Structural Deficiencies, Governance Challenges, and Strategies for Sustainable Seismic Resilience in Hazard-Prone Regions

Abstract

Afghanistan is located within one of the world’s most seismically active regions, where recurrent earthquakes pose a persistent threat to human life and the built environment. The 7 October 2023 Herat earthquake exposed critical vulnerabilities in both the construction sector and institutional frameworks, manifested through the widespread presence of non-engineered buildings, poor construction quality, and the absence of mandatory and enforceable seismic design regulations. This study examines the structural, construction-related, and governance deficiencies that significantly contributed to extensive building damage and high casualty rates, while also assessing shortcomings in public preparedness and disaster risk governance. A comparative case-study approach is adopted to evaluate seismic resilience and disaster management practices in India, Pakistan and Iran. The findings indicate that the elevated vulnerability observed in Herat primarily resulted from deficient construction practices, the lack of codified seismic standards, weak regulatory enforcement, and limited technical capacity within the construction industry. In contrast, regions characterized by well-established seismic codes, engineered structural systems, and coordinated institutional mechanisms experienced substantially reduced levels of structural damage and human losses, although earthquake impacts are also influenced by factors such as hazard characteristics, site conditions, exposure levels, and population distribution. The study highlights that seismic safety and sustainable development are inherently interdependent objectives. Improving earthquake resilience in Afghanistan requires the integration of earthquake-resistant engineering with sustainable construction practices, enhancement of technical and professional capacity, rigorous enforcement of region-specific seismic regulations, and strengthened community-based awareness programs. The adoption of internationally recognized best practices and risk-informed planning strategies is essential for fostering safer, more resilient, and environmentally sustainable urban development capable of withstanding future seismic events.

1. Introduction

Construction technologies have advanced significantly over recent decades, driven by the need to enhance safety, sustainability, and efficiency within the built environment. Despite these developments, earthquakes remain among the most critical hazards confronting structural engineers, particularly in seismically active regions such as Afghanistan, Nepal, and India [1,2]. Past seismic events in these regions have repeatedly demonstrated the high vulnerability of buildings constructed without earthquake-resistant design considerations or with substandard materials, leading to substantial loss of life and severe economic disruption. Consequently, a central focus of contemporary structural engineering research is to design and develop buildings capable of withstanding seismic actions without catastrophic failure [3,4]. Achieving this objective depends not only on advancements in materials and construction techniques but also on an improved understanding of structural behavior, load-transfer mechanisms, and overall system performance under seismic loading.

In regions where traditional construction practices persist and formal seismic regulations are limited or weakly enforced, these challenges are often amplified. The destructive earthquake sequence that struck Herat Province, Afghanistan, on 7 October 2023 provides a recent and compelling illustration of such conditions [5,6]. The event exposed the fragility of prevailing construction practices in the region, which continue to rely heavily on traditional and outdated building methods that do not comply with established seismic design principles. Herat Province, located in western Afghanistan and bordering Iran and Turkmenistan, covers an area of approximately 63,097 km² and accommodates a population of about 1.76 million.

To address these challenges, this study aims to examine the structural deficiencies that contributed to widespread building failures during the Herat earthquake, to assess the preparedness and response capacity of local communities and governmental institutions, and to place Herat’s experience within a broader international context through comparison with countries such as India, Pakistan, and Iran. These regions have adopted comprehensive seismic codes and coordinated disaster management systems in response to recurrent seismic events [7,8]. The study adopts a comparative framework based on past earthquake experiences and on-site damage observations to evaluate differences in construction practices, regulatory environments, and institutional capacity. By doing so, it seeks to identify critical gaps in seismic design, construction quality, and governance mechanisms that influence earthquake vulnerability in Herat Province and similar high-risk regions of Afghanistan.

2. Seismotectonic Setting of Afghanistan

A substantial portion of Afghanistan lies within the actively deforming zone of the Eurasian Plate, making the country highly prone to tectonic instability [9]. The regional seismic regime is governed by a complex network of plate interactions, most notably the oblique collision of the Indian Plate from the southeast and the northward motion and subduction of the Arabian Plate along the western margin. These long-term plate movements have shaped major orogenic belts, including the Himalayan, Karakoram, Pamir, and Hindu Kush ranges [10]. Together, these mountain systems represent some of the most tectonically active and seismically hazardous regions on Earth, formed as a result of the continued underthrusting of the Indian Plate beneath the Eurasian Plate along the northern boundary of the Indian subcontinent.

The oblique nature of plate convergence along the western and southern Himalayan front generates frequent seismic activity characterized by a combination of strike-slip, reverse, and oblique faulting mechanisms [11]. Such mixed fault kinematics reflect the accommodation of both compressional and lateral shear stresses within the crust. For example, the 22 June 2022 earthquake that affected eastern Afghanistan and the adjoining Hindu Kush region was dominated by strike-slip motion, as revealed by detailed seismic waveform analyses [12]. The event was consistent with either left-lateral displacement along a northeast-trending fault or right-lateral movement along a northwest-oriented fault. This behavior highlights the structural complexity of regional fault systems and underscores their capacity to generate damaging earthquakes across Afghanistan and adjacent tectonic domains.

Among the most prominent and seismically active tectonic features affecting Afghanistan is the Chaman Fault system, which has repeatedly produced large and destructive earthquakes [13]. This major strike-slip fault plays a critical role in accommodating relative motion between the Indian and Eurasian plates and represents a significant source of seismic hazard for southern and western Afghanistan. The destructive earthquake that occurred in Herat on 7 October 2023 was driven by ongoing convergence between the Indian and Eurasian plates, resulting in shallow crustal faulting within the Eurasian Plate. The presence of active faults, combined with elevated compressional stresses, renders western Afghanistan particularly vulnerable to moderate-to-strong seismic events, emphasizing the persistent and evolving nature of regional seismic risk.

Overall, Afghanistan’s location within a complex plate boundary zone, combined with active fault systems [14] and ongoing crustal deformation, explains the high frequency and destructive potential of earthquakes across the country. These tectonic characteristics reinforce the urgent need for region-specific seismic hazard assessment, improved monitoring, and the integration of geoscientific knowledge into earthquake-resilient planning and construction practices.

Table 1. Key seismological parameters of the 7 October 2023 Herat earthquake sequence.

Parameter	Description	Value/Observation	Data Source
Date of mainshock	Occurrence date of the primary earthquake event	7 October 2023	[15]
Moment magnitude (Mw)	Magnitude of the main seismic event	Mw 6.3	[15]
Focal depth	Depth of earthquake hypocenter	~10 km (shallow crustal earthquake)	[15]
Focal mechanism	Dominant faulting mechanism	Reverse / thrust faulting related to regional compression	[16]
Maximum intensity	Observed shaking intensity near epicentral area	MMI VII–VIII	[15]
Estimated PGA	Peak ground acceleration range near epicentral region	~0.25–0.40 g (estimated range)	[17]
Affected districts	Areas with highest reported structural damage	Zinda Jan, Injil, and surrounding rural villages	[16]
Dominant damage pattern	Primary structural damage observed	Collapse of adobe and mud-brick buildings	[18,19,20,21]

summarizes the principal seismological characteristics of the 7 October 2023 Herat earthquake sequence, including magnitude, focal depth, focal mechanism, shaking intensity, and estimated ground motion parameters. The event was characterized by a moderate-to-strong shallow crustal earthquake (M_w 6.3) that generated significant ground shaking in western Afghanistan. The spatial distribution of damage was concentrated in rural districts such as Zinda Jan and Injil, where vulnerable non-engineered earthen buildings predominated.

3. Methodology and Data Acquisition

The study adopts a mixed-method research approach combining quantitative and qualitative analyses to provide a more comprehensive understanding of earthquake impacts and structural vulnerabilities. Quantitative information was obtained from secondary sources such as earthquake databases [15], published reports [18,19,20,21] and statistical summaries [16,22,23] describing seismic parameters, damage distribution, and casualty patterns. These datasets were used to characterize the overall hazard context and the scale of earthquake impacts. Qualitative insights were obtained through field surveys conducted in the earthquake-affected districts of Herat Province, particularly in the Zinda Jan area.

The surveys involved visual inspection of residential buildings and discussions with local residents and engineers to understand construction practices, structural deficiencies, and community preparedness conditions. The qualitative observations helped interpret and contextualize the quantitative findings by explaining the structural and governance-related factors that contributed to the observed damage patterns. This integration of quantitative evidence and qualitative field observations improves the reliability of the analysis and provides a more holistic understanding of earthquake risk and resilience.

3.1. Data Collection Techniques

The study incorporates both primary and secondary data sources to examine structural deficiencies, construction practices, and governance-related aspects of seismic risk in Afghanistan. Primary data were obtained through field surveys conducted in the earthquake-affected districts of Herat Province, particularly in the Zinda Jan area. The field investigations involved visual inspections of residential buildings, as well as documentation of structural configurations, construction materials, and observed damage patterns following the 7 October 2023 earthquake. The surveys covered multiple villages and representative housing units, enabling direct observation of key structural deficiencies such as the absence of proper foundations, weak earthen wall systems, and vulnerable dome roof constructions. Informal interactions with local residents and engineers were also undertaken to gain insights into local construction practices and post-earthquake experiences.

In addition to the field investigations, the study utilizes secondary data derived from publicly available earthquake records and documented post-event reports relevant to Afghanistan and comparable seismic contexts. These sources ensure data reliability, consistency, and comparability across different earthquake events and geographic regions. Secondary data sources include peer-reviewed journal articles [16,22,23], official reports from governmental agencies and international organizations [18,19,20,21], global seismic databases [15], and published post-earthquake damage assessments [22]. Furthermore, relevant archival records and technical documents were consulted to supplement information on construction practices, damage patterns, and institutional response mechanisms. The integration of primary field observations with secondary data provides a robust basis for examining seismic impacts, building performance, and governance-related aspects of earthquake risk and resilience.

3.2. Data Processing and Analytical Methods

Data analysis involved a systematic process of compilation, organization, coding, and synthesis to support comparative assessment across earthquake events [24]. Information was first compiled from multiple global earthquake reports and subsequently refined through focused examination of data specific to the Herat earthquake.

To enable meaningful cross-event comparison, the datasets were standardized and key variables related to seismic characteristics, structural damage, construction practices, and institutional response were coded numerically. The coded data were tabulated using Microsoft Excel, which was also employed to generate the figures and tables presented in this study. This structured analytical process supported pattern identification, comparative evaluation, and coherent interpretation of seismic impacts and preparedness levels.

3.3. Standardized Comparative Framework for Cross-Case Evaluation

The countries included in the comparative analysis: India, Pakistan and Iran were selected using a purposive screening approach to represent diverse disaster-risk contexts. The selection considered four main criteria: (i) seismic hazard exposure, including countries with significant earthquake history; (ii) governance and disaster-management systems, reflecting different levels of regulatory enforcement and institutional capacity; (iii) economic and development contexts, ranging from highly developed to developing countries; and (iv) prevailing construction practices and building typologies, particularly the contrast between engineered and non-engineered structures. This diversity enables a structured comparison of how variations in hazard characteristics, exposure, vulnerability, and governance influence earthquake impacts across different regions, consistent with widely used disaster-risk assessment frameworks.

To improve consistency in the international comparison, the selected case studies were evaluated using a standardized framework based on hazard, exposure, vulnerability, governance, and response. These indicators provide a structured basis for comparing earthquake impacts across different countries and reduce reliance on purely narrative discussion.

Table 2. Standardized framework used for reproducible cross-case comparison in the study.

Dimension	Definition	Typical Indicators	Cross-Case Analysis
Hazard	Seismological severity and physical characteristics of the earthquake event	Mw, focal depth, shaking intensity, fault mechanism, spatial extent of damage	To compare the physical earthquake severity across cases
Exposure	Population, settlements, and built assets located in the affected region	Population density, rural or urban concentration, building occupancy, settlement distribution	To evaluate the scale of elements at risk
Vulnerability	Susceptibility of structures and communities to seismic damage	Structural typology, non-engineered construction, material quality, code compliance, building age	To assess why similar hazards, produce different damage levels
Governance	Institutional and regulatory capacity for risk reduction	Seismic code availability, enforcement, technical oversight, disaster-risk governance, planning systems	To compare risk reduction capability before the event
Response	Preparedness and emergency management capacity during and after the event	Early warning, public awareness, drills, emergency response coordination, rescue and recovery measures	To assess capacity to reduce immediate losses and support recovery

defines the standardized comparison framework adopted in this study to evaluate the selected earthquake case studies using a common set of dimensions and indicators. This structure reduces purely narrative comparison and provides a more transparent basis for interpreting how hazard characteristics, built-environment vulnerability, institutional governance, and response capacity jointly influence earthquake outcome.

4. Results and Discussions

The comparative review of earthquake events across selected countries indicates that variations in earthquake-related mortality are closely associated with differences in building typologies, regulatory enforcement, and preparedness mechanisms. Case-study evidence shows that regions with a higher proportion of engineered construction and enforceable seismic design provisions experienced substantially lower casualty levels than regions dominated by non-engineered buildings. These contrasts are particularly evident when comparing recent earthquake impacts in Afghanistan with those observed in countries such as India, Pakistan, and Iran.

4.1. Case Study: India

India is highly exposed to seismic hazards (Figure 1) and has experienced several damaging earthquakes with significant loss of life. Studies show that earthquake impacts vary widely across regions due to differences in population density, exposure, and the seismic performance of buildings. While magnitude and depth influence shaking intensity, comparative assessments indicate that casualty levels under similar seismic conditions are largely controlled by population concentration and structural resilience [25,26]. Areas with dense settlements and poorly constructed buildings tend to suffer the greatest losses. These patterns highlight the need for improved seismic-resistant design, effective land-use planning, and strengthening of existing infrastructure to reduce earthquake-related fatalities in seismically active regions of India.

4.1.1. Earthquake-Resistant Structural Practices in India

Post-earthquake investigations enabled the development of region-specific seismic guidelines and the identification of traditional construction types with improved earthquake performance [27]. These systems offer flexibility and energy dissipation when properly built. Targeted training programs were then introduced to equip local masons with the skills needed to apply these techniques in line with seismic safety requirements.

Dhajji Dewari and Taq Construction Systems

Dhajji Dewari and Taq construction systems are commonly found in Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh [28], areas located in India’s highest seismic hazard zone and repeatedly affected by strong earthquakes. These traditional building methods have shown good seismic behavior due to their structural form and material interaction. Dhajji Dewari uses a timber frame with small masonry infill panels (Figure 2), which limits crack propagation and allows controlled energy dissipation during shaking. Taq construction, by contrast, integrates horizontal timber bands within thick masonry walls (Figure 3), improving load distribution and lateral strength. Past earthquake observations confirm that both systems reduce brittle failure and enhance overall seismic resistance.

Assam-Type Housing

Assam-type houses are typically one- or two-storey buildings constructed with lightweight Ekra wall panels coated in mud plaster and supported by bamboo or timber framing, with masonry limited to the plinth level [2]. Ekra, a locally available reed, is combined with mud to create low-mass, flexible walls that can deform during earthquakes without sudden failure. Roofs commonly use sloping metal sheets or layered Ekra panels supported on timber or steel trusses, while reinforced gable ends improve stability (Figure 4). Owing to their low weight and flexibility, these houses have shown good seismic performance in northeastern India. However, concerns over fire safety, timber restrictions, and the growing use of reinforced concrete have led to their decline, highlighting the need to adapt such resilient traditional systems for modern use.

4.2. Case Study: Pakistan

Pakistan lies within a seismically active zone along the boundary of the Indian and Eurasian plates, making it highly vulnerable to earthquakes. Ongoing plate convergence has formed the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges and continues to generate stress along major fault systems, leading to frequent seismic events (Figure 5). One of the most devastating earthquakes occurred on 8 October 2005 in Kashmir (M_w 7.6), causing widespread destruction, heavy loss of life, and large-scale displacement. The disaster resulted in severe structural damage and significant economic losses [29]. In response, Pakistan has developed a national disaster-management system focused on seismic risk assessment, mitigation measures, and coordinated emergency response to reduce future earthquake impacts.

4.2.1. Institutional Framework for Earthquake Risk Management

Pakistan’s disaster risk management operates through a structured institutional system led by the National Disaster Management Authority and supported by Provincial Disaster Management Authorities [30]. This multi-level framework coordinates preparedness, emergency response, and post-disaster recovery for earthquakes and other hazards. Core functions include hazard mapping, vulnerability assessment, contingency planning, and mitigation strategy development, strengthening decision-making and reducing seismic risk nationwide.

4.2.2. Policy and Regulatory Mechanisms

Pakistan’s earthquake management system is supported by a strong legal and policy framework. The National Disaster Management Ordinance (2006) defines institutional roles and coordination at federal and provincial levels, while the National Disaster Management Policy guides risk reduction, preparedness, and response [31]. Together, these instruments support standardized procedures, enforcement of seismic regulations, and coordinated action to reduce earthquake impacts.

4.3. Case Study: Iran

The Iranian Plateau is shaped by the interaction of the Arabian, Eurasian, and Indian plates and forms part of the wider Eurasian tectonic system. The northward motion of the Arabian Plate generates strong compressional stresses that are frequently released through earthquakes. A notable example is the 26 December 2003 Bam earthquake (Mw 6.6), which caused more than 26,000 fatalities and widespread destruction [32]. The severity of losses was largely attributed to the collapse of poorly built adobe, masonry, and inadequately designed reinforced concrete structures.

Table 3. Seismic hazard assessment and risk management framework in Iran.

Parameter	Description	Source/Institution
Tectonic setting	Alpine–Himalayan seismic belt	Iranian Seismological Center
National seismic network	Iranian National Seismic Network (INSN)	IIEES/Iranian Seismological Center
Number of seismic stations	>150 digital seismic monitoring stations	IIEES
Hazard assessment system	Karmania Hazard seismic risk assessment framework	Iranian hazard research programs
Hazard mapping coverage	National probabilistic seismic hazard maps	IIEES
Monitoring capability	Real-time earthquake detection and early reporting	Iranian Seismological Center
Engineering application	Supports seismic design provisions in Iranian building code (Standard No. 2800, Building and Housing Research Center, 2007) [33]	Government of Iran
Disaster risk management	Integrated into national earthquake risk reduction and urban planning programs	National Disaster Management Organization

presents key components of Iran’s seismic monitoring and hazard assessment framework. Iran operates an extensive seismic network that supports real-time earthquake monitoring and national seismic hazard mapping. The integration of monitoring data with hazard assessment systems such as the Karmania framework contributes to improved seismic risk management, building code development, and disaster preparedness initiatives.

At the time, the city Bam consisted mainly of traditional mud-brick and non-engineered buildings, with limited use of engineered reinforced concrete. Post-earthquake assessments revealed key contributors to the high casualty rate, including weak construction materials, absence of seismic detailing, poor enforcement of building codes, and a lack of skilled professionals. The event underscored how vulnerable building practices, aging infrastructure, and limited preparedness can significantly intensify earthquake impacts.

Earthquake Risk Governance and Institutional Capacity in Iran

Iran’s earthquake risk management system is similar to that of Pakistan, combining institutional coordination with analytical tools for informed decision-making. A key element is the Karmania Hazard system, a GIS-based seismic risk modeling platform developed to support earthquake planning and mitigation [34]. Operating within an ArcGIS 10.2 environment, the system simulates earthquake scenarios, produces hazard maps, and estimates potential damage to buildings and critical infrastructure.

Karmania Hazard enables authorities to visualize spatial patterns of risk, prioritize emergency actions, and allocate resources efficiently. Since its development, the platform has been enhanced using updated ground-motion and damage models to improve assessment accuracy. Its flexible structure allows adaptation to different cities through localized data and calibration, supporting comprehensive urban and regional seismic risk governance across Iran.

4.4. Case Study: Afghanistan

4.4.1. Residential Settlement Patterns in Herat (Zinda Jan)

Initial field surveys carried out in three districts, covering 12 villages and 102 houses, indicate high levels of structural vulnerability in the earthquake-affected areas. Most buildings lacked compound walls, relied mainly on domed roofing, and were constructed with raw earthen materials. Structural damage was severe, with a large proportion of houses suffering complete collapse and the remainder experiencing major failures. The affected communities, particularly in Zinda Jan and Enjil, are largely pastoral and depend on self-built housing without technical guidance or skilled labor. Interviews revealed significant inconsistencies in dome shape, thickness, and construction quality. These deficiencies led to widespread roof failures during early seismic shaking, underscoring the need for focused research on the seismic performance of traditional earthen dome structures.

4.4.2. Construction Practices in the Herat Seismic Zone

Most houses in earthquake-affected areas of Herat Province are built with weak traditional materials such as mud, adobe, dung, and field stone. These non-engineered methods offer little seismic resistance, greatly increasing the risk of collapse during earthquakes.

Foundation System

Post-earthquake surveys showed that many houses lacked proper stone foundations or stem walls (Figure 6). Moisture rising into earthen walls weakened material strength, reducing cohesion and increasing seismic vulnerability, making foundation absence a major cause of structural damage.

Wall Configuration and Structural Layout

Field surveys showed that about 10% of walls used adobe bricks, while most were built with Pakhsa (cob) from raw earth and finished with mud plasters. Although local soils were suitable, construction quality was poor. Deficiencies included weak soil preparation, inadequate compaction, irregular wall thickness (Figure 7), and inconsistent brick sizes. In some cases, mixing cement blocks with adobe trapped moisture, further reducing wall strength and seismic stability.

Roof Systems and Structural Performance

Around 95% of houses in the affected area used adobe domed roofs built with Khama-Khashta units and earth mortar. Weak bonding, heavy roof mass, and thick sections increased seismic demand on walls. Many domes collapsed due to unsafe construction practices without temporary support (Figure 8). These failures caused most fatalities, including dozens in Sarbuland village. In contrast, flat-roofed houses with steel beams and cemented masonry showed minor damage and no deaths.

Failure Mechanisms and Potential Low-Cost Retrofit Measures

Field observations and post-earthquake damage assessments indicate that most residential buildings in the Herat earthquake-affected areas belong to the category of non-engineered earthen structures, typically constructed using locally available materials such as adobe bricks, pakhsa (cob), field stones, and mud mortar (

Table 4. Typical structural deficiencies associated earthquake failure mechanisms, and feasible low-cost retrofit measures for non-engineered buildings in Herat.

Structural Component	Typical Construction Practice	Observed Failure Mode	Recommended Low-Cost Retrofit Measure
Foundation	Shallow or absent stone foundation; earthen wall directly on soil	Differential settlement and wall cracking	Provide stone plinth band or reinforced foundation strip
Walls	Thick adobe or pakhsa walls with weak mud mortar	Shear cracking and wall disintegration	Apply wire mesh or fiber reinforcement with improved plaster
Wall corners	Poor bonding between intersecting walls	Separation of walls at corners	Install vertical timber or bamboo corner reinforcement
Wall–roof connection	Weak or absent anchorage between walls and roof	Out-of-plane wall collapse	Introduce horizontal seismic bands or ring beams
Roof system	Heavy adobe domes or thick earthen roofs	Roof collapse due to excessive mass	Replace with lightweight roofing materials
Openings	Irregular placement and large openings	Stress concentration and wall cracking	Provide lintel bands and reduce opening sizes

). These buildings are generally constructed without formal engineering design, structural detailing, or compliance with seismic-resistant building standards. Typical structural configurations include thick earthen walls, shallow or absent foundations, and heavy domed or flat earthen roofs supported by weak bonding materials. During seismic shaking, several recurring structural failure mechanisms were observed. The most common failures include wall out-of-plane collapse due to inadequate wall-to-roof connections, shear cracking and disintegration of earthen walls resulting from low material cohesion, and roof collapse caused by excessive mass and weak bonding in adobe dome construction.

In addition, the absence of horizontal reinforcement elements such as ring beams or lintel bands significantly reduces the structural integrity of these buildings during earthquake loading. To address these vulnerabilities, several low-cost retrofit strategies have been proposed in previous earthquake engineering studies for earthen and masonry buildings in developing regions. These include the installation of horizontal seismic bands at lintel or roof levels, the use of lightweight roofing materials to reduce inertial forces, improvement of foundation stability through stone or reinforced plinth bands and strengthening of wall corners using mesh reinforcement or timber elements. Such measures can significantly improve seismic performance while remaining economically feasible for rural communities.

4.4.3. Community-Level Earthquake Preparedness in Herat

Community preparedness in Herat was assessed through a structured questionnaire given to residents and engineers (

Table 5. Summary of community awareness, preparedness levels, and institutional capacity for earthquake risk reduction in Herat Province based on questionnaire survey results.

No.	Assessment Indicator	Survey Observation	Response (%)	Interpretation	Identified Gap	Recommended Action
1	Population with direct earthquake experience	Respondents who experienced past earthquakes in Herat	90	High exposure to seismic events	Experience not translated into preparedness	Public training programs
2	Awareness of historical earthquakes	Knowledge of past earthquake events in Herat districts	20	Limited awareness of hazard history	Poor dissemination of hazard information	Awareness campaigns
3	Self-assessed preparedness level	Fully prepared (6%), moderately prepared (6%), low preparedness (34%), not prepared (54%)	29	Overall preparedness remains critically low	Lack of preparedness education	Community drills and awareness programs
4	Adoption of earthquake-resistant measures	Use of basic seismic safety practices in homes	30	Limited adoption of safer construction practices	Knowledge and cost barriers	Technical guidance and training
5	Knowledge of actions during earthquakes	Awareness of correct safety actions during shaking	10	Extremely low behavioral preparedness	Lack of emergency education	School-based disaster education
6	Availability of emergency tools	Households possessing tools or resources for emergency response	6	Minimal emergency response capacity	Lack of preparedness planning	Emergency kits and response training
7	Immediate response behavior	Running outside (58%), safe sheltering (16%), other actions (26%)	38	Unsafe response behaviors dominate	Misconceptions about safety measures	Public safety instruction
8	Access to formal disaster education	Participation in disaster awareness programs	0	Lack of formal disaster education infrastructure	Limited outreach programs	Establish disaster learning centers
9	Earthquake alert sources	Primary information sources for earthquake alerts	32	Reliance on informal communication channels	Absence of official early warning system	Development of early warning systems
10	Local preparedness initiatives	Awareness of local community mitigation initiatives	0	Limited organized preparedness activities	Weak community coordination	Local preparedness planning
11	Seismic design awareness	Knowledge of earthquake-resistant building design codes	0	No technical awareness of seismic design	Absence of building code knowledge	Seismic code dissemination
12	Government readiness perception	Public perception of institutional preparedness	25	Institutional readiness perceived as inadequate	Weak governance structure	Policy development
13	Participation in drills	Participation in earthquake drills or simulations	4	Very limited drill participation	Lack of organized training exercises	Regular emergency simulations
14	Trust in official response	Public confidence in government response capacity	22	Low confidence levels	Poor risk communication	Institutional transparency
15	Willingness to learn	Interest in earthquake safety education	86	Strong interest in learning preparedness strategies	Lack of training opportunities	Capacity-building programs

).

4.4.4. Comparative Assessment of Economic Losses and Fatalities

When buildings are constructed without earthquake-resistant engineering principles, seismic events tend to cause severe human losses that often exceed economic damage. The lack of seismic design and detailing greatly increases vulnerability, even in structures that appear modern. In contrast, regions with well-engineered buildings generally experience fewer fatalities and lower long-term economic impacts, despite physical damage (Figure 9). This highlights the vital role of seismic engineering in protecting lives. Engineers therefore have a key responsibility to ensure that structures in earthquake-prone areas follow sound engineering practices. Evidence from multiple case studies shows that investing in resilient, locally adapted construction significantly reduces casualties and long-term losses, making upfront costs both necessary and justified.

5. Regionally Comparable Seismic Contexts for Benchmarking Earthquake Impacts in Herat

This section examines Herat alongside selected regions in Iran and Pakistan that exhibit comparable seismic conditions and construction characteristics. The objective is to establish a more appropriate framework for interpreting earthquake impacts and assessing the primary drivers of vulnerability. The analysis indicates that severe earthquake losses are largely linked to the combined influence of non-engineered building practices, weak regulatory implementation, and economic limitations, rather than seismic intensity alone (

Table 6. Comparative assessment of structural, socio-economic, and governance parameters across selected seismically similar regions.

Region	Country	Tectonic Setting	Dominant Construction Type	Economic Context	Governance and Code Enforcement	Key Vulnerability Factors	Relevance to Herat
Herat (Present Study)	Afghanistan	Thrust-dominated, shallow crustal	Adobe, earthen masonry	Low-income	Weak enforcement	Non-engineered buildings, poor materials	Reference case
Khorasan Province	Iran	Thrust faulting, similar to Herat	Masonry, adobe, RC mix	Moderate	Moderate enforcement	Mixed construction quality	Closest structural analogue
Kerman Province	Iran	Active fault systems, shallow earthquakes	Masonry and RC	Moderate	Moderate	Inconsistent code implementation	Comparable hazard and construction
Zagros Belt	Iran	Fold-and-thrust system	Masonry and traditional structures	Moderate	Moderate	Rural vulnerability, weak detailing	Tectonic similarity
Sulaiman Ranges	Pakistan	Fold-and-thrust belt	Adobe, stone masonry	Low–moderate	Moderate	Poor construction quality	Strong structural similarity
Quetta-Chaman Corridor	Pakistan	Active fault zone	Masonry and RC	Moderate	Moderate	Urban vulnerability, high exposure	Urban analogue

). Across these regions, recurring issues such as inadequate construction quality, material deficiencies, and governance limitations are consistently observed. These findings suggest that enhancing seismic resilience in Herat requires solutions that are locally appropriate, cost-effective, and adaptable, supported by improved institutional capacity and increased community awareness, rather than adopting approaches developed for fundamentally different contexts.

6. Conclusions and Future Directions

The investigation of the 7 October 2023 Herat earthquake indicates that the extensive building collapse and high mortality were largely associated with widespread non-engineered construction, poor material quality, and the absence of consistently enforced seismic regulations. A more detailed examination of Afghanistan’s building stock reveals that the dominant construction typologies include adobe (sun-dried mud brick), unreinforced fired-brick masonry, random rubble and dry-stone masonry, and, in some urban areas, non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures with masonry infill. These systems are typically constructed using locally available materials and traditional techniques, often without formal engineering input or adherence to seismic design provisions. From a structural perspective, these typologies exhibit several critical deficiencies in seismic detailing. Adobe and unreinforced masonry buildings generally lack adequate tensile strength and ductility, making them highly susceptible to brittle failure under lateral loading. Common issues include weak mortar bonding, absence of horizontal bands (plinth, lintel, and roof bands), inadequate wall-to-wall and wall-to-roof connections, and poor diaphragm action due to flexible or poorly anchored roofing systems. In stone masonry structures, irregular block geometry, lack of through-stones, and insufficient interlocking further reduce structural integrity.

In the case of non-ductile RC frames, deficiencies such as inadequate reinforcement detailing, weak beam–column joints, poor confinement, soft-storey configurations, and irregular load paths significantly increase vulnerability to seismic forces. Material characteristics further exacerbate this vulnerability. Locally produced adobe and low-grade mortar often exhibit high variability in strength, low cohesion, and poor durability, particularly under cyclic loading conditions. Similarly, the use of substandard concrete, insufficient curing practices, and non-engineered reinforcement placement in RC structures leads to reduced load-carrying capacity and premature failure mechanisms. These material limitations, combined with construction practices that lack quality control, contribute to the observed patterns of structural damage. Code compliance remains a major challenge. Although seismic design guidelines and building codes may exist in principle, their implementation is often limited due to weak institutional frameworks, lack of enforcement mechanisms, insufficient technical expertise, and low public awareness. In many rural and informal settlements, construction occurs entirely outside regulatory oversight, resulting in a significant proportion of the building stock being highly vulnerable to seismic hazards. Comparative analysis suggests that earthquake resilience is shaped by the interaction between governance mechanisms, structural technologies, and community awareness. In India, earthquake resilience has been strengthened by adapting traditional construction techniques to modern seismic guidelines, allowing locally accepted building practices to improve structural safety while maintaining affordability and community acceptance. However, the applicability of such measures in Afghanistan must be understood within the context of economic and socio-cultural constraints.

Limited financial resources significantly restrict the large-scale retrofitting of vulnerable buildings, particularly in rural areas where construction is often based on low-cost materials such as adobe and unreinforced masonry. Furthermore, in some communities with semi-nomadic or mobile livelihoods, the demand for permanent engineered structures may differ from that in urban environments. These conditions highlight the importance of promoting cost-effective and context-sensitive seismic-resistant construction techniques. Practical interventions may include the introduction of horizontal and vertical confinement elements in masonry, improved mortar quality, use of lightweight roofing systems, enhanced connection detailing, and community-based training programs for local masons. Such measures can significantly enhance seismic performance without imposing prohibitive costs. Overall, the Herat earthquake underscores the need to integrate engineering design improvements, regulatory strengthening, and community-based awareness into a comprehensive seismic resilience strategy. Encouraging locally adaptable construction methods, improving regulatory oversight, and enhancing public understanding of earthquake risks can collectively support safer reconstruction and long-term disaster risk reduction in Afghanistan. Such an integrated approach provides a practical pathway for reducing future earthquake losses while supporting sustainable development in seismically vulnerable regions.