# Risk and Resilience Assessment of Lisbon's School Buildings Based on Seismic Scenarios
## 2 State of the Art on Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation for School Buildings
### Analytical Approaches for Risk and Vulnerability Assessment

Table 1: Expected annual loss ratios obtained by [PERSON] et al. [46] for three buildings representative of the Italian school building portfolio. [PERSON] et al. [12] contributed to the development of a national risk-reduction program in Venezuela, starting with the assessment of the seismic performance of two typical schools, which were analyzed through nonlinear pushover analysis. Their performance was then extrapolated to the inventory of schools in Venezuela. A practical retrofitting intervention plan was studied, based on the addition of auxiliary structures to support the seismic loads, leaving the existing structures to support only the gravity loads. It is worth noting that the problem of building collapse under severe earthquakes is not the only one related to the effect of earthquakes on structures. In fact, as stated by [PERSON] et al., moderate earthquakes can induce severe damage on buildings, with high consequences in terms of indirect losses. In fact, a large percentage of earthquake-induced losses are also related to the damage of non-structural elements [50]. The poor seismic performance of non-structural elements is generally the consequence of the omission of proper seismic design and detailing, and expertise on how to effectively perform it. For example, significant damage to ceiling systems, partitions, shelves, and ornaments in heritage URM buildings was reported by [PERSON] et al. [50] following the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. [PERSON] et al. [51] conducted an exhaustive review of typical non-structural damage observed in school buildings after major seismic events around the world and highlighted that ceiling systems, partitions, lighting systems, and bookshelves are generally the most vulnerable elements. The main reasons identified were the lack of proper anchorage of the various elements and, in many cases, the absence of clear seismic design methodologies and prescriptions to implement them. The results of previous studies, such as [PERSON] et al. [52], provide quantitative evidence that for seismically active regions, the seismic retrofit of structures is a financially advantageous investment, since the reduction in future earthquake-induced loss exceeds the upfront cost of the intervention. However, for most building owners, the investment required for retrofitting remains an issue since it is considered too high and is not associated with an immediate and tangible benefit. In this context, [PERSON] et al. [52] proposed an incremental seismic retrofitting for Nepal, in which the total investment is spread over time in a gradual and cost-effective way, thus allowing for more flexibility in implementing effective risk management actions at a regional and national scale. Finally, it is worth highlighting that a school infrastructure is not limited to the school buildings, but includes other infrastructures, such as power and water supply, as well as accessibility to the school [53]. Additionally, the school community further includes the attributes of the local stakeholders, as well as how they interact and support each other in normal conditions. Within the SAFER project [53], educational community resilience is assessed based on four dimensions: (i) school infrastructure, (ii) school community, (iii) school governance, and (iv) school curriculum.