- The interview was conducted in English and translated into Spanish in the original; this is an English translation of the interview based on the published Spanish version by Republica (Guatemala) – Article: “Los edificios resilientes tienden a tener mayor valor como activo” written by María José Aresti, published on February 7th, 2026.
- All photos include in this post were taken by Diego Cabrera / República.
República: Seismic codes save lives, but what do they mean for business and investment?
Dr. Kit Miyamoto: Seismic codes do fulfill a promise: they save lives. But from a business perspective, meeting only the minimum code can leave a building in a situation where it’s technically safe but practically discarded after a major earthquake, unusable, with long operational stoppages.
Most people assume that building according to code, with top engineers and contractors, means a building is earthquake‑proof. That’s not true. The code is focused on life safety, not performance. Think of it like a car crash: the car is totaled, but the occupants survive. In buildings, that means compliance may protect lives, but not necessarily protect the asset itself.
There are technologies and design approaches that improve performance, like base isolation or energy‑dissipating devices, which help prevent a building from becoming a “total loss.” These technologies can reduce cost and increase resilience, and investors should take them seriously.
In Japan, where large earthquakes occur every few years, resilient design is part of normal practice. For example, base isolation commonly increases cost by about 5 %, but people are willing to pay that because they understand it significantly reduces the risk of losing their home. Developers use resiliency as a selling point and can command a higher price as a result.
Monitoring systems like accelerometers are also useful; they record what actually happened during a seismic event, helping engineers and owners understand performance rather than just assuming compliance.
“The building survives. But operations stop. That’s not resilience; that’s loss.”
República: Where do businesses actually feel the impact after a big earthquake?
Dr. Kit Miyamoto: Companies often underestimate a second layer of risk: the continuity of their people and operations. For example, in Puerto Rico, after the 2020 earthquake, many schools, which are critical infrastructure, performed poorly due to common design vulnerabilities. These weaknesses are often inexpensive to address with relatively simple reinforcements, such as fiber‑reinforced polymer wrapping. It’s almost like a “band‑aid,” and it works.
Companies shouldn’t just think about their own infrastructure; they need to consider critical community infrastructure, like schools, transportation, supply chains, ports, and airports. If your facility survives but the school your employees’ children attend does not, you lose continuity and productivity. That broader view is comprehensive risk management.
República: What weighs more in the market, bank requirements, insurers, or buyers?
Dr. Kit Miyamoto: Insurance is interesting because it helps price resilience. A more resilient building lets you control how much insurance you need and how much risk you assume. But it’s not wise to transfer all risk to insurance, that alone is not effective risk management. You need both: risk reduction and risk transfer.
Insurance also doesn’t cover everything — for instance, loss of market share. If your company stops operating and a competitor doesn’t, the policy won’t restore your competitive position.
Where resilience is well understood, resilient buildings tend to have greater value as an asset, especially where buyers understand risk and are willing to pay for resilience. That same awareness exists here in Guatemala.
For technology to improve safety and resilience, it has to make economic sense. If resilience is much more expensive without other benefits, the market won’t adopt it. But if something is both safer and more cost‑effective, it becomes a “no‑brainer.”
República: Any final comments?
Dr. Kit Miyamoto: Earthquakes will occur, that’s 100 % certain. What we don’t know is when. It could be tomorrow or five years from now. That’s why prevention today is always better than reacting afterward. After a major quake, there’s usually a five‑year window where investment increases, and then attention fades again. Smart governments and companies invest before disasters strike because it saves money and lives.
In many countries, we’ve also seen that companies that survive and continue operating after a quake often come out stronger, partly because competitors are knocked out of the market. Many people think a quake wipes out a whole city. That’s not accurate. Around 70 % of businesses and infrastructure continue functioning. The social disruption is significant, but those who stay in business tend to perform well afterward.
