Wanigarathna, N; Henjewele, C; Jones, K G; Pascale, F and Morga, M (2022) Modelling earthquake damage repair costs: Improving accuracy for preparedness decision making. In: Tutesigensi, A and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 38th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2022, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
Natural disasters damage physical assets causing causalities and interruption to businesses. Disaster impacts can be addressed proactively (preparedness) or reactively (recovery). Building adaptation measures; as a form of disaster preparedness; can reduce the level of damage should the disaster occur. Nevertheless, building owners need to be convinced that it is cost-effective to invest in pro-active adaptation measures. An accurate prediction of the repair costs associated with recovery is paramount to determining the economic viability of ex-ante disaster risk reduction investments. Currently, antecedent loss modelling is based on numerous assumptions about risk; vulnerability; and the required damage repair cost. Determining the critical factors influencing overall damage repair costs can reduce such inaccuracies. Damage recovery costs and selected details for 7999 properties recorded from 66 towns in the Italian province of Emilia Romagna damaged by the 2012 Earthquake were assembled. Statistical analysis was undertaken to correlate the repair costs and the damage status; location of the property; floor area of the property and the repair duration. The paper questions the reliability of antecedent loss modelling related to property damage using simplistic and generic economic models. Factors that predict the repair cost are also highlighted.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | antecedent loss modelling; beneficial risk reduction; disaster damage repair; disaster recovery; damage cost functions; earthquake loss modelling |
| Index terms: | natural disaster, recovery, disaster preparedness, risk reduction, economic model, owner, disaster recovery, accuracy, adaptation, physical asset, statistical analysis, critical factor, decision-making, earthquake, vulnerability, duration, repair, modelling, disaster risk reduction |
| Subjects: | modelling and simulation, operations management, data science, analytical methods, risk assessment, user focus, project controls, asset management, emergency and crisis management, sociology, decision analysis, environmental hazards, maintenance engineering, safety engineering, financial risk, professional development |
| Topics: | Time Control, Design Practice, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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