A Preliminary Estimate of the Rebuilding Costs for the Towns of the Abruzzo Region Affected by the April 2009 Earthquake: An Alternate Approach to Current Legislative Procedures
This paper examines the preliminary cost estimate procedure followed in planning the reconstruction of the city of L’Aquila and of 56 other towns in the Abruzzo region damaged by the 2009 earthquake. As with past catastrophic events, the Italian Government has assumed full responsibility for funding repair/reconstruction of both private and public properties. A highly articulated legislative cost estimation system - developed on behalf of the national authorities in the wake of the earthquake that caused over three hundred victims - was implemented to coordinate the distribution of funding among the different municipalities and private subjects affected by the earthquake. The paper shows how the automatism of this procedure may have produced a distortion in cost estimates when compared to the costs actually needed for reconstruction. An alternate cost estimation model is proposed based on multiple linear regression analysis that uses bills of quantities from reconstruction projects funded immediately following the quake (and is based on actual structural designs rather than emergency damage assessment data). The objective of the proposed model is to achieve a more realistic reconstruction cost estimate framework, while respecting the need for a quick and rational procedure that requires no additional information beyond the post-earthquake expert survey reports available only weeks after the earthquake.
KeywordsCost estimate Post-earthquake reconstruction Rebuilding costs Multi-regression analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Carbonara S.: Il recupero dell’edilizia privata nell’Abruzzo post-sisma: un’analisi delle procedure di stima. Restoring private housing in post-Earthquake Abruzzo: an analysis of the estimation procedures. Territorio, (70), pp. 119–125. Franco Angeli (2014)Google Scholar
- 2.DPC - Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, ReLUIS, Linee guida per il rilievo, l’analisi ed il progetto di interventi di riparazione e rafforzamento/miglioramento di edifici in aggregato, (www.reluis.it.), in Italian (2010)
- 3.Carbonara S.: Il sisma abruzzese del 2009: la previsione di spesa per la ricostruzione. Valori e Valutazione, (11), pp. 67–85. DEI, Roma (2013)Google Scholar
- 5.Munkhammar, A.: Earthquake damage scenarios for international insurance companies. In: Tucker, B.E. (ed.) Uses of Earthquake Damage Scenarios, Proceedings of Special Theme Session Number 10 of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering entitled Earthquake Damage Scenarios for Cities of the 2lst Century Madrid, Spain, July 23, 1992Google Scholar
- 8.de Silva, L.: Forecasting of Cost Escalations in Post Disaster Construction with Special Reference to Tsunami Reconstruction in Sri Lanka. Built - Environment - Sri Lanka 9–10(1–2), 56–63 (2011)Google Scholar
- 11.Applied Technology Council, Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Report ATC-13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California (1985)Google Scholar
- 15.Ordaz, M., Miranda, E., Reinoso, E., Pérez-Rocha, L.E.: Seismic loss estimation model for Mexico city. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand (2000). Paper no. 1902Google Scholar
- 16.Crowley, H., Pinho, R., Bommera, J.J.: Probabilistic Displacement-based Vulnerability Assessment Procedure, for Earthquake Loss Estimation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2, pp. 173–219. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands (2004)Google Scholar
- 17.Des Rosiers, F., Thériault, M.: Discussion Paper presented at the Advances in Mass Appraisal Methods Seminar. Delft University of Technology, pp. 1–40, October 30–31, 2006Google Scholar
- 19.Kouskoulas, V., Koehn, E.: Predesign cost estimation function for building. Journal of the Construction Division, 589–604, December 1974Google Scholar
- 20.McCaffer, R.: Some analysis of the use of regression as an estimating tool. Quantity Surveyor 32, 81–86 (1975)Google Scholar