State-by-State Analysis of Benefits to Cost from Wind-Enhanced Building Codes

Simmons, Kevin M.; Kovacs, Paul; Smith, Adam B.

doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000358

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other states, including Mississippi, Alabama, and Missouri, face a similar plight. Engineers indicate that relatively simple and inexpensive enhancements to building codes may reduce insured losses by 30% or more and economists indicate that such measures “easily pass the benefit cost test” in multiple states (Simmons, Kovacs, & Smith, ). Although promising, only one city in the United States—Moore, OK—has adopted these codes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tornado Damage Mitigation: Homeowner Support for Enhanced Building Codes in Oklahoma

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tornadoes impose enormous costs on society. Relatively simple and inexpensive enhancements to building codes may reduce these costs by 30% or more, but only one city in the United States has adopted these codes. Why is this the case? This analysis addresses this question by examining homeowner support for more stringent building codes in Oklahoma, a conservative state that routinely experiences damaging tornadoes. Survey data show that support for mandatory mitigation policies like building codes is subject to countervailing forces. Push dynamics, including objective risk data, homeowners' risk perceptions, and damage experience, encourage support for mitigation. Pull dynamics, such as individualistic and conservative worldviews, and skepticism about climate change, generate opposition. At the margin, the pull dynamics appear to exert more force than push dynamics, creating only a weak basis of support that is not strong enough to overcome the status quo bias in a state that is cautious about regulatory measures. The concluding section offers suggestions for changing these dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tornado Damage Mitigation: Homeowner Support for Enhanced Building Codes in Oklahoma

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through meta-analysis, they find that elevating houses in flood-prone regions (similar to adding strength and stiffness for earthquake resistance) produces an average benefit-cost ratio of 14.5. Simmons et al (2020) use benefit-cost analysis to demonstrate the value of enhancements to wind provisions in Florida's building code in 2002 and that of Moore, Oklahoma, after 2013 when that city suffered a third fatal tornado in 15 years. They use their results to show how a spatially varying adoption of those code enhancements would benefit eight states, some with paybacks of less than 20 years.…”

Section: When Is the Right Time To Rethink How We Design New Buildings?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we build better? The case for resilient earthquake design in the United States

Porter

2020

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

America seems to have an earthquake investment gap, paying billions more annually on average to recover from earthquakes than it invests to prevent losses beforehand. Two large studies for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS) offer insight into how well American buildings will resist future catastrophic earthquakes. They suggest that the public prefers new buildings to do more than to assure life safety, which has been the building code’s historic objective. They also suggest that greater resilience would better serve society’s economic interests. People expect to be safe in new buildings and the building code delivers safety. But people also want to use buildings after the Big One. America has a few options for meeting those expectations, including stronger, stiffer construction, with geographically optimized strength and stiffness. Greater strength and stiffness is not the only option to improve resilience, but such an approach offers the advantages that it could be implemented in practice by any structural designer without requiring additional technical expertise, software, of proprietary technology. It would produce a healthier economy and save society an average of $4 for every $1 of added cost. The savings cross property lines, benefiting tenants, owners, lenders, developers, and everyone who does business with them. The added cost would amount to approximately 1%, and experience in Moore, Oklahoma, shows that it would probably affect real estate sales and prices little or not at all. The solution addresses ethical considerations by responding to the public’s expectations for better performance and by optimizing utilitarian outcomes. Other options such as second-generation performance-based earthquake engineering, innovative technologies, and rating systems could complement this approach and further increase resilience.

show abstract

“…To decrease the unprecedented challenge for residences located in hurricane and wind-prone communities, improvements in the building codes in the areas with outdated or non-comprehensive building codes and/or construction to higher standards are recommended (Stevenson et al, 2020). Proven, existing construction practices can reduce the cost and damage from wind hazards (Gurley and Masters, 2011;Simmons et al, 2020). However, improving the building resiliency through such mitigation actions is usually associated with a higher investment cost that needs to be evaluated by benefit-cost analysis (Torkian et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized Cost-Effectiveness of Residential Wind Mitigation Strategies for Wood-Frame, Single Family House in the USA

Orooji

Friedland

Savio

et al. 2022

Front. Built Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wind is one of the deadliest and most expensive hazards in the United States. Wind hazards cause significant damage to buildings and economic losses to homeowners. Economic losses average approximately $3.8 billion annually from hurricane winds and are not decreasing, even despite enhanced construction practices to reduce wind damage. Thus, the effectiveness of mitigation strategies should be evaluated in order to lower the cost incurred by this hazard. Several studies have suggested building code improvements to mitigate the wind hazard, this additional comprehensive research provides selecting economically beneficial mitigation strategies to consider in building code revisions. In a step toward addressing this need, the current study was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness of mitigation strategies for new and retrofit construction of a wood-framed, single-family, residential building case study. Net benefit, defined as the difference between the life-cycle wind loss before and after implementation of the mitigation strategy, was calculated for 15 wind mitigation strategies and their combinations, with new and retrofit construction costs ranging between $1,200 to $12,000 and a decision-making time horizon ranging between 5 and 30 years. Payback periods, defined as the number of years to recover the investment, were calculated for each mitigation strategy. Results were summarized by cost effectiveness for all ASCE 7 wind speed contour intervals. The results of this study serve as a starting point for further refinement of the economic justification needed to properly evaluate potential building code changes.

show abstract

State-by-State Analysis of Benefits to Cost from Wind-Enhanced Building Codes

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

Tornado Damage Mitigation: Homeowner Support for Enhanced Building Codes in Oklahoma

Tornado Damage Mitigation: Homeowner Support for Enhanced Building Codes in Oklahoma

Should we build better? The case for resilient earthquake design in the United States

Generalized Cost-Effectiveness of Residential Wind Mitigation Strategies for Wood-Frame, Single Family House in the USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About