Watson, M; Deshpande, N and Lasch, C (2025) Disaster vulnerability of the construction industry: Comparing impacts of hurricanes and the COVID-19 pandemic on Florida construction companies. Construction Management and Economics, 43(5), pp. 323-339. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
This research tests differences in construction company vulnerability to disaster events based on theoretical differences across hazard types and unique economic vulnerabilities within the sector. The authors conducted an online survey of construction companies in Florida who experienced both the pandemic and a recent hurricane to compare their impacts and experiences through rank and proportion testing of Likert-scale measures and analysis of open-ended survey responses. Survey results showed greater material, labour and equipment costs and procurement challenges and number of contractual disputes during the pandemic compared to after hurricanes. The results also showed differences in post-disaster demand, number of contracts, and revenue based on company size, sector, and project specialization, though results varied across the pandemic and hurricanes. Lastly, the study found that significantly more construction companies applied for and received government assistance during the pandemic, which took the form of wage subsidies rather than traditional disaster loans, though written responses suggest that small construction companies may have been more hesitant to use government funding. The results of this study can help construction companies understand differences in impact across disaster types and better prepare them for the increasing frequency, severity, and complexity of natural hazards in the future.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | business continuity; COVID-19; disaster; hurricane; questionnaire survey; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | revenue, survey, construction company, natural hazard, equipment cost, COVID-19, specialization, complexity, questionnaire, vulnerability, dispute, subsidy, pandemic, construction industry, testing, funding, business continuity |
| Subjects: | organization, professional practice, economic analysis, project risk, environmental hazards, dispute resolution, data collection methods, business, health risk and incident analysis, economics, industry analysis, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here