the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Towards a risk governance framework for reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a comparative analysis of national strategies with implications for Algeria
Abstract. Every major earthquake is a reminder that buildings do not collapse because of geology alone: they collapse because the societies in which they stand have not invested in making them safer. This study examines national governance frameworks for reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings through a comparative analysis of six high-seismicity countries (Japan, New Zealand, California in the United States, Turkey, Italy, and Greece). Using a five-pillar analytical framework spanning regulatory, technical, financial, institutional, and cultural dimensions, we identify the mechanisms that distinguish effective governance from ineffective intent. Our central finding is that successful seismic risk reduction is never the product of a single policy instrument but emerges from the coherent alignment of five interdependent conditions: enforceable legislation specifically targeting the existing building stock, performance-based financial incentives capable of mobilising private capital, comprehensive national building-risk inventories, coordinated multi-level governance, and a deeply embedded societal risk culture. These findings are translated into a phased and operationally specific governance framework for Algeria, a country whose location on one of the Mediterranean basin's most active seismic belts, combined with a critically vulnerable pre-code building stock and a currently reactive policy architecture, makes the transition to proactive seismic risk governance both urgent and achievable.
- Preprint
(1793 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Oct 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3476', Stephane Cartier, 16 Aug 2026
reply
-
EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrea Bevilacqua, 16 Aug 2026
reply
Dear Dr. Cartier,
I am writing regarding your review of this manuscript. I noticed that you submitted a very brief report just seven minutes after accepting the review invitation.
As an NHESS Editor, I must ensure all peer reviews meet the journal's standards. I kindly ask you to review the NHESS referee obligations (https://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/policies/obligations_for_referees.html) to ensure your assessment aligns with our requirements.
Please let me know if you would like the opportunity to revise and expand upon your report, or if you have any questions. Thanks for your help.
Kind regards,
Andrea Bevilacqua
NHESS EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-EC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on EC1', Stephane Cartier, 16 Aug 2026
reply
Hello,Â
I did a short comment, because the article is very clear. It is a second version which performed after my previous remarks considering the first version. This article gives a very good international comparison of anti seismic challenges, especially about the management of retrofitting existing buildings. It also propose an accurate way to scale up Algerian safety considering the history of progress accomplished in Algeria. The international comparison gives arguments to help the management of safety in Algeria. All the elements of the text and the figures seems to be well presented and argumented.Â
I thank you for your vigilance and keep in discussion if necessary.Â
Please note that I will be disconnected since 25 of August, which is is also a constraint considering your appeal to fix before the 21st.Â
Best regards, StC.Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-RC2 -
EC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrea Bevilacqua, 16 Aug 2026
reply
Dear Dr. Cartier,
Thank you for the additional context regarding your prior review of a previous version of this manuscript. This certainly explains the rapid submission of your report.
I appreciate you letting me know, and thank you again for your time and assistance with this manuscript.
Kind regards,
Andrea Bevilacqua
NHESS EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-EC2
-
EC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrea Bevilacqua, 16 Aug 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Reply on EC1', Stephane Cartier, 16 Aug 2026
reply
-
EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrea Bevilacqua, 16 Aug 2026
reply
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3476', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Sep 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3476/egusphere-2026-3476-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC3', Bachir BENFARHAT, 08 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Reviewer,
I am writing to express my sincere and heartfelt gratitude for the time and intellectual effort you devoted to reviewing our manuscript entitled "Towards a risk governance framework for reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a comparative analysis of national strategies with implications for Algeria" (egusphere-2026-3476).
Your comments are, without exception, pertinent, rigorous, and constructive. Far from diminishing the value of the work, they shed light on dimensions that genuinely strengthen the scientific depth and practical relevance of the subject addressed. The questions you raise  on regulatory barriers specific to the Algerian context, the supply-chain constraints on technical approaches, the equity implications of tax-based financial mechanisms, the role of local authorities in enforcement, and the need for culturally adapted risk communication reflect a thorough command of both the governance literature and the on-the-ground realities of seismic risk management in developing countries. I am grateful for such a substantive engagement with our work.
I would like to assure you that I will address each of your comments carefully and comprehensively, and that the required technical corrections will be incorporated into the revised manuscript as swiftly as possible. Your observations will undoubtedly result in a stronger, more nuanced, and more operationally grounded contribution to the field.
Thank you once again for your generosity of time and expertise.
Yours respectfully,
Corresponding Author
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-AC1 -
RC4: 'Reply on AC1', Mohammed Sayah Goual, 09 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Author,
Thank you for being open to our criticism and for responding positively by agreeing to take our comments into account.
Your work is of great importance to Algeria and, more broadly, to developing countries, particularly in seismic risk management.Taking into account the comments and recommendations reported in our expertise report will undoubtedly improve the quality and scope of your contribution to this field, making it more practical and applicable.
I wish you all the best and every success in your future research work.
Kind regards,ÂCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-RC4 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC4', Bachir BENFARHAT, 13 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Reviewer,
Following my previous email, and after carefully revising the manuscript in accordance with your pertinent and valuable comments, I am pleased to send you the responses to your questions and comments, along with a summary of the revisions made to the manuscript.
Please find attached these two documents for your consideration.
I sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Bachir BenfarhatÂ
-
RC5: 'Reply on CC1', Mohammed Sayah Goual, 15 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Authors,
Thank you for considering our comments and suggestions and for making the technical and methodological corrections outlined in the peer review report.
I would like to highlight how effectively you incorporated the responses to the specific comments in the revised manuscript. You also exercised good judgment in not incorporating every suggestion, which we consider entirely appropriate given the original objectives and scope of this article. This approach preserves the scientific coherence and general focus of the work without unnecessarily broadening its scope.Â
The new version incorporates the main technical and methodological corrections. These improvements enhance the clarity, consistency, and readability of the manuscript. They also provide further clarification, either explicitly or indirectly, that may address any questions readers have while reading the manuscript.Â
Overall, the revised version shows that the comments from the peer review were taken seriously and carefully considered.
Congratulations on your excellent revision work, and thank you again for your efforts in improving the manuscript.
I wish you every success in your future research and continued work on this topic.
Kind regards,ÂCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-RC5
-
RC5: 'Reply on CC1', Mohammed Sayah Goual, 15 Sep 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC4', Bachir BENFARHAT, 13 Sep 2026
reply
-
RC4: 'Reply on AC1', Mohammed Sayah Goual, 09 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC3', Bachir BENFARHAT, 08 Sep 2026
reply
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3476', Mohamed Yacine Kheliouen, 14 Sep 2026
reply
- Does the paper address relevant scientific and/or technical questions within the scope of NHESS?
Answer: YES
2. Does the paper present new data and/or novel concepts, ideas, tools, methods or results?
Answer: YES
3. Are these up to international standards?
Answer: YES
4. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and outlined clearly?
Answer: YES
5. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and the conclusions?
Answer: YES
6. Does the author reach substantial conclusions?
Answer: YES
7. Is the description of the data used, the methods used, the experiments and calculations made, and the results obtained sufficiently complete and accurate to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
Answer: YES
8. Does the title clearly and unambiguously reflect the contents of the paper?
Answer: Confusion, I suggest replacing the term ‘national strategies’ with ‘international strategies’, as the strategies discussed relate to foreign countries with experience in the field of earthquake engineering
Towards a risk governance framework for reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a comparative analysis of international strategies with implications for Algeria
9. Does the abstract provide a concise, complete and unambiguous summary of the work done and the results obtained?
Answer: YES
10 . Are the title and the abstract pertinent, and easy to understand to a wide and diversified audience?
Answer: YES
11. Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations and units correctly defined and used? If the formulae, symbols or abbreviations are numerous, are there tables or appendixes listing them?
Answer: YES
12. Is the size, quality and readability of each figure adequate to the type and quantity of data presented?
Answer: YES
13. Does the author give proper credit to previous and/or related work, and does he/she indicate clearly his/her own contribution?
Answer: YES
14. Are the number and quality of the references appropriate?
Answer: YES
15. Are the references accessible by fellow scientists?
Answer: YES
16. Is the overall presentation well structured, clear and easy to understand by a wide and general audience?
Answer: YES
17. Is the length of the paper adequate, too long or too short?
Answer: adequate
18. Is there any part of the paper (title, abstract, main text, formulae, symbols, figures and their captions, tables, list of references, appendixes) that needs to be clarified, reduced, added, combined, or eliminated?
NO
19. Is the technical language precise and understandable by fellow scientists?
Answer: YES
20. Is the English language of good quality, fluent, simple and easy to read and understand by a wide and diversified audience?
Answer: YES
21. Is the amount and quality of supplementary material (if any) appropriate?
Answer: YES
Scientific Significance:
Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to the understanding of natural hazards and their consequences (new concepts, ideas, methods, or data)? Excellent (1)
Â
Â
Â
Scientific Quality:
Are the scientific and/or technical approaches and the applied methods valid? Are the results discussed in an appropriate and balanced way (clarity of concepts and discussion, consideration of related work, including appropriate references)?Â
 Good (2)
Â
Â
Presentation Quality:
Are the scientific data, results and conclusions presented in a clear, concise, and well-structured way (number and quality of figures/tables, appropriate use of technical and English language, simplicity of the language)?Â
 Good (2)
Â
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-CC2 -
CC3: 'Reply on CC2', Bachir BENFARHAT, 14 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you sincerely for this careful observation regarding the terminology used in the title of our manuscript. We genuinely appreciate the attention you have given to this point, and we welcome the opportunity to provide a brief clarification.
The term "national strategies" as used in our title follows the established convention of comparative governance and public policy research. It refers to the national-level governance strategy of each country studied, that is, the national policy of Japan, the national legislative framework of New Zealand, the national financial mechanism of Italy, and so on. This usage is standard in the comparative disaster risk reduction literature, where authors such as Zhang et al. (2022, Journal of Earthquake Engineering), Palm (2019), and Sattar (2021) regularly refer to the "national strategies" of individual countries when conducting cross-country analyses. In this tradition, the term designates what each nation has independently chosen as its sovereign policy response to seismic risk, as distinct from supranational or intergovernmental frameworks such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which would more properly be described as "international" in the sense of transcending national boundaries.
We would respectfully note that substituting "international" for "national" in the title might, in fact, introduce a different ambiguity. A reader encountering the phrase "a comparative analysis of international strategies" could reasonably interpret this as a comparison of multilateral or intergovernmental frameworks rather than a comparison of the independent national policies of sovereign states. Since the latter is precisely the object of our paper, we believe the word "national" is the more accurate descriptor.
That said, we fully and gratefully acknowledge the concern raised. On a first reading of the title alone, without the support of the abstract, the word "national" could momentarily be read as referring only to Algeria's own national strategy rather than to the strategies of all countries studied. This is a legitimate observation, and we take it seriously.
With this in mind, we would like to propose a revised title that resolves the ambiguity without compromising terminological precision:
"Towards a risk governance framework for reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a cross-national comparative analysis with implications for Algeria."
The expression "cross-national comparative analysis" is widely used across the social science and disaster risk governance literature to describe exactly what our paper does: comparing national-level frameworks across multiple countries. It makes both the international scope and the national unit of analysis explicit, addressing the reviewer's concern while remaining faithful to the object of the study.
We leave the final decision to the reviewer and the editor, and we remain entirely open to any alternative wording the editorial team may prefer. We are grateful for this exchange, which we believe will make the title more immediately accessible to a broad international readership.
Yours sincerely,
Bachir Benfarhat
Corresponding Author
LCTPE Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, FST
Abdelhamid Ibn Badis University of Mostaganem, Algeria
b.benfarhat@lagh-univ.dz
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2020-4038Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-CC3 -
RC6: 'Reply on CC3', Mohammed Sayah Goual, 15 Sep 2026
reply
I completely agree with your response regarding the title of the article.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-RC6
-
RC6: 'Reply on CC3', Mohammed Sayah Goual, 15 Sep 2026
reply
-
RC7: 'Reply on CC2', Mohammed Sayah Goual, 15 Sep 2026
reply
Dear reviewer;
I believe the term "national strategies" is more appropriate because each strategy is specific to a particular country. It takes into account that country's unique circumstances, priorities, and constraints, which justifies its national character. Conversely, using the term "international strategy" may imply the existence of a common or universal strategy applicable to all countries, which does not necessarily correspond to reality.
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3476-RC7
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 170 | 76 | 42 | 288 | 26 | 20 |
- HTML: 170
- PDF: 76
- XML: 42
- Total: 288
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
the contribution "Â Towards a risk governance framework for reducing the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a comparative analysis of national strategies with implications for Algeria" by Bachir Benfarhat and Djelali BenouarÂ
presents an excellent comparison of management of seismic safety of buildings across five coutries.Â
This new international comparison underlines some difficulties and opportunities to manage seismic safety of existing buildings.Â
Thanks to the methodology, the authors can propose some solution to manage seismic safety in Algeria.Â
So the contribution is very important to all the community of hazards and vulnerability management to cope with natural hazards.Â
Â