ArticleInternational journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR2014
Myths and realities about the recovery of L׳Aquila after the earthquake.
Article in International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Resilience analysis of the local communities from a political economy perspective in Zanjan, Iran.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Continuous Environmental Changes May Enhance Topographic Memory Skills. Evidence From L'Aquila Earthquake-Exposed Survivors.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a set of myths which are linked to the recovery of L׳Aquila, such as: the L׳Aquila recovery has come to a halt, it is still in an early recovery phase, and there is economic stagnation. The objective of this paper is threefold: (a) to identify and develop a set of spatial indicators for the case of L׳Aquila, (b) to test the feasibility of a numerical assessment of these spatial indicators as a method to monitor the progress of a recovery process after an earthquake and (c) to answer the question whether the recovery process in L׳Aquila stagnates or not. We hypothesize that after an earthquake the spatial distribution of expert defined variables can constitute an index to assess the recovery process more objectively. In these articles, we aggregated several indicators of building conditions to characterize the physical dimension, and we developed building use indicators to serve as proxies for the socio-economic dimension while aiming for transferability of this approach. The methodology of this research entailed six steps: (1) fieldwork, (2) selection of a sampling area, (3) selection of the variables and indicators for the physical and socio-economic dimensions, (4) analyses of the recovery progress using spatial indicators by comparing the changes in the restricted core area as well as building use over time; (5) selection and integration of the results through expert weighting; and (6) determining hotspots of recovery in L׳Aquila. Eight categories of building conditions and twelve categories of building use were identified. Both indicators: building condition and building use are aggregated into a recovery index. The reconstruction process in the city center of L׳Aquila seems to stagnate, which is reflected by the five following variables: percentage of buildings with on-going reconstruction, partial reconstruction, reconstruction projected residential building use and transport facilities. These five factors were still at low levels within the core area in 2012. Nevertheless, we can conclude that the recovery process in L׳Aquila did not come to a halt but is still ongoing, albeit being slow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.