Fontana, C.; Tomassoni, V.; Giuffrè, M. and Moscatelli, M. (2026) Why should we bother about urban risk reduction? ERS instrument and a methodology to assess its impact on urban functionality. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 17(2), pp. 203-220. ISSN 1759-5908
Abstract
Purpose – The traditional Italian approach to seismic risk management has focused more on post-disaster recovery than proactive urban prevention policies. This has resulted in significant costs and has profoundly affected local communities and urban functionality. This paper aims to contribute to the debate on seismic prevention strategies by introducing a new planning tool for early recovery − the Early Recovery System (ERS) − along with a methodology for assessing its impact on post-earthquake urban functionality. Design/methodology/approach – In this study, the authors introduced the ERS, a prevention instrument designed to identify a proto-system of essential urban elements suitable for seismic retrofitting − such as emergency facilities, healthcare centers, schools, areas for temporary housing and road networks − that represent the minimum core to be preserved after an earthquake to reduce urban vulnerability and facilitate recovery to begin. By calculating 18 indicators over various time intervals and across different ERS configurations, the authors generated recovery curves that illustrate urban functionality loss and recovery trajectories. These curves enable us to assess and identify the optimal ERS configuration for effective prevention strategies. Findings – Applying this methodology in a counterfactual case study of L'Aquila following the 2009 earthquake demonstrates that the proposed variables and resulting recovery curves realistically reflect L'Aquila's actual recovery trajectory. These results support the potential for abstracting the methodology and applying it within a more complex framework for risk scenario simulation. Originality/value – The ERS may represent a significant step forward in developing an urban prevention tool for early recovery, one that could assist decision-makers in planning interventions and setting priorities to enhance territorial safety and resilience in earthquake-prone regions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision support system; disaster prevention; early recovery; risk management; seismic risk prevention; urban functionality assessment |
| Index terms: | risk management, earthquake, prevention, post-disaster recovery, case study, recovery, seismic risk, configuration, vulnerability, methodology, temporary housing, retrofitting, disaster prevention, decision support, risk reduction, functionality, strategy |
| Subjects: | design features, operations management, specific urban areas and projects, environmental hazards, financial risk, research methods, risk assessment, data collection methods, systems engineering, decision analysis, post-disaster and reconstruction, management, renovation and retrofit |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Risk Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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