Abstract
The age of the Italian building heritage has prompted the Government to implement regulatory measures aimed at mitigating the seismic risk, encouraging anti-seismic interventions on residential buildings through specific tax benefits. This work intends to analyze the economic convenience associated with these building transformations from an appraisal perspective, proposing an analysis methodology aimed at evaluating the increase in market value of the transformed properties, and at identifying the most convenient among the various feasible interventions. The application to a case study allows highlighting the net economic benefits in the owners’ portfolios able to compensate the logistical inconveniences associated with this type of intervention, soliciting a greater awareness of seismic risk, and favoring private initiative at a widespread level.
Highlights
IntroductionThe latest elaboration of the Civil Protection [3] notes that almost half of the national territory is in a high risk area (seismic zone 1 or seismic zone 2), with as many as 3002 municipalities falling into high risk areas (39%)
Seismic Risk Mitigation MeasuresItaly is one of the countries with the greatest seismic risk in the Mediterranean area, owing to its particular geographical position, and to the fragility of the building heritage [1,2].The Civil Protection Department has grouped the Italian municipalities according to four seismic hazard classes based on intensity, location, and frequency of past seismic phenomena
The latest elaboration of the Civil Protection [3] notes that almost half of the national territory is in a high risk area, with as many as 3002 municipalities falling into high risk areas (39%)
Summary
The latest elaboration of the Civil Protection [3] notes that almost half of the national territory is in a high risk area (seismic zone 1 or seismic zone 2), with as many as 3002 municipalities falling into high risk areas (39%) By comparing this survey with the 2011 census data available at the municipal level, it can be seen that the largest part of buildings exposed to risk is mainly for residential use, and that over 56% of the existing residential buildings in seismic zones 1 and 2 were built before 1970. This heritage usually does not include the use of anti-seismic construction techniques [4]. The evolution of anti-seismic technology and engineering, the use of sensors and geomatics techniques for monitoring infrastructures [5,6] and historical-monumental [7], and the occurrence of tragic telluric events have led to evaluation of the possibility of carrying out interventions relating to the adoption of anti-seismic measures, which vary according to geographic areas, the maintenance state of the buildings, and their age [8,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
