobs, and to lessen disruption to social and economic community functions after earthquake events. Current building codes and standards largely focus on saving lives. However, maintaining services and functionality will require new mechanisms that more effectively limit damage to buildings and lifelines infrastructure systems. In response to a U.S. Congressional mandate, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Federal Emergency Management Administration1 convened a Committee of Experts to recommend and assess options for improving post-earthquake reoccupancy and functional recovery time across the built environment. To inform the Committee of Experts and assist in their development of a report to Congress, stakeholder workshops were held in five cities across the country to gather information from subject matter experts and professionals in the earthquake community. This document details the processes for gathering input from stakeholders at workshops. It summarizes participants reactions to functional recovery concepts and options, particularly with respect to information that can help determine appropriate recovery times, as well as criteria for assessing various implementation options. In particular, workshop participants provided insights regarding which community functions were viewed as critical to postearthquake recovery, and when components of the built environment that support those functions would need to recover in order to maintain community stability. Generally, participants categorized components of the built environment important in the short term (hours and days) more consistently than the components slated for return in longer timeframes (weeks and months). Participants noted the importance of local values and community contexts to these assignments. Attendees were also asked to consider what factors a policy maker could use to effectively assess and compare options to improve functional recovery. Cost, benefit, feasibility, effectiveness, and equity were the five categories of evaluative criteria identified most clearly and frequently across attendees. Overall, participants supported the idea of developing a national framework for functional recovery, while emphasizing the importance of flexibility and adaptability of the framework such that it can be utilized as a tool for planning at the local level. Additional key themes stakeholders identified as important for inclusion in the report to Congress are detailed in Section 5. Input from a diversity of stakeholder perspectives gathered at the workshops were essential to help develop the concept of functional recovery and inform the report to Congress. In the future, additional feedback will be needed to develop specific resilience goals, set public policy, and prioritize the investment of resources to produce functional recovery performance.