Post-earthquake recovery in coastal cities of Manabí, Ecuador: A regional assessment nine years after the 2016 Muisne earthquake

Abstract

In April 2016, a moment magnitude ( Mw) 7.8 earthquake struck near Muisne (Pedernales), Ecuador, causing 671 fatalities, displacing >30,000 people, and generating approximately USD 3.6 billion in economic losses that severely impacted the coastal province of Manabí. Nine years later, the recovery trajectory of its principal urban centers-Pedernales, Manta, Portoviejo, and Chone-offers a critical perspective to assess adaptive resilience in earthquake-prone coastal cities of Latin America. This study conducts a regional assessment of post-earthquake recovery using the 4Rs resilience framework-robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity-applied across housing, health, education, infrastructure, and economic sectors. Official reports, statistical databases, and field validations collected between 2016 and 2025 provide the basis for documenting both progress and persistent challenges. The findings indicate that robustness improved with the enforcement of the Ecuadorian seismic code NEC-15 and the adoption of advanced technologies such as base isolation and supplemental damping in hospitals and high-rise buildings. Redundancy expanded selectively, being stronger in healthcare yet limited in housing and utilities. Resourcefulness varied across cities: municipal leadership and civic oversight in Manta and Portoviejo facilitated adaptive recovery, whereas Pedernales and Chone remained dependent on central agencies. Rapidity was similarly uneven; lifeline services were restored promptly, but complex projects-including hospitals, sewer systems, and residential complexes-faced delays of five to nine years. Structural assessments of 97 buildings revealed that nearly half remain without reinforcement, with recurrent deficiencies such as soft-story mechanisms, brittle masonry infill, and reinforcement corrosion sustaining latent seismic risk. Governance fragmentation, equity gaps, and insufficient monitoring thus emerged as critical barriers, underscoring the need for integrated governance, community participation, and AI-enabled monitoring to strengthen long-term disaster recovery in coastal cities.

Keywords

Post-earthquake recovery / Adaptive resilience / Disaster governance / Critical infrastructure / Coastal urban resilience / Manabí / Ecuador

References

[1] Aldrich DP. Building resilience: social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press; 2012.

[2] Vale LJ, Campanella TJ , editors. The resilient city: how modern cities recover from disaster. Oxford University Press; 2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195175844.001.0001.

[3] United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) . Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction (GAR) 2015: making development sustainable: the future of disaster risk management. New York: United Nations; 2015 [Online]. Available: https://worldcat.org/title/1063615232.

[4] Bruneau M, et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake spectra, 19; Nov. 2003. p. 733-52. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497.

[5] S.L. Cutter, C.G. Burton, and C.T. Emrich , “ Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions,” vol. 7, no. 1, 2010, doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1732.

[6] Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct Nov. 2010; 32(11): 3639-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008.

[7] Comfort LK, Boin A, Demchak CC. Designing resilience: preparing for extreme events. University of Pittsburgh Pre; 2010.

[8] Tierney K. The social roots of risk: producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford University Press; 2020.

[9] United States Geological Survey, “ M 7.8 - 27 km SSE of Muisne, Ecuador.” Accessed: Sept. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20005j32/origin/detail.

[10] Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo (SENPLADES) , “ Evaluación de los costos de reconstrucción: sismo en ecuador abril 2016,” Senplades., Quito, Ecuador, 2016. Accessed: Sept. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.planificacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/08/Evaluacion-de-los-Costos-de-Reconstruccion-Resumen-Ejecutivo.pdf.

[11] UN-Habitat, “ Supporting the post-earthquake reconstruction process in ecuador.” Accessed: Sept. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://unhabitat.org/supporting-the-post-earthquake-reconstruction-process-in-ecuador.

[12] R. Szwedzki, M.F. Rodrigo, O. Maciel, O. Peña-Habib, C. Cáceres Saldaña, and A. Barcellos , “ Independent country program review Ecuador 2018-2021,” May 2022, doi: 10.18235/0004264.

[13] Chang SE. Urban disaster recovery: a measurement framework and its application to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Disasters Apr. 2010; 34(2): 303-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01130.x.

[14] Olshansky Robert B, Hopkins Lewis D, Johnson Laurie A. Disaster and recovery: processes compressed in time. Nat Hazards Rev Aug. 2012; 13(3): 173-8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000077.

[15] United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) , “ Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022 (GAR2022): our world at risk,” Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. Accessed: Sept. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.undrr.org/gar/gar2022-our-world-risk-gar.

[16] Tironi M. Disastrous publics: counter-enactments in participatory experiments. Sci Tech Hum Val July 2015; 40(4): 564-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914560649.

[17] Alcántara-Ayala I, et al. Gestión Integral de Riesgo de Desastres en México: reflexiones, retos y propuestas de transformación de la política pública desde la academia. Investigaciones Geográficas Apr. 2019; 98. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.59784.

[18] Schuller M. Humanitarian aftershocks in haiti. Rutgers University Press; 2016.

[19] Lagos R, et al. The quest for resilience: the Chilean practice of seismic design for reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Spectra Feb. 2021; 37(1): 26-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020970978.

[20] F. Pedroso, J. Teo, E. Seville, S. Giovinazzi, and J. Vargo , Post disaster challenges and opportunities lessons from the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake and Great Eastern Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. 2013.

[21] He L. Identifying local needs for post-disaster recovery in Nepal. World Dev June 2019; 118: 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.02.005.

[22] Chong RMB, Tangunan DN, Toyado DM, Koji Elegado AF. Evolving disaster resilience in the Philippines: Insights from the 2021 and 2023 World Risk Poll on socio-economic, regional, and systemic factors. Int J Disast Risk Reduct Apr. 2025; 121: 105415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105415.

[23] Contreras D, Blaschke T, Kienberger S, Zeil P. Myths and realities about the recovery of L׳Aquila after the earthquake. Int J Disast Risk Reduct June 2014; 8: 125-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.02.001.

[24] Contreras D, Blaschke T, Hodgson ME. Lack of spatial resilience in a recovery process: case L’Aquila, Italy. Technol Forecast Soc Change Aug. 2017; 121: 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.010.

[25] Imperiale AJ, Vanclay F. Top-down reconstruction and the failure to ‘build back better’ resilient communities after disaster: lessons from the 2009 L’Aquila Italy earthquake. Disast Prevent Manage May 2020; 29(4): 541-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-11-2019-0336.

[26] Tena-Colunga A. The recovery process of housing in Mexico City 7+ years after the 2017 Puebla-Morelos earthquake. Resil Cit Struct Sept. 2025; 4(3): 67-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcns.2025.08.002.

[27] Kirsch T, Sauer L, Sapir DGuha. Analysis of the international and US response to the Haiti earthquake: recommendations for change. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2012; 6(3): 200-8. https://doi.org/10.1001/dmp.2012.48.

[28] Guerrero-Miranda P, González ALuque. Social responsibility, sustainability, and public policy: the lessons of debris management after the Manabí earthquake in Ecuador. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073494.

[29] F. Lanning et al. , “ EERI earthquake reconnaissance team report: M7.8 Muisne, Ecuador earthquake on April 16, 2016,” 2016, [Online]. Available: https://learningfromearthquakes.org/resources/eeri-reconnaissance-team-report-on-the-muisne-ecuador-earthquake/.

[30] Bergmann J. Planned relocation in Peru: advancing from well-meant legislation to good practice. J Environ Stud Sci Sept. 2021; 11(3): 365-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00699-w.

[31] Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) , “ Sustainability report 2018,” Washington, D.C., 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://publications.iadb.org/publications/spanish/document/Banco_Interamericano_de_Desarollo_Informe_de_Sostenibilidad_2018_es_es.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_2JDihZuRAxUtLrkGHY2uH0YQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw38RM1OjmBHg-M9z9gF-VH7.

[32] Rao A, Jung J, Silva V, Molinario G, Yun SH. Earthquake building damage detection based on synthetic-aperture-radar imagery and machine learning. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 2023; 23(2): 789-807. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-789-2023.

[33] Al Shafian S, Hu D. Integrating machine learning and remote sensing in disaster management: a decadal review of post-disaster building damage assessment. Buildings 2024; 14(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082344.

[34] Meltzer A, et al. The 2016 Mw 7.8 Pedernales, Ecuador, earthquake: rapid response deployment. Seismol Res Lett Mar. 2019; 90(3): 1346-54. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180364.

[35] Ye L, Lay T, Kanamori H, Rivera L. Rupture characteristics of major and great (Mw≥7.0) megathrust earthquakes from 1990 to 2015: 1. Source parameter scaling relationships. J Geophys Res Feb. 2016; 121(2): 826-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB012426.

[36] Chalumeau C, Agurto-Detzel H, De Barros L, Charvis P , the Rapid Response Team of the 2016 Pedernales Earthquake. Spatio-temporal evolution of aftershock and repeater source properties after the 2016 Pedernales Earthquake (Ecuador). J Geophys Res Feb. 2023; 128(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB025353.e2022JB025353.

[37] Nocquet JM, et al. Supercycle at the Ecuadorian subduction zone revealed after the 2016 Pedernales earthquake. Nat Geosci Feb. 2017; 10(2): 145-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2864.

[38] United States Geological Survey (USGS) , “ M 7.8 - 27 km SSE of Muisne, Ecuador.” Accessed: Sept. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20005j32/shakemap/intensity.

[39] Soto-Cordero L, et al. Structural control on megathrust rupture and slip behavior: insights from the 2016 Mw 7.8 Pedernales Ecuador Earthquake. J Geophys Res Feb. 2020; 125(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018001.e2019JB018001.

[40] Chunga K, et al. Earthquake ground effects and intensity of the 16 April 2016 Mw 7.8 Pedernales, Ecuador, earthquake: implications for the source characterization of large subduction earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am Oct. 2018; 108(6): 3384-97. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180051.

[41] G. Franco et al. , “ The Muisne, Ecuador Earthquake of 16 April 2016: a Field Report by the EEFIT,” The Institution of Structural Engineers, London, UK, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.istructe.org/IStructE/media/Public/Resources/report-eefit-mission-muisne-ecuador-20180910.pdf.

[42] Secretaría Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos (SGR) , “ Informes de Situación (SITREP) y Estadísticas del Terremoto 16A.” Accessed: Sept. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.gestionderiesgos.gob.ec/.

[43] Goretti A, Hutt CMolina, Hedelund L. Post-earthquake safety evaluation of buildings in Portoviejo, Manabí province, following the Mw7.8 Ecuador earthquake of April 16, 2016. Int J Disast Risk Reduct Sept. 2017; 24: 271-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.011.

[44] “ Ecuador: earthquake situation report no. 02 (as of 18 April 2016) | Ocha.” Accessed: Sept. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/ecuador/ecuador-earthquake-situation-report-no-02-18-april-2016.

[45] “ Instituto nacional de estadística y censos (INEC).” Accessed: Sept. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/estadisticas/.

[46] Servicio Nacional de Contratación Pública (SERCOP) , “ Sistema oficial de contratación pública (SOCE) - Buscador de procesos.” Accessed: Sept. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://portal.compraspublicas.gob.ec/sercop/.

[47] Vera JR, Aguiar R. Estudios post terremoto de estructuras afectadas por el sismo de 2016. RIIE June 2024; 29(1): 75-141. https://doi.org/10.24133/9drgfe50.

[48] R. Aguiar and B. Cagua , Métodos simplificados para el análisis y la evaluación rápida de estructuras. Quito, Ecuador: Lidinci S.A., 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378870209_Metodos_Simplificados_para_el_Analisis_y_la_Evaluacion_Rapida_de_Estructuras.

[49] MIDUVI, NEC-SE-DS: norma ecuatoriana de la construcción - seguridad estructural - diseño sismo resistente. Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda; 2014. Accessed: Oct. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.habitatyvivienda.gob.ec/documentos-normativos-nec-norma-ecuatoriana-de-la-construccion/.