## 8 Focus on Earthquake Engineering  
The literature search focused on Civil Engineering aspects of MCDA in Earthquake engineering returned 26 articles, with only 3 in common with the broadly based search. While a wide range of applications were covered in the articles, as described below, the most cited application areas were (a) the choice of methods for retrofitting buildings or bridges to improve their earthquake resilience, (b) choosing strategies for restoring transportation networks after earthquakes and (c) seismic risk mapping, mainly for structures in urban areas. A recent article reviewed and compared some MCDA methods applied to the seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey [57]. By comparing the MCDM methods results with actual damaged experienced by the buildings, the study recommended TOPSIS. For instance, MCDA methods were used to select a suitable type of passive damping system, using as criteria the structural response characteristics (acceleration, drift, displacement, velocity, and base shear) [58]. A multi-criteria method was used to prepare seismic risk maps for Ahmedabad, using AHP with a combination of physical criteria (overburden thickness, shear-wave velocity, liquefaction factor of safety and amplification factor, estimated peak ground acceleration) [59]. MCDA techniques were also used in a study of urban seismic risk in Romania [60] that included cultural identity as one of the criteria to be considered. In addressing a similar issue in Italy, [61], also used MCDA methods and included the strategic contribution of the buildings to the economy of the region as part of the selection strategy. In Turkey, a seismic risk map of Istanbul was produced by [62] using the AHP method with five criteria (topography, distance from source, soil type, liquification potential, fault mechanism). Weightings were derived from a survey of ten academic experts. Similarly, a regional risk zonation map for the Erbaa region of Turkey was produced by [63] using eight criteria (slope, aspect, lithology, depth to groundwater, distance from faults, soil shear wave velocity, amplification, and liquefaction potential). The problem of choosing glass facade systems for buildings in earthquake prone areas was addressed using three MCDA methods (AHP, TOPSIS and COPRAS) and ten criteria [64] and AHP and TOPSIS gave similar rankings. In India, AHP with fuzzy numbers was used to construct a performance assessment index for buildings damaged in the 2011 Sikkim earthquake, [65]. The use of the AHP method in construction risk management was reviewed by [54], but it did not have an earthquake focus. Managing the restoration of a complex transport network after an earthquake requires a complex prioritization of locations and the order in which they are repaired. For networks with a large number of damaged bridges, [66] applied a multi-dimensional optimization technique, focused on resilience and on minimizing the time required to achieve a specified level of functionality. The approach reduced the options to a \"Pareto Front\" of non-dominated solutions from which the manager could choose. More recently, approaches to developing appropriate criteria for this type of problem were described by [67] using Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT). In a well-cited paper (20 citations in 2 years), a multi-criterion framework for assessing seismic risk to road networks was proposed [68; 69] with a focus on the GIS tools needed to describe the road networks and Monte Carlo simulation to investigate resilience criteria and proposed indicators for use in a decision support analysis, but did not propose any particular MCDA method.